Game Informer sucks...

[AndrewTS 0]

The newest issue of Game Informer has a review of King of Fighters EX2, Howling Blood. Good game, right? Yup, it's another shrunken-down arcade game, and it's been over in Japan for nearly a year. Finally it came out, and I checked out the review...

 

I know nothing more about the game than I did before, and I just saw a review from some jackass with an ax to grind about 2D fighters; Adam from GI doesn't want to see them on consoles anymore, and would prefer them to be stuck on portables, because as far as he is concerned, fighting games have "moved on to the third dimension early in the PSOne era."

 

Oh, and gameplay discussed? Fat chance. One paragraph or so of bitching, another paragraph telling us loosely what the series is about (and most people who stopped to look at the page already know), and one paragraph saying that it's okay, basically.

 

Oh, and several screenshots with snide remarks.

 

I sent him an e-mail:

 

 

I see yet again that Game Informer exhibits the journalistic integrity that, if I didn't get a store discount, would prevent me from subscribing to it.

 

Instead of just reviewing Howling Blood, you get on your soapbox to bitch that you hate 2D fighters and prefer them ghettoized to handhelds, since you find them inferior to your precious 3D fighters.  Shouldn't you be talking about the game itself?

 

The genre itself doesn't suffer from "lack of depth," just lack of innovation in recent years, since the mainstream finds 3D more appealing.  However, in your three paragraphs of a "review," you devote 1 to bitching, 1 to explaining what the game is about, and one teeny tiny paragraph discussing the game, which could have been written (and probably was) without ever playing the game. 

 

And no, we wouldn't buy the game no matter what--the problems in King of Fighters EX: Neo Blood crippled gameplay.  Gameplay which is so shallow (according to you) you could have easily summed up in your tiny paragraph or so.  Surely you're expert fighting gamer skilled in both the 2D and 3D genre, and probably are very different from the button mashers I usually see clogging up the Tekken and Soul Calibur machines, so maybe you truly have an informed opinion, but I doubt it.

 

You do realize that "early in the PSOne" era, those 3D games weren't really 3D, right?  Toshinden...not very good, but aside from the sidestep, it was mainly a 2D fighter.  Tekken, while more realistic than Street Fighter or an SNK fighter, *played* in two dimensions until the the second installment.  The style of the gameplay itself, not the dimensions, was the difference.  Even today, there are plenty of 3D fighters that could be made 2D with little compromise.  Hell, there are SNK games that have side-stepping too.  However, that style doesn't lend itself well to the more realistic style of the top 3D fighters.

 

If there's a personal preference of the style of gameplay, fine, but bashing the other for no reason other than to say "no, I don't like this game" doesn't sit too well with me.  2D fighters are complex and strategically intense.  Not that 3D fighters aren't, but there are classes of elite and button mashers in both, and only the scrub jackasses disrespect the other style of game so much that they openly bash it.  You wouldn't be one of those, right?

 

Aside from the gameplay style, the visual style is another thing that can be very appealing.  The 2D sprites are a good showcase for the company's hand-drawn art, which can be far more vital and expressive than lifeless polygon robots.  While cel-shading is creating an excellent middle way, it still isn't exactly the same, and I wouldn't want it to completely replace 2D.  I'm well aware I'm probably in the minority, but if the game is out there and it suits my taste, I'll get it. 

 

I could gripe about how your magazine devotes half a dozen pages to previews, and often reviews get 1/6 of a page, but that wouldn't exactly be a characteristic unique to your magazine.

 

However, in that little bit of space you have discuss the gameplay and the quality of the game itself., and not your personal opinion, which I don't give a damn about.  Let those who don't have much info on the game know just what the gameplay is like.  If you don't want to, have some one else do it. 

 

Comments on the issue, additions?

 

E-mail is: [email protected] if you have anymore to add to it.

[Renegade 0]

Could you post the review?

 

Any jackass that bashes 2d fighters should try and pick up something like street fighter III 3S. When they actually play good players then they can bitch for sucking.

[Anya 0]

Same thing happens in basically every fighting game review. I don't know of anyone in the press that seems to know what they're talking about. Even with the games they like they never actually go into much detail.

 

Also, with any genre, I HATE novelty reviews. Like when they use the review space to have a big joke or running gag at the expense of actually reviewing the game. A while ago in OPM they had this horrible review from some Sponge Bob game. The whole review was a parody of the show's theme(at least I assume it was the theme). The worst part is it wasn't case of them just mocking a bad game, they gave it like a 9. If you're giving something a 9 you should go into detail and explain WHY, not do a "funny" review.

