Unbalanced movesets

AM2 are already getting slack for VF5R being the most accessible game in the series so far (something that I don't agree with. The criticisms, that is).

The reason I don't think it needs that kind of thing right now is because I think the fans need to get use to the accessibility first. The depth is still maintained. If VF can take itself less seriously, then yes, such indication can be made (although I can see come sort of debate on unblockable indications).

On the subject of flash and flair, I see flair in what is worn/how they look, and flash in how they act. But that's just me.
 
Tekken 6 doesn't even have a home release yet and they're already promising a new update to the game that's worthy of its own name (Bloodline Rebellion).

IMO, they're trying a little too hard with that series.
 
Slightly off topic but I'm curious what AM2 is doing in VF5R to make it more accessible?

Actually, I quit playing VF because the PS3 version got shafted hard core. Sega blamed the deadline Sony gave them so they couldn't implement online but damn there wasn't even a way they could make it patchable? PS3 players miss out on online play and they have to play an outdated version bleh.
 
As for slimming down the roster. There are some ways I agree and some that I do not.

Mina and Kilik: I disagree, Mina actually has a fairly different moveset because she uses a halberd style weapon whereas Kilik uses on a rod.

Sieg and Nightmare: I disagree again. Beyond the obvious story line necessity for the two, again their basic moves might be similar, but their combos and special moves are vastly different. Also, Sieg is a lot more stance based while Nightmare is faster. Different play styles.

Rock and Astaroth: Again putting aside the storyline necessity, Rock and Asta don't have even close to the same moves aside from maybe 1 or 2 and their CF. Rock is far more throw based, and Asta is not.

Sophi and Cassandra: Cassandra is faster and more aggressive, Sophi is far more defensively played.

So while their styles may seem similar, if you really take a look at the way they play, they do actually suit different playstyles. That being said, I'm not really sure who I'd like to see removed from the game.

As to the question of not all movesets being equal, I agree wholeheartedly. In some characters this is even glaringly evident. Cervantes, Yoshi, Cassandra, Taki, Voldo all come to mind of the top of my head. When played right, you can never really be sure where they will attack from. I also agree that Mitsu and NM and Asta all feel sort of limited. When I play Mitsu I find that I tend to stick to a pretty core set of moves, and they are all direct attacks at the front. Compare that to Cervy's teleports and gun shots and every other damn thing and the movesets don't really compare. Sure does Mitsu have options to be effective, absolutely, but does he have a decent way to play mind games? In my opinion, no. This holds true for a lot of characters.
 
SeriousSlasher, I think you are missing a major point here. The size of the movelists in SC3/4 are easily half the size as they were in SC2. Not to mention, characters had more options, including cancels all over the place, that gave characters many more oppurtunities for Nitaku and Chitaku situations.

Just look at how SC3 handled the split of Siegfried and Nightmare; it seems like SC2's Nightmare was split right in half, and his moveset was distributed between two seperate characters (with some changes of course). So instead of having 1 full complete character, we get 2 half-assed characters. Mix Sieg and Nightmare together to make one solid character, same with Mina and Kilik, same for Sophi and Cass, same for Rock and Astaroth, same for Lizardman and Voldo
 
Jaxel said:
Namco is one of the worst companies at DLC I have seen out there. Just like EA, they put content on the disc at the gates, and make you pay for unlock codes. For instance, Yoda and Vader are both on your game disc, but you'll have to pay to unlock them down the line. Thats not DLC, thats double dipping.

Then if you look at a game like The IDOLM@STER, in order to get the entire game, you'll be paying over $500 for DLC. In order to get the entire game of Ace Combat, you'll be paying $200 for DLC. Yes, I can admit, the DLC for both of these games is purely cosmetic. But now look at what they have done with Tales of Vesperia, where you can pay NOT to play the game. Yep, you can purchase levels and high level weapons through DLC. Why play the loot game when the best weapons have to be purchased?

But dont get me wrong, I like DLC... when its legitamate. DLC for me should be EXPANSION content, not double dipping. These days, you are paying $60 for less than a full game, and then paying another $30 to get the rest of it. Companies like Namco and EA purposely hold back content in order to rip their customers off in the long tail.

However, when DLC is something like Warhawk or Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion... thats what I like. The DLC in those games isn't content that was held back from initial release. Those games were full fledged games when they launched on release. The DLC content in those games were all worked on after the games were released.
Click to expand...

