By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Darth Vader also on the X360 version!

im glad that u people feel happy that namco knows how to steal ur money :)



Around the Network
naznatips said:
I'd care if the game wasn't worthless. A fighting game with no balance is trash.

Nice Trolling admin

 



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

 

 


darklich13 said:
naznatips said:
I'd care if the game wasn't worthless. A fighting game with no balance is trash.

Nice Trolling admin

 

 

It's not trolling to give an opinion on a game, then defend it. Read forum rules on substance.  Your post however had none.



naznatips said:
Sansui said:
naznatips said:
I'd care if the game wasn't worthless. A fighting game with no balance is trash.

 

Thanks for the worthless commentary on an awesome game :P  Yoda might be severely unbalanced, I will grant you, but I'd take Soul Calibur any day over DOA or Tekken.

I'm looking forward to Street Fighter IV, maybe that's more up your alley in terms of balance.  Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur II have provided me far more hours of entertainment with friends than almost any other game, outside of a few FPS's I play on PC.

 

I'd take the original SC over any other technical fighter made in the last decade.  SCII made the game about gimmicks, and that's all it's been since then.  A giant gimmick.  SCIV just cemented that by not only being gimmicky but picking the gimmicks over balance.

Someone needs to play some more Virtua Fighter. VF is the king of having zero gimmicks and being all about gameplay and balance. If you play Virtua Fighter 5, you'll very quickly begin to notice that it has some of the most balanced characters of any fighting game in a long time (although there are still obvious disparities).

And besides, what do gimmicks and balance matter? Super Smash Bros. has tons of gimmicks and not very much balance, but it's still very fun. Of course you could claim that it doesn't matter since the game isn't realistic in the first place, but in the end, almost no fighting games are.

 



 

 

nice video, yoda must be on ps3 also, but i wont bother with any type of hack when i get the game



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Around the Network
MontanaHatchet said:
naznatips said:
Sansui said:
naznatips said:
I'd care if the game wasn't worthless. A fighting game with no balance is trash.

 

Thanks for the worthless commentary on an awesome game :P  Yoda might be severely unbalanced, I will grant you, but I'd take Soul Calibur any day over DOA or Tekken.

I'm looking forward to Street Fighter IV, maybe that's more up your alley in terms of balance.  Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur II have provided me far more hours of entertainment with friends than almost any other game, outside of a few FPS's I play on PC.

 

I'd take the original SC over any other technical fighter made in the last decade.  SCII made the game about gimmicks, and that's all it's been since then.  A giant gimmick.  SCIV just cemented that by not only being gimmicky but picking the gimmicks over balance.

Someone needs to play some more Virtua Fighter. VF is the king of having zero gimmicks and being all about gameplay and balance. If you play Virtua Fighter 5, you'll very quickly begin to notice that it has some of the most balanced characters of any fighting game in a long time (although there are still obvious disparities).

And besides, what do gimmicks and balance matter? Super Smash Bros. has tons of gimmicks and not very much balance, but it's still very fun. Of course you could claim that it doesn't matter since the game isn't realistic in the first place, but in the end, almost no fighting games are.

 

 

Not very much balance?  What?  Someone sucks at Brawl. There are a couple characters weaker than others, but none that are way too strong.  And the entire game is Nintendo characters, so how can any Nintendo character in the game be a gimmick? 

Soul Calibur took a technical fighter and added gimmick characters to sell it, regardless of their effect on the balance of the game, or how well they fit with the game.



naznatips said:
MontanaHatchet said:
naznatips said:
Sansui said:
naznatips said:
I'd care if the game wasn't worthless. A fighting game with no balance is trash.

 

Thanks for the worthless commentary on an awesome game :P  Yoda might be severely unbalanced, I will grant you, but I'd take Soul Calibur any day over DOA or Tekken.

I'm looking forward to Street Fighter IV, maybe that's more up your alley in terms of balance.  Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur II have provided me far more hours of entertainment with friends than almost any other game, outside of a few FPS's I play on PC.

 

I'd take the original SC over any other technical fighter made in the last decade.  SCII made the game about gimmicks, and that's all it's been since then.  A giant gimmick.  SCIV just cemented that by not only being gimmicky but picking the gimmicks over balance.

Someone needs to play some more Virtua Fighter. VF is the king of having zero gimmicks and being all about gameplay and balance. If you play Virtua Fighter 5, you'll very quickly begin to notice that it has some of the most balanced characters of any fighting game in a long time (although there are still obvious disparities).

And besides, what do gimmicks and balance matter? Super Smash Bros. has tons of gimmicks and not very much balance, but it's still very fun. Of course you could claim that it doesn't matter since the game isn't realistic in the first place, but in the end, almost no fighting games are.

 

 

Not very much balance?  What?  Someone sucks at Brawl. There are a couple characters weaker than others, but none that are way too strong.  And the entire game is Nintendo characters, so how can any Nintendo character in the game be a gimmick? 

Soul Calibur took a technical fighter and added gimmick characters to sell it, regardless of their effect on the balance of the game, or how well they fit with the game.

I must suck at Brawl. After all, I played against my friend who had EXACTLY the same skill level that I did (by the way, I'm making this scenario up), and somehow, he managed to beat me (very much so). I was using Donkey Kong, and he was using Wolf. I could have sworn that the characters were equal, but somehow I still got my ass handed to me. It must have been because I suck at Brawl. What wonderful logic.