[razazteca 0]

I thought the magazine was given away free with every new membership from Gamespot or EB buyers club?

[Nevermortal 0]

Game Informer is terrible.

 

When I worked for Gamestop, they made me ask everyone who I served if they wanted a subscription.

 

Ironically, the reason I got fired was because I didn't get enough subscriptions.

 

Oh well.

[Guest Krazy Karter]

I got a complimentary issue of EGM yesterday.

 

Boy has THAT magazine gone to hell since they revamped it last year.

 

They used to pack in as much content as possible (seperate reviews for the same titles if they were on different consoles) but now they merge everything together into one review per-game with three critiques from different editors.

 

Style over substance has fucked every magazine I can think of.

[AndrewTS 0]

I thought the magazine was given away free with every new membership from Gamespot or EB buyers club?

I think its Gamestop, but yeah--that's the only reason I get it. However, you have to pay for the membership so it isn't like it is totally free. However, as much as I buy used, I save in the long run.

 

Could you post the review?

 

Sure thing.

 

The King of Fighters EX2: Howling Blood

Hadouken This

 

2D fighters on the big consoles invariably irritate me.  I guess I just can't get past the fact that fighting games moved into the third dimension early on in the PSOne era.  As a handheld property, however, I find myself able to enjoy them for what they are rather than despising them for their lack of depth.  This latest edition of the The King of Fighters doesn't do anything new, but it doesn't do much wrong, either.

 

For anyone who's not familiar with the franchise, KoF is a Street Fighter-esque tournament between a bunch of SNK characters.  KoF has been around forever (nine years is forever in video games), and each successive iteration takes a very small step forward while keeping the gameplay almost exactly the same.  Howling Blood is no exception--at first, it seems to be a direct port of the PS2 port of the Dreamcast port of the arcade KoF 2001.

 

Fans of the series will no doubt buy this no matter what, if only for the exclusive characters.  However, any GBA owner could easily do worse than pick this up.  The control is solid and responsive, there are 21 unique characters to learn, and quite a bit of new content can be unlocked.  By no means is this new, revolutionary, or the best GBA title ever, but it's a good way to get in a fight on the bus without getting thrown off and arrested. -- ADAM

 

Concept:  Become of the King of Fighters on a wee little screen

 

Graphics:  Animations are a bit light on frames, but the sprites look awesome

 

Sound:  Tinny and repetitive, but the Japanese smack-talking is funny as usual

 

Playability:  About as good as it can be, considering the number of buttons on the GBA

 

Entertainment:  If you feel that three dimensions is one too many for a fighting game, this is for you

 

Replay Value:  Moderately High

 

(*captions*)

 

Story modes in fighters make me cringe

 

There's no shortage of goofy moves to pull off

 

The backgrounds are spiffy

 

Pretty much everyone has some sort of projectile

 

The Bottom Line : 7.75

[Lightning Flik 0]

Is that even a review? That's more like a personal opinion. That's absolutely bullshit.

 

*reads it fully*

 

...he never played it. I'm sorry, but there is NO way he could've devoted any time or effort to this game if he had.

 

That is absolutely horrible.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Last good video game magazine : Game Players/Ultra Game Players.

I have yet to read a mag as good as that since they stopped printing back in June of 1998.

[AndrewTS 0]

Last good video game magazine : Game Players/Ultra Game Players.

I have yet to read a mag as good as that since they stopped printing back in June of 1998.

I'd heard about it, but back when I stopped reading it it was mainly a bunch of BS mainly trying to be funny more than become a good mag. Maybe it improved afterward.

 

The last mag I really enjoyed was Gamefan. Tips and Tricks is still good, for what it is. But it isn't a traditional gaming magazine since it mainly is...tips, tricks, strategies, etc, natch.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Here's my take on all the video game magazines I can think of:

 

EGM: Went to hell after they changed format. Their reviews used to be awesome to read...now it's just brief comments.

 

GI: I don't think they play the games either.

 

GMR: I don't hate GMR...but it's just not an entertaining read.

 

Official Playstation Magazine: If a game is average...it's getting ****. The Scott Keith of Game reviews.

 

PSM: I like their format...but I wish there was more to the magazine. reviews/previews...and suddenly I'm at the codes section already.

 

Official XBox magazine: Entertaining read...but they are such elitists it grates on you. Their reviews are an interesting mix of dead on and "way off because we hyped it and/or Microsoft paid a lot of money for this shitty Rare game"

 

XBN: Them I hate. Why would they decide to make an XBox magazine when the people there CLEARLY hate the Xbox. They gave the game Rocky and Batman: The rise of Sin Tzu the same score as Knights of the Old Republic (7/10).

 

GamePro: I never liked Gamepro...and I still think their scoring system is stupid...but they changed format for the MUCH MUCH MUCH better IMO.

 

Play: It's nice that they give all their coverage to more ubscure titles...and not the big liscenced ones...but if they put a game on their cover...you can be assured it's getting an A- or better. Regardless of final quality.

[Anya 0]

The only magazine I still read is GMR, which I only subscribe to since I have an EB card. God, I hate how EB and Gamestop hardsell their magazines when you go in there.

[AndrewTS 0]

GamePro: I never liked Gamepro...and I still think their scoring system is stupid...but they changed format for the MUCH MUCH MUCH better IMO.

 

Gamepro's Fun Factor:

 

GMR: I don't hate GMR...but it's just not an entertaining read.

 

It isn't as blatantly bad as Game Informer, but has a lot of the same problems. (This review gets 1/8 of a page?)

[Ced 0]

I could write a better review and I'm a terrible writer.

As a handheld property, however, I find myself able to enjoy them [2D Fighters] for what they are rather than despising them for their lack of depth.

That just SCREAMS "ultra biased opinion".

 

I don't bother buying gaming magazines since the Internet is a more effective medium for previews, opinions and cheats. That and I have enough clutter in my house to worry about without stacks of old EGM issues on my coffee table.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I personally like X Play on TechTV. Between not being biased against Nintendo, having a good bit of humor, having actual really good reviews with game footage to go a long with it, and of course...Morgan Webb................

 

 

opps..got distracted for a second..I pretty much just watch X Play and go to Planetgamecube for video game news and stuff.

[AndrewTS 0]

I personally like X Play on TechTV. Between not being biased against Nintendo, having a good bit of humor, having actual really good reviews with game footage to go a long with it, and of course...Morgan Webb................

 

 

opps..got distracted for a second..I pretty much just watch X Play and go to Planetgamecube for video game news and stuff.

Morgan can be annoying at times, but generally she seems to know what she's talking about and does a decent job.

 

Sessler is flat-out irritating. I can't stand him.

[Karnage 0]

The last game magazine that I enjoyed was the very short-lived Incite Gaming. It was the only game magazine that covered something wrestling related every issue.

 

And for as for reviews, I find the TV show Reviews on the Run (Spin off of Electric Playground and also called Judgement Day) to have the best reviews around.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Actually, I used to be a GamePro reader. I say used to, because as always, the internet is a much better find.

 

Besides, for my RPGs, I always head to RPGamer.com

 

I mean, if there are other games, usually I'll hear how good it is from you guys and then I'll take it upon myself to play it. That's how I do my video game playing.

 

Sadly, I play all the RPGs. Even the cruddy ones, with semi-redeemable value.

[AndrewTS 0]

Actually, I used to be a GamePro reader. I say used to, because as always, the internet is a much better find.

 

Besides, for my RPGs, I always head to RPGamer.com

 

I mean, if there are other games, usually I'll hear how good it is from you guys and then I'll take it upon myself to play it. That's how I do my video game playing.

 

Sadly, I play all the RPGs. Even the cruddy ones, with semi-redeemable value.

Even X _ _ _ S_ _ _?

 

Although I'll keep in mind that if I find a really good game that may get overlooked, I should share the news with others.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Actually, I used to be a GamePro reader. I say used to, because as always, the internet is a much better find.

 

Besides, for my RPGs, I always head to RPGamer.com

 

I mean, if there are other games, usually I'll hear how good it is from you guys and then I'll take it upon myself to play it. That's how I do my video game playing.

 

Sadly, I play all the RPGs. Even the cruddy ones, with semi-redeemable value.

Even X _ _ _ S_ _ _?

 

Although I'll keep in mind that if I find a really good game that may get overlooked, I should share the news with others.

Thanks. And yes, I played that... I still need to beat it.

 

That's another bad habit. I've played over 100 RPGs and at the time I finally noticed I played that many, I have this irrisestible need to finish any of them I have played. like XenoSaga.

 

Hell, to see what depths I have sunken to, I've played Rhapsody. ...and liked it.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

I also get game informer from Gamespot. I think the feature articles are pretty funny (and nice and long) but the reviews are just one page blurbs usually.

[AndrewTS 0]

I got a reply from him. Here's the original e-mail he sent:

 

Andrew -

 

First, let's get it out of the way that you're "getting on your soapbox" in your stingingly bitter email far more than I was in the review, and descending to the level of personal attacks, rather than a critique of my review, okay? Good.

 

Second, I have to admit that I am not an expert in 2D fighters, though I do have a bit of experience with them, from the SFII arcade era to the present. Yes, my expertise in 3D fighters (Tekken 3 -> current) is far greater, but as you said, they're very similar at a base level - fighting games are all about insanely fast-paced strategy and reflexes. What I saw when I was playing Howling Blood indicated to me that it played almost exactly the same as KOF 2000/2001 on PS2 (the only other KOF I've played, I admit), except with crappy control and a tiny screen.

 

When you say that Howling Blood had problems that "crippled gameplay," are you saying that it sucks compared to consoles/arcades? Because that's obviously a flawed argument in and of itself. And, if you're talking about how it sucks compared to other handheld titles - well, I apologize, but I didn't notice any glaring flaws other than the defective control (which is impossible to get around, given the architecture of the GBA). I fear that the issues you have with the game are such that only the elite, such as yourself apparently, will notice them - and that's not who I wrote that review for. People who are big into games, or a specific genre/series, are going to form their own opinions no matter what we say. Every time. The reviews we print are to give the rank-and-file masses a sort of overview as to whether or not we think a game sucks, is awesome, or somewhere in between. So try not to take it as a personal attack.

 

And if you hate GI so much, why do you bother reading it? Or sending two-page emails to the staff?

 

Anyways, try to relax and take this stuff with a grain of salt, alright? These are games, and we write our opinions about them. We're not trying to piss anyone off.

 

Have a good one,

 

Adam

 

 

And my reply to him:

 

"Andrew -

 

First, let's get it out of the way that you're 'getting on your soapbox' in your stingingly bitter email far more than I was in the review, and descending to the level of personal attacks, rather than a critique of my review, okay? Good."

 

Sure thing, but let's not ignore that in a personal e-mail, I can get on my soapbox if I so choose.  I'll freely admit some personal biases.  It's not a published work.  Got that?  Good.

 

Also, attacking your review and the basis you wrote it on doesn't descend to the level of personal attacks.  Your review sucked--no personal attack there.  I did insult persons who blindly hate a genre or subgenre of game, and you're not one of them, right?  Then you should take no offense to that.

 

If you have far more experiences with the 3D fighters than the 2D fighters, then who are you to say that 2D fighters have a "lack of depth?"

 

"What I saw when I was playing Howling Blood indicated to me that it played almost exactly the same as KOF 2000/2001 on PS2 (the only other KOF I've played, I admit), except with crappy control and a tiny screen."

 

Wait a second--you said "each successive iteration takes a very small step forward while keeping the gameplay almost exactly the same."  Now, how would you know that if you never played the other games?  Sounds like a wild guess, something you shouldn't be putting down if you hadn't verified it yourself.  Although the gameplay in general is mostly similar, there are many different changes and tweaks throughout the series, some good and some bad, and some that vary by opinion.  I prefer 2000 over 2001, and some friends of mine disagree, based on personal preferences.  I like 97's gameplay more than either one, but the music in 95 tops any I've heard in 97-01.

 

"When you say that Howling Blood had problems that 'crippled gameplay,' are you saying that it sucks compared to consoles/arcades? Because that's obviously a flawed argument in and of itself."

 

I said NEO Blood, the first KoF EX game.  That game is completely unredeemable due to poor hit detection.  Howling Blood I haven't played yet.  Yeah, I know the GBA has two face buttons and the L and R buttons, but that wasn't the gripe about EX1.  The Neo Geo Pocket Color games smoke that one and probably Match of the Millenium smokes EX2--however, the layout isn't the issue, but the smoothness of gameplay.

 

"I didn't notice any glaring flaws other than the defective control (which is impossible to get around, given the architecture of the GBA)."

 

So, you're complaining about the control, which is a direct result of the GBA's button layout, but in your review you expressed a personal opinion that 2D fighters shouldn't be on console anymore?  Right?  Well, the console permits the best translation, including gameplay because of the controllers the consoles use (well, except for Gamecube).  Why does the mere presence of those games on a console "irritate" you?  Some of us don't want to only be able to play a game with the GBA controls on a tiny screen, as you would have it if you had your druthers.

 

"The reviews we print are to give the rank-and-file masses a sort of overview as to whether or not we think a game sucks, is awesome, or somewhere in between. So try not to take it as a personal attack."

