fjphoenix
[09] Warrior
Mk11 was really disappointing. Characters feel one dimensional and stiff. Boon designed all the characters the same way.
Ehh...it’s not that bad of a game. The slower pace of the game compared to MKX is definitely a bit odd but I’d arguably say the game is a bit better balanced. The grinding can be very monotonous for the towers and the Krypt, but the game looks absolutely stunning (minus the attacking animations).Mk11 was really disappointing. Characters feel one dimensional and stiff. Boon designed all the characters the same way.
...No.Boon designed all the characters the same way.
Mk11 was really disappointing. Characters feel one dimensional and stiff. Boon designed all the characters the same way.
perhaps with netherrealm games the audience fades out fairly quick, as the studio pumps out new games every 2 years
It's a possibility, i also wonder if it's the gore thing that don't fit much FGC, i mean fatalities, gore and all are cool and all for a lot of people,especially the first days, but "maybe" it's not something same people would like in long run.
Because it has almost nothing to keep casuals hooked on. Features and presentation matter, and sadly, VF is as appealing as snail served on a plate.
![]()
I'd like to provide a competing view: I think Virtua Fighter looks and feels great to the aesthetic eye and feedback senses of a great many players--and in my case at least, I think it is attributable to being someone who has trained in actual martial arts. I'm not trying to throwdown the purist card here, but without question, of all the major 3D fighters I have sampled (and that's all of them in existence at some time or another, I think), the style, the range of movement, and the simulated biomechanics and force of the characters as virtual bodies in motion is closest to being rooted in reality for Virtua Fighter. Mind you, it's not super realistic by any means, but leaps and bounds closer than a Tekken, Soulcalibur, or DOA.I don't even think it's the casuals that need to be kept hooked it's just extremely important for any fighting game to have stellar presentation for everyone due to looking at the same stuff over and over again. I look at Virtua Fighter and think it's really missing flare and that satisfying crunch in attacks that you get with Tekken and Calibur. I would even start the series anew and probably under a different name so if it did go tits up then they can go back to the original series like Capcom did with Devil May Cry.
I was looking at footage of VF5 vanilla and it reminded me of how damn good the game looked for a 2006 title. It blew Tekken 6 out of the water before that even came out... Strangely VF5 Final Showdown on PS3/360 got a slight downgrade visually compared to the vanilla release.
I then looked at VF4 and saw that the arcades had a game that looked sort of original Xbox quality in graphics but was downgraded for the PS2 version (it looks rough on PS2) I lament the death of virtua fighter because it is the death of fighting games being top of the line visually. Nowadays they are very "budget titles" in scope and visuals.
It made me think again of how wonderful it would be for Bushido Blade like game to appear again, refined with updated visuals.I'd like to provide a competing view: I think Virtua Fighter looks and feels great to the aesthetic eye and feedback senses of a great many players--and in my case at least, I think it is attributable to being someone who has trained in actual martial arts. I'm not trying to throwdown the purist card here, but without question, of all the major 3D fighters I have sampled (and that's all of them in existence at some time or another, I think), the style, the range of movement, and the simulated biomechanics and force of the characters as virtual bodies in motion is closest to being rooted in reality for Virtua Fighter. Mind you, it's not super realistic by any means, but leaps and bounds closer than a Tekken, Soulcalibur, or DOA.
The same is true of other aspects of it's artistic design, including character, stage design, and visual effects. Probably it does err* on the side of being a little too minimalist and unobtrusive. But if it wasn't perfect in that regard, I think it all still worked exceedingly well as a total package, and Virtua Fighter was always did have a more nuts and bolts obsessed fanbase.
But even if I disagree as to the assessment of the quality of the visual design, there could be something to Aries' argument insofar as a casual players/blue ocean consumers can probably be fairly described as being attracted to flash. I don't know that we can ever truly know, beyond pretty subjective speculation, all these years on, how much VF's plain jane visuals affected its bottom line, but for those going further to pronounce that it fell into torpor and possible permanent franchise death because of its innate qualities, I think you need to widen your examination of relevant facts. Virtua Fighter died first and foremost because it was a Sega property, and Sega is now a tiny player relative to what it once was when it comes to the console software market, with a comporably immense portfolio of IP licenses, most of which do not get utilized anymore, with games made by internal studios and teams which are now largely defunct or severely diminished in output capacity. Soulcalibur on the other hand, is owned by a holding of Bandai Namco Group, one of the largest players in gaming in the world, with a massive publishing arm in Bandai Namco Entertainment.
This is why I always laughed whenever someone would say "SCV has killed the franchise!" Or, in its more contemporary form "SCV almost killed the franchise!" LOL, no: at most it delayed the next game a little. SC has long been in a development cycle that ebbs and flows relative to Tekken's and going back even further than that, every single Soulcalibur game has taken a little longer than the one before it to finish: after 25 years, I don't know why (other than rationalized enthusiasm and overly-rosey hopes) anyone is ever surprised when that doesn't change, especially as production times in the industry at large continue on an upward trend.