All this comes back to simple marketing. Yes, it is unfair to the consumer because we are the ones paying for the final product. However, no matter how you slice it, everyone is in business for money. Yes, it may be unfair that they are "double-dipping" as you state it, but the X360 release excluded Vader but we got Yoda. I'm not too sure if PS3 is gonna get Yoda on DLC i haven't done that much research on it. If X360 were to just be given Vader would that be "fair" to the PS3 Group? They are not double-dipping per say, they have given each side the same copy of the game with alterations to each side. Were you upset when SC2 had Link on GC, or PS2 had Some one from Tekken (can't remember his name for the life of me) or Spawn on XB? Its a similar Concept just the fact that there is DLC available now and someone hacked the game.

As for your reference to ToV, if you buy a game and they have DLC that allows you to get weapons that are the best in the game, why buy that DLC. Its a boring advantage, IMO. There is no reward for purchasing the best possible weapon in the game and beating the game that way. Play the game for what it's worth, don't take the easy road. We all find ways to cheat a game, or rob it of its true value, but do you get the same satisfaction for beating the game?

But that's just my 2 cents.
 
Blaise24 said:
Were you upset when SC2 had Link on GC, or PS2 had Some one from Tekken (can't remember his name for the life of me) or Spawn on XB?
Click to expand...
No, of course not, but Link wasn't on the PS2 disc with a $10 pricetag on it. Yoda is ALREADY on the PS3 disc; thats been proven (Vader is already on the 360 disc). You already payed for those characters with your $60 purchase. They are going to make you pay more just to use it; thats double dipping. If Yoda wasn't on the disc, that would be one thing....

Blaise24 said:
As for your reference to ToV, if you buy a game and they have DLC that allows you to get weapons that are the best in the game, why buy that DLC. Its a boring advantage, IMO. There is no reward for purchasing the best possible weapon in the game and beating the game that way. Play the game for what it's worth, don't take the easy road. We all find ways to cheat a game, or rob it of its true value, but do you get the same satisfaction for beating the game?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, its not that simple. Play through the game is one thing... but what if there is NO WAY to get the best weapons in the game without paying for it? What if you cant earn those epic weapons? What if they said in Final Fantasy... when you trek 10 hours through Ultima's Dungeon... and you finally get to the door to his battle, you try to open the door and the message pops up saying, "Please input your credit card number to purchase this fight". If you want to fight Ultima and get his weapon, you need to pay $10 for that single fight? Would you feel ripped off?
 
I understand the point of this, but a perfect balance in a fighting game is still utopic for now. And I agree, the game is unbalanced, but it´s not as dramatic as in SC3, now a Seung Mina can compete with a Mitsurugi, yet, Mitsu have a more effective weapons. It isn´t SC1 (DC version) either, that game got several patches trough his lifecycle, being the DC version the most balanced, but it wasn´t perfect either. I know a lot of people liked a lot SC2, so do I, but it´s far from being perfect balanced.
I see SC4 being the second best balanced in the series (for now), and I see no problem with a character having 3 or 300 moves, as long as the 3 moves makes him strong, just like Astaroth in past history.
 
What? Are you really thinking more moves makes the difference? Siegfried and Nightmare together to have a better character? Oh man I really disagree with you...

First, there's a lot of moves from SC to SC4 that you can see, use it, and try to put into your game but the move doesn't have a real good usage or doesn't give you the chance to feint your attack or change the direction (mid, high, low) or even to break the concentration of your opponent...

Every character on every fighting game has a poke game with the best attacks and counterattacks, and the character who has better advantage in the move set of his poke game is better for the user... Example: Mitsurugi in SC3... this char has an incredible moveset, with cancels, feints, GB, UB and more... but the users (even on high level) only do 5-6 moves! 2KB, 2A, 1B, 33BB, B6, 3A, 22_88A+B were the most used moves... as Lolo said: "I see SC4 being the second best balanced in the series (for now), and I see no problem with a character having 3 or 300 moves, as long as the 3 moves makes him strong, just like Astaroth in past history."

Siegfried is the Nightmare of SC2 but without the "killing moves"... without the speed and damage, but every user who play as Night on SC2 likes Siegfried from SC3/SC4... I was a top player with Nightmare in SC2 but all this suddenly happen when somebody told me about the "G2"... all the moves wasn't enough to beat a lot of overpowered Talims and Xianghuas...

I like the definition of Balance from Jaxel, but more moves doesn't make the difference... more moves only affect the 50/50 aspect of the game... example: Siegfried SC4 on SRSH stance can make 4 moves: two mids, one low, and one high if they crouch against the low and the high they dodge 2 options and the reward to punish Siegf... but if they stay stand they can block 3 options and the reward is to punish too... so its a matter of choice; thats why this stance (RSH) is a key stance on every Siegfried poke game, cause open the chances to make the right choice (when the opponent choose wrong)...