 

Please do that.    Review the game.  Do not say "I don't like to see 2D games on a console since I think they're obsolete and have shallow gameplay, so stick them on the handheld exclusively."  I got the impression from that review that you never played the game at all.  Anyone could have typed that review up without playing it, since it explains nothing about the game at all except for a few details you could pick off the back of the box. 

 

"And if you hate GI so much, why do you bother reading it? Or sending two-page emails to the staff?"

 

I get a discount on used games from Gamestop.  Plus, the previews usually have a good bit of info.  However, the reviews certainly aren't it.  I'm frankly sick of the poor job that nearly all current magazines do for reviews.

 

"Two page e-mails?"  You must have your computer set on 16 point font or something (although this one is going to run longer because of my replies), and this will only be my second e-mail to any of the staff.  Anyway, I'm not happy with the magazine's reviewing policy, and I would personally like to see it improved.  That's why I'm asking you to review the games that you're supposed to review.  Your comments in the first paragraph were out of line, didn't accomplish the primary task of reviewing the game, and damaged your credibility in my view. 

 

"Anyways, try to relax and take this stuff with a grain of salt, alright? These are games, and we write our opinions about them. We're not trying to piss anyone off."

 

Then remain objective when it is called for.  I fully expect you to rip into a bad game when it is warranted (especially when "Acclaim" is on the box or it stars Lara Croft), to praise a game when it is good, and for some people to have dissenting opinions over them.  However, when you start a review saying:

 

"2D fighters on the big consoles invariably irritate me.  I guess I just can't get past the fact that fighting games moved into the third dimension early on in the PSOne era.  As a handheld property, however, I find myself able to enjoy them for what they are rather than despising them for their lack of depth. "

 

...you're gonna piss some one off, especially if your opinion isn't qualified. You admitted it isn't.  I'm not saying you're not allowed to say you don't like that style of game.  If some one normally dislikes a game in a certain genre and gives it a good review, that's impressive.  However, in the review itself you bashed the genre blindly.

 

Although your "bottom line" scores were positive, and it appears you rightfully based your scores on other similar games on the GBA.  That's a good start, now work the reviews themselves.

 

Your review of KoF 2000/2001--which incidentally, got LESS space than this one (I guess those designing they layout didn't figure a 2D fighter was worth the coverage, huh), was far better in that regard, although even that showed blatant and open bias ("it won't inspire anyone to forsake Virtua Fighter or Tekken").

 

Kinda makes me wonder why they'd have you review both of them.  Eh, could be a coincidence.

 

-- Andrew

 

P.S. :  Just about nobody in the States, especially the gaming press, cared about Virtua Fighter until it came to PS2.  Funny, huh?

[Lightning Flik 0]

Nice reply Andrew.

 

And I gotta admit, I like him (the reviewer) after his response. I bet he was handed the job, and he doesn't like the 2D because he's not used to the genre (which he admitted), but is trying to at least do his job fairly. He's not that good via bias, but is definitely trying.

 

Not saying that justified his review, but hey. At least it's nice to know he isn't just another person who'll bullshit all the way. Just some.

[AndrewTS 0]

Thanks, Flik.

 

I got back another reply, so I sent another one back.

 

First his, then my reply:

 

Andrew -

 

The 'despising them for their lack of depth' line was supposed to be a joke - a poor one, apparently, but not one that was intended to say that I hate the genre in general, or think that they are not decent games. And as for the 'incremental steps' comment, that was based on my experience with 2000/2001, as well as by talking to other people in the office (not editors) who have more experience with the series than I do. Because, frankly, I don't have time to sit down and play every single KoF game for five hours just to review the latest GBA incarnation.

 

My preference for 3D fighters is something I wanted to get across in the review right away - so that people such as yourself could disregard my opinion if they so chose. I still believe I gave it a fair score, and the text was honestly the best I could do in the 800 characters I had to do it. It's kind of tough to get across everything you want to say, while still being somewhat entertaining (which I apparently was not, and I apologize). Anyway, you can't deny that 3D fighters have an element to them that their 2D cousins don't - not saying that makes them better objectively, but they do have more 'depth.' And when I say that 'it won't inspire anyone to forsake VF or Tekken,' well, do you really expect a game that came out in 2000/2001 to lure gamers away from the shiny new releases?

 

Finally, I have zero say in what I review. If I had my way, I wouldn't review a single 2D fighter ever - because I don't like them. Unfortunately, nobody else really wants to do them either, so it's all me.

 

Anyhow, I have to go. Take it easy.