Anyway, is Virtua Fighter out for the count? I hope not, I really do; I occasionally go on a mission to scour industry media for any major changes to the companies that now seem to own the relevant IP and inherited the relevant teams and talent, such as they still remain with Sega (not much of it, alas). But to compare it being unpaltable and/or label its fate as justified and born solely on its strenghts or appeal is not really an accurate description of what happened to it, regardless. And I think it would still have a loyal fanbase today had it been in the hands of a thriving developer during the last decade.
* Did err, I guess we can say; even I, a huge fan of the franchise, am about ready to give up the ghost on a return.
Bushido Blade was so good and about as unique a fighter as was ever made, and certainly the one that most closely tries to simulate real-world armed combat. It's very interesting to me that the two most industry defining 3D weapon fighters took such radically different approaches to the concept: one system where any serious blow is lethal and even minor wounds can lead to incapacity and the battle can be over in seconds, and another system where the combatants grind away at a meter but any given blow can seemingly split an opponent in half, only to have them stagger back unscathed time and again. Some of the failure of Bushido Blade can be attributed to factors that have nothing to do with its core mechanics, but I just don't understand why no one tried again, outside a few kitschy indie projects like Nidhogg, years later.It made me think again of how wonderful it would be for Bushido Blade like game to appear again, refined with updated visuals.
Damn I miss clarity in those games - it's all about whoosh and bling now
Nope, waiting for EVO Japan probably, in a few weeks, on the 24th.Any news on season pass since hilde? Feels like ages ago.
Kinda-sorta, yeah. They certainly both carry an emphasis on mind games involving the interplay between various attacking, blocking, and parrying options. And they both take a somewhat less laisez-faire attitude towards torso and head wounds than would a Soulcalibur or such--although, of the three, I think Bushido Blade is by far the least forgiving, even compared to For Honor. But the inputs, perspective, and interface are quite different. I'd say For Honor may be the closest example from among big budget games in recent memory, but the gameplay of each shows the similarity is more a shared concept and less a direct lineage of design influence, if that makes any sense.Bushido Blade isn't a game I'm familiar with and one of the fighting games that I've missed playing entirely but from the outset it looks like the 1v1 mode in For Honor could very well be classed as a spiritual sequel to that game.
but the gameplay of each shows the similarity is more a shared concept and less a direct lineage of design influence, if that makes any sense.
If anything, the game especially needs that for the PS4 side of things.Fixing the input lag on PS4?
I'd like to provide a competing view: I think Virtua Fighter looks and feels great to the aesthetic eye and feedback senses of a great many players--and in my case at least, I think it is attributable to being someone who has trained in actual martial arts. I'm not trying to throwdown the purist card here, but without question, of all the major 3D fighters I have sampled (and that's all of them in existence at some time or another, I think), the style, the range of movement, and the simulated biomechanics and force of the characters as virtual bodies in motion is closest to being rooted in reality for Virtua Fighter. Mind you, it's not super realistic by any means, but leaps and bounds closer than a Tekken, Soulcalibur, or DOA.
The same is true of other aspects of it's artistic design, including character, stage design, and visual effects. Probably it does err* on the side of being a little too minimalist and unobtrusive. But if it wasn't perfect in that regard, I think it all still worked exceedingly well as a total package, and Virtua Fighter was always did have a more nuts and bolts obsessed fanbase.
But even if I disagree as to the assessment of the quality of the visual design, there could be something to Aries' argument insofar as a casual players/blue ocean consumers can probably be fairly described as being attracted to flash. I don't know that we can ever truly know, beyond pretty subjective speculation, all these years on, how much VF's plain jane visuals affected its bottom line, but for those going further to pronounce that it fell into torpor and possible permanent franchise death because of its innate qualities, I think you need to widen your examination of relevant facts. Virtua Fighter died first and foremost because it was a Sega property, and Sega is now a tiny player relative to what it once was when it comes to the console software market, with a comporably immense portfolio of IP licenses, most of which do not get utilized anymore, with games made by internal studios and teams which are now largely defunct or severely diminished in output capacity. Soulcalibur on the other hand, is owned by a holding of Bandai Namco Group, one of the largest players in gaming in the world, with a massive publishing arm in Bandai Namco Entertainment.
This is why I always laughed whenever someone would say "SCV has killed the franchise!" Or, in its more contemporary form "SCV almost killed the franchise!" LOL, no: at most it delayed the next game a little. SC has long been in a development cycle that ebbs and flows relative to Tekken's and going back even further than that, every single Soulcalibur game has taken a little longer than the one before it to finish: after 25 years, I don't know why (other than rationalized enthusiasm and overly-rosey hopes) anyone is ever surprised when that doesn't change, especially as production times in the industry at large continue on an upward trend.