| mibuokami said:
I do not believe depth = quality as an argument but I certainly feel that SFIV is the more technical of the 2 fighters. Having been a fighter fanatic for a long time now, I will acknowledge that I am slightly biased against the untraditional brawl, but the concept behind Brawl and SFIV is completely different. Even if you add every single factor brawl has in fighting style, physic, mastery of characters, stages and items; the amount of thing you need to memorize to completely master the game is not a tenth what is needed to master SFIV. Where as brawl may asked an elite player to memorize the priorities of all items, games like SFIV (and Tekken / SCIV etc) demands a tournament level player to remember the priorities of every move in a character’s arsenal when compare to their opponent, what can override another move, what can counter another move, the specific frame advantage some move have either before or after an attack, which character has an inherent advantage / disadvantage over you and much much more before you can contemplate making your way to the top. Take Soul Calibur IV as an example. It is widely consider less technical than Namco’s other franchise Tekken and Capcom’s SFIV, yet fans of the series (myself included) will gather relevant data on frame rate for every character’s every move just to study frame advantage and that is only the FIRST thing you need to learn to be tournament worthy. Brawl is no where near as technical as a traditional fighter, even the most un-technical of the crowd.
|
I have said previously that I do not think Brawl is as deep as SFIV (I haven't played the latter, and it almost certainly isn't anyway). I'm not making a comparison between them. I am saying that Brawl cannot be measured, in terms of depth, using the metric for traditional fighters like Street Fighter and Virtua Fighter.