 

Adam

--

Adam Biessener

Associate Editor

 

 

Adam -

 

Thank you for your prompt reply, as you are likely very busy, but I just wanted to add a few final comments  (or have the last word, however you would like to interpret it).

 

"Because, frankly, I don't have time to sit down and play every single KoF game for five hours just to review the latest GBA incarnation."

 

That would be unreasonable--just rate the game by itself, since there is only one other GBA incarnation.  Comparing games with their sequels or prequels is something that should be a mere footnote in game reviews, in my opinion.

 

"Anyway, you can't deny that 3D fighters have an element to them that their 2D cousins

don't - not saying that makes them better objectively, but they do

have more 'depth.'"

 

Do you associate "in depth story mode" with "depth?" (note:  that one's for you, Sakura. )

 

Or do you mean like floaty jumps, cheaper throws, sidestepping from attacks (which can be done in 2D games and has been), parries/reversals (ditto)?  In a six button fighter, with standing, crouching (offensive and defensive), jumping, defensive, close range, far range attacks, combined with special moves, throws, supers, general/common moves, the actual number of attacks and skills are comparable to most 3D fighters.  Plus there are unique features like Custom Combos, that have many strategic uses.  Plus, there's Guilty Gear, which adds even more strategy.

 

Many of the 2D fighter combos rely more on skill than your button-mashing Tekken ten-hit combos (although there are games like that in 2D).  Soul Calibur--a pure button-masher with rounds sometimes stretching out to 30 seconds.

 

Plus, you don't have to worry so much about being nailed while you're down in 2D fighters, although those games usually have "wake up" style attacks and counters to keep in the game,  and usually pursuit attacks use more skill than "up + punch" to stomp on a guy on the ground.

Airborne fights are more of an element of 2D fighters than 3D ones, because cross-ups and mid-air exchanges are virtually impossible in most 3D fighters.

 

"And when I say that 'it won't inspire anyone to forsake VF or Tekken,' well, do you really expect a game that came out in 2000/2001 to lure gamers away from the shiny new releases?"

 

Tekken and VF have changed since 2000/2001?  Could have fooled me.

 

"If I had my way, I wouldn't review a single 2D fighter ever - because I don't like

them. Unfortunately, nobody else really wants to do them either, so it's all me."

 

It's a shame your review staff has so little depth.  Some magazines used to have one in-depth review and several viewpoints from others on one game, and most of them would have a diverse lot of game experiences.

 

There you have it; GI hates 2D fighters. However, I wanted to clear up some misconceptions about them, and I hope it gets across. Just because 2D fighting characters only have "special moves" in the single digits most of the time, they have almost as many true attacks as a 3D fighting game character, plus there's still a wealth of gameplay depth--some of which is rarely or never found in 3D games.

[Jer 0]

Many of the 2D fighter combos rely more on skill than your button-mashing Tekken ten-hit combos (although there are games like that in 2D).  Soul Calibur--a pure button-masher with rounds sometimes stretching out to 30 seconds.

 

This has been a fun discussion, but I've definately got to take offense to this. Tekken isn't about ten-hit combos (well strings, actually), and it's pretty obvious that you've never seen the game played well if you associate ten-strings with Tekken at all. No one decent uses them, ever, and real Tekken looks almost nothing like most people's idea of Tekken. SC is also not even close to a pure button masher. It's relatively easy for a tourney game, but it still has a ton to it, although it tends to boil down to a lot of 50/50 mindgames. Still, button mashers never win in either game, and comments like that sound similar to what the reviewer is doing, ie hating on a game without knowledge of how it actually plays.

 

Or do you mean like floaty jumps, cheaper throws, sidestepping from attacks (which can be done in 2D games and has been), parries/reversals (ditto)?  In a six button fighter, with standing, crouching (offensive and defensive), jumping, defensive, close range, far range attacks, combined with special moves, throws, supers, general/common moves, the actual number of attacks and skills are comparable to most 3D fighters.  Plus there are unique features like Custom Combos, that have many strategic uses.  Plus, there's Guilty Gear, which adds even more strategy.

 

Floaty jumps haven't been in a Namco game since 1996, throws are always breakable in any Namco game and certainly not overpowered, you can stand, crouch and jump offensively and defensively in 3D games, there are ranged attacks (especially in SC, spacing is a huge deal). Differentiation between normal and special moves is a personal preference thing, I personally really don't like it. And although there is a lot of depth in the execution of difficult moves and combos that you generally don't see in 3D games, 3D games have more different moves per character in almost all cases. I do agree that 2D games generally have as much or more depth than 3D games, but again, you sound really biased here, making some of your arguments on things that haven't been in 3D games for half a decade or more.