Not more moves... more options 50/50.

-Stryker-
 
Stryker said:
What? Are you really thinking more moves makes the difference? Siegfried and Nightmare together to have a better character?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, give any character even Nitaku oppurtunities and you'll be more balanced. In Soulcalibur, where many characters don't have Nitaku oppurtunities, while other characters have Chitaku oppurtunities, thats unbalanced...

Think about it this way... you have a move, and it goes into stance. Out of that stance you have three options... Do a high/throw, do a low, do nothing and guard yourself out of stance in order to open up a bigger moveset. The third option is invalid because it takes too long. So you are left with a high/low mixup. Would you consider a high/low mixup a valid Nitaku situation? Of course not! Opponent can just block low, which will block the low and duck the high. And of course, if you pick option three and guard out of stance, they can see that and hit you with a rising move on counter.

However, if you had a bigger moveset, something with a MID in it, wouldn't you be a better character?
 
Jaxel's not saying necessarily to add "more moves." What he's asking for could be as simple as making more moves viable.

Sure, every character in the game has highs, lows, and mids but certainly not every one of them can actually come up with threatening mixups for them.

As an example, right now, Maxi's pretty boned in the "good mixups" department. He has a few decent mids but his highs and lows suffer. If they were to beef up his throws (back to what they were in 2 and 3) and perhaps give moves like 3A+K and 1A better properties then he could be a lot better. He doesn't necessarily need "more moves," just better versions of the ones he already has.
 
Rico said:
Jaxel's not saying necessarily to add "more moves." What he's asking for could be as simple as making more moves viable.
Click to expand...
Yes, more moves that a character can actually use. Even if a character has 50 moves in their arsenal, it seems that in SC4, depending on which character you are using, only 5 of them are safe. While yes, you don't always have to do those safe moves, you need at least one fast and safe low, and one fast and safe mid (both should be weak on damage). If you don't have those two moves to put fear into the opponent, how exactly do you mixup to use those slow and unsafe (but damaging) moves? While some characters have fast, safe, and damaging lows and mids, while other characters don't... how is that balance?

"You can have a move that is safe, ranged, damaging or fast; pick ONLY TWO. No move should ever have the properties of all four; this is how you make a balanced game." It pains me to see moves that have all four properties, and other moves that have zero.
 
as it stands...some people in this game just can't win when you compare their respective skill sets to each other. The human factor is the only thing that some characters got going for them.
 
testament101 said:
as it stands...some people in this game just can't win when you compare their respective skill sets to each other. The human factor is the only thing that some characters got going for them.
Click to expand...

Umm isnt that pretty much what makes fighting games interesting? The human factor....
 
Tracking B's are what bothers me most. If you predictably spam BBB you deserve to get sidestepped and raped with an unblockable or command throw.

Yes, we can work around it, but it's not fun at all to play spammers while in SC2 I could sidestep and punish them for spamming. A player with half a brain will figure out there's more to the game. Now... not so much. Just play ranked online if you doubt this. Unfamiliar players are saying SC4 is just a button masher. And I can't really blame them when they get this experience without getting the chance to really dive in.

Namco wants to make SC more accessible by expanding the cast with clones and dumb guest characters, but they are killing what made SC great in the first place.

It's still a fun and challenging fighter, but as it stands it won't take much for another fighter to capture my interest instead.
 
I personally think that vertical attacks should never track fully, while horizontal attacks should never be linear.

But that's just me.
 
Rico said:
Jaxel's not saying necessarily to add "more moves." What he's asking for could be as simple as making more moves viable.

Sure, every character in the game has highs, lows, and mids but certainly not every one of them can actually come up with threatening mixups for them.
Click to expand...
One of the best points yet made IMO.

I'm not uber-pro like most of the players here, but one thing I notice about SC4 is there's a distinct lack of what I'd call genuine mix-ups. Making characters viable seems more about pressure and (with some fighters) even just switching up your WC/WR moves to pressure, since WR often contains at least one mid (or you can just stay crouched and do lows). Example, when fighting a friend's Sophitia online, as often as not half my arsenal seems to come down to: 1K, mix WR K or WR (to NSS) with just staying low and kicking more. If I try to fight straight up against Soph at short range, 236B punishes anything I do.

Sisters are too good IMO, or maybe more correctly, 236B is too good - it punishes more than 50% of most characters' move sets and 100% of some, f.e. Tira. But I would just say Sisters a little too good in general. (Like always.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom