Who Makes The Best Fighters?

Brawlers and Beatemups

Who's Fighters Are Best?

Capcom
21
81%
SNK
5
19%
Sega Sammy
0
No votes
Namco
0
No votes
Midway
0
No votes
Other
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 26

User avatar
bawitback
64-bit
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:29 pm

Post by bawitback »

Pullmyfinger wrote:I was all SNK until KOF 98, I hated that one, I still play my share of KOF once in a while but it's not the same, I liked MOTW and ROTD, I wish Capcom released a new Street Fighter, I've played the hell out of third strike, their most recent fighter I played was Evolution and it sucked, felt like playing MUGEN


you need to play KoF 2006, excellent 3-D conversion from Maximum Impact. Capcom (Street Fighter EX) needs to take tips from SNK... :D
User avatar
durkada
64-bit
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:46 am

Post by durkada »

I chose Capcom because of their variety and overall quality. One of the things I admire about the company is their ability to rehash a series. They are comfortable enough with their franchises that they do not have the need to "update" the formula for modern audiences -- or rather, what they suppose modern audiences would want. Many people complain about the Street Fighter series in that nothing is really advanced -- the graphics are nicer, the gameplay is tighter, but the series is not evolving. For my own part, this makes me happy. When you have a franchies and a name, which is popular because the formula itself is a success, why mess with it? Too many games have tried and this has led to immense disappointment. Every Bomberman game which deviates from the SNES/Saturn formula, tends to be a disaster. Worms 3D is nowhere near as enjoyable as the 2D experience. Capcom may offer new gloss to old titles, but thats really all I'm demanding. I think that speaks of quality. For variety, I simply love the fact that you have their stable of Street Fighter games, and again, you'll find games such as Powerstone in their roster -- not to mention the hundred or so other strange games which are not Fighters (One Piece Mansion, anyone?). When they do strange things with the series, at least they make it obvious that the experience you get will not be the classic formula. Pocket Fighter is a title I enjoy, immensely, even if it doesn't require the same level of dediaction as the Street Fighters, et al. -- and nothing about the title would suggest it would.

I'm glad to hear that SNK is doing well. Although, for all purposes, I never particularly liked their Fighters. The character design disappointed me -- purely an aesthetic thang.

What surprises me about the list is that the most popular series, even amongst many hardcore fighter gamers, don't carry their companies to the limelight. Virtua Fighter is considered by many to be near perfection as a technical fighter. The Tekken series is an arcade favorite. Soul Calibur... easily one of my favorite games, regardless of genre (Ivy fetish aside), is considered a high-water mark for consol fighters. And yet no one here seems to be saying Namco or Sega are the best.
Ivo
Next-Gen
Posts: 3627
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:24 am
Location: Portugal

I'm not a fan of fighters

Post by Ivo »

But the only series I actually liked used to be MK (MK 2 was the best - I didn't really move into the 3D ones).

However, I've always heard that MK games are crappy (MK1 wasn't very good, and I guess MK 3 and onwards are not stellar either) - particularly for competitions. I played mostly single player except with MK 2 (and never reached much seriousness anyway) so if anyone can explain that I'd like to hear! Are the characters not balanced at high level play?

Ivo.
User avatar
SegaVega
24-bit
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:19 pm

Re: I'm not a fan of fighters

Post by SegaVega »

Ivo wrote:But the only series I actually liked used to be MK (MK 2 was the best - I didn't really move into the 3D ones).

However, I've always heard that MK games are crappy (MK1 wasn't very good, and I guess MK 3 and onwards are not stellar either) - particularly for competitions. I played mostly single player except with MK 2 (and never reached much seriousness anyway) so if anyone can explain that I'd like to hear! Are the characters not balanced at high level play?

Ivo.


I've been playing Street Fighter (and many others) professionally for over ten years now, so I think I could explain this: Mortal Kombat, whichever incarnation, lacks heavy depth and balance. Forgive me if this becomes an incoherent rant.

1.) The structure of the original two MK games is very rigid and not submissive to high competition. Street Fighter, King of Fighters, Samurai Shodown and those, all have elements that better consider "what happens next" after any sort of return. With Mortal Kombat, you're usually left trying to connect with a single attack, with little left afterwards save for rapid "sweeping" while your opponent is in recovery. In MK1+2, there's no stable "jump-in" combos (where you start with a jumping attack, following into a combo), or solid uses of "two-in-ones" (where you immediately link into a special). Basically, any sort of attack is followed by something that seems poorly crafted, unprofessional, unintended, or by nothing at all.

2.) The characters in Mortal Kombat are unbalanced. Liu Kang's high and low fireballs are mis-timed, and if used properly (i.e. improperly) destroy half of the characters. It's not like Sagat in SFII. Against a "good" Liu Kang, you'll rarely be in a place to jump a fireball without being hit with a jumping kick. There are too many different responses to different projectiles (electrocution, knocked back, frozen), and in instances are each timed slower, so with many characters you can't return a projectile against him. There's often no means to fight it. This is just the beginning of that example, and just one of many characters with balance issues. There's also some hugely cheap,"rapid" tactics I won't get into.

3.) "High+Low" attack buttons are pretty useless in comparison to the depth that "Heavy, Medium, Jab" affords. Of course some great 2D fighters don't have that standard, but MK's "High+Low" attacks offer no real competitive use. The Uppercuts and Roundhouses are not very conductive for high play, as they often result with the complaints in #1 above. The buttons in Mortal Kombat are just used to seperate moves inputs, for fatalites, and for continuing the "kombos" in MK3, which are really just hit-or-miss action scenes. Other games use their ranged-buttons for leading into something, that being whichever the player decides upon.

4.) MK3's combos. MK1 and 2 were acceptable without elaborate combos because no one played them for depth, only for the then-fresh gore. MK3 needed combos to complete, but they proved to be just rythmic button presses. Street Fighter, in almost every instance, allows the player to alter the combos' length without being screwed by stopping a combo.

5.) The arcade button layout:

............<HP>......<HK>

...................<BL>

............<LP>......<LK>

...<RUN>

:?

6.) Just imagine I could come up with a million more reasons, because I could.

If you watch a real game of Super Turbo or 3rd Strike, you'll see an unrivaled level of combat and precision. It starts with "footsies" and then erupts into proper combos and juggles, supers, cancels, counters, etc. I like Mortal Kombat, I still play it often, but as far as competitive play is concerned there are too many games that have taken it ten steps further. For casual fighting fans, Mortal Kombat is fun, and with continuous play you can definitely become better at it, but only to a sharp, sharp point. You then begin dealing with the imbalances and the glitches and you're forced to play it a single set way, with little option.

So that's some of why you won't find Mortal Kombat at the "Super Battle Opera World Tournament" in Japan. :)
Step By Step
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:04 pm

Post by Step By Step »

With Namco, I can only think of Tekken.
With Midway, I can only think of Mortal Kombat.
Sega Sammy, I don't really know, but I'm going to guess it had something to do with the Virtua Fighter games.
With Capcom, I know of Street Fighter and the Vampire series.
With SNK, I know of Samurai Spirits, Art of Fighting, Fatal Fury, Last Blade, all of which have some part in the King of Fighter series, I think.

Other notable fighting game series I can remember playing are Battle Arena Toshinden, Pyschic Force, Killer Instinct, and Asura(?).

All in all, the games list above are pretty sexy and I wouldn't mind being stuck with just playing one of those series, though if I had to choose one, I would probably go for Street Fighter. If I had to choose a single fighting company to stick with, I would go with SNK since they had more quality fighting games.

On a similar note, DoA and Soul Calibur(?) make me sick.
Post Reply