[AndrewTS 0]

Tekken isn't about ten-hit combos (well strings, actually), and it's pretty obvious that you've never seen the game played well if you associate ten-strings with Tekken at all...

 

...and yadda yadda. I was talking about the fact that those are even in the game. Are they in the game? Yes, they are. In virtually every 3D fighter, combos are generally in the tap-tap variety, aside from the grapple combos and juggles. Not necessarily the ten-strings, but plenty in the 3-5 hit area. If you don't want to learn the counter for every specific part of a multi-part grapple combo, you're stuck in an inescapable combo, unless you mash and get lucky. I guess "memorizing button combos to escape multi-part throws" = play depth. Thrilling.

 

No one decent uses them, ever, and real Tekken looks almost nothing like most people's idea of Tekken.

 

Vagueness, thy name is Jer.

 

SC is also not even close to a pure button masher. It's relatively easy for a tourney game, but it still has a ton to it, although it tends to boil down to a lot of 50/50 mindgames.

 

It's quick, flashy, and brutal. And "50/50" mindgames describes pretty much any fighting game, but less in the case of SC.

 

Still, button mashers never win in either game

 

X

 

Against a skilled player, no, but when that's all that plays them, yes. The way nearly every button combination produces something, usually there are rewards for mashathons.

 

Floaty jumps haven't been in a Namco game since 1996

 

Good for Namco, but I still see them in plenty of other 3D fighters still coming out. However, in the Namco ones currently, you can't just jump, you have to do a jumping special move. You can't just jump to get around or psyche-out, you have to commit yourself to an attack.

 

throws are always breakable in any Namco game and certainly not overpowered

 

Except for the older games and plenty of non-Namco games. Also--sidestep, throw = 40% damage? That's not overpowered?

 

comments like that sound similar to what the reviewer is doing, ie hating on a game without knowledge of how it actually plays.

 

I said "I hate 3D fighters and prefer they'd stay in the arcades where they belong? They have no depth?" No, I said there are things about them I don't like. I have a ton of 3D fighters. They sit on the shelf unplayed, because I do not care for them very much.

[edotherocket 0]

Don't you guys get Edge magazine over there? Or it's equivalent...I think it was called Next Generation.

[Jer 0]

...and yadda yadda.  I was talking about the fact that those are even in the game.  Are they in the game?  Yes, they are

  In virtually every 3D fighter, combos are generally in the tap-tap variety, aside from the grapple combos and juggles.   Not necessarily the ten-strings, but plenty in the 3-5 hit area.  If you don't want to learn the counter for every specific part of a multi-part grapple combo, you're stuck in an inescapable combo, unless you mash and get lucky.  I guess "memorizing button combos to escape multi-part throws" = play depth.  Thrilling.

 

In recent Tekken and Soul Calibur, that's just not true. Yeah, there are a fair number of three strings still around, but they're almost never used unless you get the first hit counter and they're natural combo on counterhit. Most of the three strings aren't mixups and you can just block them the same way every time without having to worry about interrupting them, and then punish them because there's major frame delay after the last hit. Soul Blade did have a fair number of variable four strings, but again, the game's seven years old. The only major 3D game with four strings as a significant part of the gameplay now is VF4, and they're still rarely used at high level.

 

Yeah, learning to deal with scrub shit is part of the game, but it's part of any game. Saying that Tekken or SC is based on three-five strings is like saying SF is based on standing back and lobbing fireballs, or about jumping in with a jump kick -> low kick. It works against scrubs, and you have to learn to deal with it, but once you get to a reasonable level it's no longer a factor.

 

Vagueness, thy name is Jer.

 

People's perception of Tekken (based a lot on uneducated magazine bullshit, so we're united on our dislike for bad reviews) is ten-strings, multi-throws, deathfists and Eddy mashing. In reality, Tekken is based on constant, complex movement (steps, backdashes, wavedashes and all sorts of complex character specific stuff), baiting out a whiff, punishing, that kind of stuff. It's a totally different game, not even similar.

 

It's quick, flashy, and brutal.  And "50/50" mindgames describes pretty much any fighting game, but less in the case of SC.

 

No, trust me, SC2 is more of a 50/50 game than almost anything else out there. Hard to see mid/throw or mid/low mixups are a huge part of most people's game, and the post-GI game is 50/50 also, between moves that force a re-GI and moves that punish a whiffed re-GI (technically that's not true anymore with 2G, but that's going into too much detail).

