Poll: Fighter Game Re-Re-Releases

[loc978]

Not I. The most current 2D fighter I own and enjoy is Street Fighter 2 on the SNES. After that I turned into a 3D snob... and I like my 3D fighters as they are (though Soul Calibur 3 could use online support while Soul Calibur 4 should die in a fire).

I have to admit I do enjoy Soul Calibur, but that does not stop me from sucking at it. I only played the 2nd and the 4th one, since the 3rd one is only for PS2. Is the 3rd one better then the 4th one?

It would be hard to say, with you... I started the series with Soul Blade for the PS1, then Soul Calibur for the Dreamcast... when Soul Calibur II came out, I bought it for the PS2, then went straight back to my Dreamcast. The dynamics of the game were absolutely ruined in II. Then III came out and it was great... on par with the original, but with more options. Then IV ruined the dynamics again.

With you never having played the original or the third one, I couldn't say if they'd be better for you... but they're certainly better for me.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Well to be fair only Capcom had been doing this (as far I know Mortal Kombat and Soul Calibur haven't done this yet).
OT- Well these days I don't fight it striaght away but if I did bought the first version of that game, depending how much I like it (or interested in the new characters) I will wait for the new version to be cheap enought and then I trade in the first version to get the new one.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Well to be fair only Capcom had been doing this (as far I know Mortal Kombat and Soul Calibur haven't done this yet).

Mortal Kombat 3
Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3
Mortal Kombat Trilogy

Mortal Kombat 4
Mortal Kombat Gold


Enlightenment Man AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!

 

[StriderShinryu]

I have no issue at all with buying an update of a game I already own but, because I enjoy competitive play but don't necessarily play competitively, it's not a yes or no question to me. It really comes down to what the update includes. UMvC3? Definitely a buy with all of the extra characters, tweaks, etc. SSF4AE? Nope. Only 4 new characters that are either similar to each other (Yun/Yang) or similar to characters already in the game (Oni/E.Ryu) plus balance that's actually worse than SSF4 is not worth it to me.

As others have said, full game updates are very important for the competitive scene to not only keep the game fresh but also to ensure a level playing field. This is one area where you see the top players actually complaining about MK9. When the game is stealth patched via online connection on a random basis, it actually hurts competitive play. Most tournaments aren't run with the consoles connected online, and playing with a version you aren't used to makes practice almost useless. Imagine if one time you played chess the knights where allowed to move through other pieces in an L shape like they normally can and next time they couldn't.. then next time they could but now they move in s straight line instead of an L. The game would be impossible to play and prepare for if the rules are constantly changing every time you play.

 

[Legion IV]

Not I. The most current 2D fighter I own and enjoy is Street Fighter 2 on the SNES. After that I turned into a 3D snob... and I like my 3D fighters as they are (though Soul Calibur 3 could use online support while Soul Calibur 4 should die in a fire).

Soul Calibur 4 is light years better then 3. 2 is the best but 3 was BROKEN. Yes lets just be able to use glitch after glitch to win. THe game was a complete joke and lacked ANY competive fighting game scene.


As for the op. Its amazing i guess to the casual fan its bad. But any hardcore fighting game fan thinks its a godsend.

People are getting awfully entitled and its starting to piss me off. This ideal is what killed the fighting game genre years ago. Let it be.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Re-releases of fighting games are usually complete bullshit. They give you a couple of new characters, and that's about it, then expect you to pay full price for the game again. This is stuff that could easily be added as DLC for $10, but the devs are being greedy.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Re-releases of fighting games are usually complete bullshit. They give you a couple of new characters, and that's about it, then expect you to pay full price for the game again. This is stuff that could easily be added as DLC for $10, but the devs are being greedy.

Just out of curiousity, which recent fighting game re-release/update was the full price of the original game and only included a couple of new characters with pretty much nothing else?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Updates are important if you're into the game seriously and know stuff about it to a great degree.


As to why they're not patches, that's a good question. Blazblue:CS got updated for free into CS2. They also released the updated game on portables with a bit more tidbits of story but the main meat of the update was given for free. Also, notice that this isn't the giant capcom, it's just arc system works, a comparatively tiny company.


Capcom knows people will buy it, it also aims at those who didn't buy the first version, all in all, I wouldn't think for a second if a game I played for upwards of 500 hours had a new version coming (yes, most good fighting game players have played these games for those times or more) which costs even less than a normal game.

For the time that I'll be spending on it it'll save me money that I'd have to spend buying other games in fact.

 

[Tanis]

"It's not like Call of Duty"
I stop taking you seriously there.

CoD has turned into MADDEN.

And, while it's true, that some 2D fighters (SEE: Capcom's SF series) get re-released with gloried DLC there also tend to be 'behind the scenes' fixes.

I'm the last person that's gonna defend Capcom right now, but EA with all it's sports titles that are basically rehashes of previous games aren't any better and neither is the CoD series.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The fixes aren't really behing the scene, you just need to be really into the game to notice moves being slower by sixtieths of a second or doing 5% less damage. This may stound miniscule and unimportant but realize that it really matters in high level competition.

 

[chromewarriorXIII]

Not I. The most current 2D fighter I own and enjoy is Street Fighter 2 on the SNES. After that I turned into a 3D snob... and I like my 3D fighters as they are (though Soul Calibur 3 could use online support while Soul Calibur 4 should die in a fire).

Soul Calibur 4 is light years better then 3. 2 is the best but 3 was BROKEN. Yes lets just be able to use glitch after glitch to win. THe game was a complete joke and lacked ANY competive fighting game scene.

I see SCIII as far superior partly because IV can't keep up with me. After years of playing III I tried IV at a friend's and found the gameplay so slow that when I tried to do combos with Taki, she was always a few moves behind me. The game was too slow and stiff to me. I also preferred the character customization in III to IV because of the jobs and the while the Chronicles of the Sword mode wasn't great it was solid and provided some extra fun.

I do find that Capcom get's a bit crazy with their re-releases. However, since I just got MvC3 used a couple days ago and enjoyed it a lot, I'll definitely be picking up UMvC3 when it comes out.

 

[Omega Pirate]

"It's not like Call of Duty"
I stop taking you seriously there.

CoD has turned into MADDEN.

And, while it's true, that some 2D fighters (SEE: Capcom's SF series) get re-released with gloried DLC there also tend to be 'behind the scenes' fixes.

I'm the last person that's gonna defend Capcom right now, but EA with all it's sports titles that are basically rehashes of previous games aren't any better and neither is the CoD series.

I never said COD or MADDEN was any better, however they are released differently. Each COD game is new, the game-play stays the same but the story is different, the guns are different, the time frame is different, etc. Well that's how it was anyway, I can see how it has turned into a yearly release. I can't speak about MADDEN, since I haven't played a single game in that series.

The fighter games, get stuff added on to them, such as characters, stages, patches, etc. Ill type up a little flowchart as to how I see it.

Call of Duty -> Call of Duty 2 -> Call of Duty 3 -> you get the picture

Street Fighter 4
|
v
Super Street Fighter 4
|
v
Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition
|
v
Super Street Fighter 4 Ultra Arcade Edition (Okay this one I made up)

As you can see from my epic charting skills the number on the Street Fighter game does not change. The progressing is different, the game stays the same but with tweaks.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

"It's not like Call of Duty"
I stop taking you seriously there.

CoD has turned into MADDEN.

And, while it's true, that some 2D fighters (SEE: Capcom's SF series) get re-released with gloried DLC there also tend to be 'behind the scenes' fixes.

I'm the last person that's gonna defend Capcom right now, but EA with all it's sports titles that are basically rehashes of previous games aren't any better and neither is the CoD series.

I never said COD or MADDEN was any better, however they are released differently. Each COD game is new, the game-play stays the same but the story is different, the guns are different, the time frame is different, etc. Well that's how it was anyway, I can see how it has turned into a yearly release. I can't speak about MADDEN, since I haven't played a single game in that series.

The fighter games, get stuff added on to them, such as characters, stages, patches, etc. Ill type up a little flowchart as to how I see it.

Call of Duty -> Call of Duty 2 -> Call of Duty 3 -> you get the picture

Street Fighter 4
|
v
Super Street Fighter 4
|
v
Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition
|
v
Super Street Fighter 4 Ultra Arcade Edition (Okay this one I made up)

As you can see from my epic charting skills the number on the Street Fighter game does not change. The progressing is different, the game stays the same but with tweaks.

Those tweaks make a huge difference for competitive players. I'm not one myself, but I love the genre and watch tournaments. There is a reason Tier Lists exist.

 

[Caliostro]

You clearly never played an SF game in your life.

SF gets a significant change with each title. The number doesn't change because there are no significant core gameplay changes, it just adds to the previous title.

For instances, SFII to SFIII (Yes, I'm aware there was Alpha/Zero in between... We do not talk about it) changed a lot. The cast changed entirely, the game engine changed to the far superior CPS III engine which allowed bilateral 2D sprites (instead of mirroring them), it introduced a number of different mechanics that didn't appear in SFII (parry system, no blocking in the air, damage was completely reworks, you can select supers...etc).

SFIII itself has 3 iterations: New Generation, Second Impact and Third Strike. These don't change the core dynamics and mechanics, but simply improve upon them. Balance is tweaked, new characters and content are introduced, graphics are "cleaned up", maybe tweaked a bit too, like the HUD... etc. But the base is the same.

Then we got SFIV. SFIV, again, is a complete rework from SFIII. The game engine is completely different, being rendered completely in 3D (even if it does play in 2D), it does away with the parry system in lieu of the Force Attack mechanic, the story and cast are completely different again, being "located" time-line wise between SFII and SFIII, reintroducing a lot of cast members, the mechanics change, it's the first street fighter (IIRC) with online multiplayer...etc.

SFIV, however, is getting it's own iterations: SFIV (dubbed Vanilla), Super Street Fighter IV (dubbed Chocolate... don't ask), and now Arcade Edition. It's always the same game, it's just constantly tweaked and added onto.

SSFIV adds a LOT of cast members to SFIV, it changes the PP/BP online system, it received a lot of tweaks to the online in general, balance changes, etc. One could argue whether the balance is better in Arcade Edition or SSFIV, but AE brought 4 new characters, a MASSIVE and much appreciated revamp of the replay system, a few extra tweaks, and was only priced at 15 bucks. PC users (like myself) got a particularly huge boost from it, since we never got SSFIV, so we got AE + SSFIV at roughly 30 bucks.

Also we gotta keep in mind SF is the de facto leader and benchmark of all fighting games, and has been for a few decades for a good reason.

It ain't perfect, but compared to CoD and Madden junk, I'd say it's far more worthy of my money.

 

[Jakub324]

I have one fighting game (Deadliest Warrior) and that's all I need. They all have to much in common with JRPGs usually, anyway. So no, I wouldn't.

 

[Overseer76]

While I appreciate having the ability to visit different eras in a Street Fighter Game's evolution (Remember when Chun-Li's fireballs looked like fire [SFII:Hyperfighting]? Or didn't exist at all [SFII:Champion Edition]?), I am left to wonder if Capcom even knows how to produce DLC.

I'm thinking of the upcoming Dead Rising 2: Off the Record featuring Frank West in the lead role, one new environment, a few new Zombie-killing constructs... and nothing else! It's the same game with what would be DLC Add-Ons from any other studio!

I understand that movies and video games are never truly finished, but Capcom (especially) shouldn't be trying to convince us that their updates, tweaks, re-imaginings and alternative presentations are entirely new things.

Also, the fact that SFII, SFII:CE, SFII':HF, SSFII, and SSFII:T (to pick on one fighting game DNA thread) all exist is confusing to anyone attempting to list all the versions of the game(s) or track their favorite character/moveset.

And on the subject of SF, why are certain companies afraid of the number three? Four I understand, but three? This year alone there are more than fifteen games being released with the number three in their titles (and a few more that are the third in their series [Deus Ex, etc.]), but SF went through four revisions and a haitus before III came out and Valve hasn't made a part 3 of anything yet (Half-Life, HL2, HL2:Ep1, HL2:Ep2, L4D, L4D2, Portal, Portal 2, Team Fortress, TF2...)

Whatever...

 

[Overseer76]

Oh, and to answer the original question: Personally I don't compete in tourneys or anything, so I'll try to get the most up-to-date version of a game when I get around to buying it, but I won't upgrade any further unless I REALLY want to play as some new character or have seen the mechanics/balance to have vastly improved. Even then, I won't pay full price.

 

[hoboman29]

I picked no but I would given certain circumstances such as major fixes and balancing but for a few new characters and stages no