 

It's also far from quick and brutal, since rushdown is so unsafe that only Yoshi can do it and get away with it. If anything, most people's complaint is that the game is too turtley.

 

Against a skilled player, no, but when that's all that plays them, yes.  The way nearly every button combination produces something, usually there are rewards for mashathons.

 

So if two players mash, one will win. Yup. That's true in any fighter, and any two player videogame for that matter. If two people mash in NBA Jam, since one has to win, one will win. Doesn't mean they're not both awful. The question is, will mashers beat a fundamentally solid player. Answer, no. Never. Maybe one time in a thousand, if the decent player feels like giving them a sympathy round. That means the games aren't mashers, simple as that.

 

Good for Namco, but I still see them in plenty of other 3D fighters still coming out.  However, in the Namco ones currently, you can't just jump, you have to do a jumping special move.  You can't just jump to get around or psyche-out, you have to commit yourself to an attack.

 

Shrug, 2D games have better jump movement while 3D games have better in/out movement. I personally love the dynamic of using jump attacks to punish lows, but that's just me.

 

And actually, you can just jump. SC2: G+7, G+8, G+9 jump back, straight up and forward. Tekken has always been tap up to step, hold up to jump. T4 I'm not sure if you can jump straight up, but uf and ub give you forward or backward jump.

 

Except for the older games and plenty of non-Namco games.   Also--sidestep, throw = 40% damage?  That's not overpowered?

 

If by older games you mean only Tekken 1, then yeah, but Tekken 1 isn't exactly a game I'm saying is great. Every Tekken since one, every Soul series game and every VF I've played have breakable throws. What else matters? I don't know if Bloody Roar has breakable throws, but then I'm not sitting here tearing 2D games apart based on Primal Rage, either.

 

40% damage for a 50/50 breakable, low priority, high is not broken in the least. Good players break throws 50/50, so you're gonna do on average 20% damage for a step/throw. Step into a launcher is almost always a better option, so you don't even see good players doing step throw very often. 2D throws have smaller break windows and hit high and low. I find them considerably more frustrating, but neither are broken.

 

I said "I hate 3D fighters and prefer they'd stay in the arcades where they belong?  They have no depth?"  No, I said there are things about them I don't like.  I have a ton of 3D fighters.  They sit on the shelf unplayed, because I do not care for them very much.

 

Soul Calibur--a pure button-masher with rounds sometimes stretching out to 30 seconds.

 

You're calling SC, a game that you clearly know nothing about and that I travel to tournaments to play, a pure button-masher. That's pretty close to saying it has no depth, and it's also flat-out completely wrong. The point is that you're calling this guy out on not knowing about 2D games and proving him wrong with advanced tech like cross-ups, and then turning around and doing the exact same thing he's doing with 3D games. Comparing cross-up using 2D players to button mashing 3D scrubs makes absolutely no sense, and it sounds like if you were to write a review of a 3D game, it would look quite similar to this guy's 2D reviews. Probably not with the "2D games should stay where they belong" soapbox silliness, but with the same lack of knowledge.

[Ted the Poster 0]

but then I'm not sitting here tearing 2D games apart based on Primal Rage, either.

Man, that game was the shit back in the day.

 

 

Human volleyball rules.

 

Oh, and to stay on topic, GI has always sucked and will continue to suck, as will XBN and PSM. Ultra Game Players was awesome though, and it sucks that no other mag has been able to live up to it in terms of quality. Oh, and Andrew, take it from an Adam who doesn't write moronic bias "reviews"; Howling Blood is at least ten times better than Neo Blood. The controls are improved, though some super moves are hard to pull off. On the Tekken/SC subject: it's hella fun to use King or Nina and fucking OWN that cheap-ass Paul Phoenix.

 

I know that adds nothing to the argument, but I just wanted to get my two cents in since fighting games are my favorite genre next to PC adventure games.

[BUTT 0]

Andrew, I like the arguments you made, but there's one thing I have to take exception with.

 

P.S. :  Just about nobody in the States, especially the gaming press, cared about Virtua Fighter until it came to PS2.  Funny, huh?

 

I have several GamePro magazines from '95-'96 and VF 1 through 3 got a huge amount of coverage. However, in the years before VF4 came out (I'm not really sure since I read few game magazines from '98 to '02) they might not have covered the series much simply because there was a period of several years where no new VF game came out (no, Street Fighter-style upgrades like VF3 Team Battle don't count).