And I'm not talking about the characters, but the entirety of the series is based on a gimmick. Everything about it. You have items, characters, stickers, stages, etc...all based on previous Nintendo games or even games from third parties. Yep, they actually broke the golden rule of the game and added two characters which consistently appear on rival platforms. Snake was acceptable since he was asked for by his respective creator, but Sonic? Talk about satisfying the fanboys.

What's wrong with gimmick characters though? We had Link, who fit the theme of the game perfectly. We had Spawn, who came from an alternate comic universe (thus we can say that the time lines are different and it makes sense). And then we had Heieachi (spelling?), who traveled back in time (pretty stupid, I would have picked a different character). If you really wanted a technical fighter without stupid characters, you would buy a Virtua Fighter game.

Besides, the Star Wars characters make perfect sense. Did George Lucas ever specify when the Star Wars universe took place relative to our own? Just because Yoda and Darth Vader are "OMGZ TEH FUTURISTIC!!!" doesn't mean that they don't fit.

 



 

 

naznatips said:
MontanaHatchet said:
naznatips said:
Sansui said:
naznatips said:
I'd care if the game wasn't worthless. A fighting game with no balance is trash.

 

Thanks for the worthless commentary on an awesome game :P  Yoda might be severely unbalanced, I will grant you, but I'd take Soul Calibur any day over DOA or Tekken.

I'm looking forward to Street Fighter IV, maybe that's more up your alley in terms of balance.  Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur II have provided me far more hours of entertainment with friends than almost any other game, outside of a few FPS's I play on PC.

 

I'd take the original SC over any other technical fighter made in the last decade.  SCII made the game about gimmicks, and that's all it's been since then.  A giant gimmick.  SCIV just cemented that by not only being gimmicky but picking the gimmicks over balance.

Someone needs to play some more Virtua Fighter. VF is the king of having zero gimmicks and being all about gameplay and balance. If you play Virtua Fighter 5, you'll very quickly begin to notice that it has some of the most balanced characters of any fighting game in a long time (although there are still obvious disparities).

And besides, what do gimmicks and balance matter? Super Smash Bros. has tons of gimmicks and not very much balance, but it's still very fun. Of course you could claim that it doesn't matter since the game isn't realistic in the first place, but in the end, almost no fighting games are.

 

 

Not very much balance?  What?  Someone sucks at Brawl. There are a couple characters weaker than others, but none that are way too strong.  And the entire game is Nintendo characters, so how can any Nintendo character in the game be a gimmick? 

Soul Calibur took a technical fighter and added gimmick characters to sell it, regardless of their effect on the balance of the game, or how well they fit with the game.

Soul calibur III didn't have gimmick characters. Did you hate that one as well?

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

naznatips said:
MontanaHatchet said:
naznatips said:
Sansui said:
naznatips said:
I'd care if the game wasn't worthless. A fighting game with no balance is trash.

 

Thanks for the worthless commentary on an awesome game :P  Yoda might be severely unbalanced, I will grant you, but I'd take Soul Calibur any day over DOA or Tekken.

I'm looking forward to Street Fighter IV, maybe that's more up your alley in terms of balance.  Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur II have provided me far more hours of entertainment with friends than almost any other game, outside of a few FPS's I play on PC.

 

I'd take the original SC over any other technical fighter made in the last decade.  SCII made the game about gimmicks, and that's all it's been since then.  A giant gimmick.  SCIV just cemented that by not only being gimmicky but picking the gimmicks over balance.

Someone needs to play some more Virtua Fighter. VF is the king of having zero gimmicks and being all about gameplay and balance. If you play Virtua Fighter 5, you'll very quickly begin to notice that it has some of the most balanced characters of any fighting game in a long time (although there are still obvious disparities).

And besides, what do gimmicks and balance matter? Super Smash Bros. has tons of gimmicks and not very much balance, but it's still very fun. Of course you could claim that it doesn't matter since the game isn't realistic in the first place, but in the end, almost no fighting games are.

 

 

Not very much balance?  What?  Someone sucks at Brawl. There are a couple characters weaker than others, but none that are way too strong.  And the entire game is Nintendo characters, so how can any Nintendo character in the game be a gimmick? 

Soul Calibur took a technical fighter and added gimmick characters to sell it, regardless of their effect on the balance of the game, or how well they fit with the game.

The solution seems very simple. Don't use the gimmick characters. I've put in hundreds of hours into Soul Calibur 2/3 and I can say without a doubt that the game is very technical using the core characters. We had a group that used a wide variety of characters and if you find a character that has a clear and unfair advantage you don't use that character. People talk shit about fighters because of one or two characters and completely disregard their fighting system. I myself have not seen a problem with the Soul Calibur fighting system but I sure in hell will take the improved graphics if it means our fighting group has to disregard a couple of characters.

@nazna, to sum up, it sounds like you're overreacting. Also I do think you were trolling, because it's less to do with what you say (your opinion) but how you say it. You called a game worthless that many people like. You expect people to react posatively to that? You're still welcome to say it, but you're not going to make any friends that way.

 



MontanaHatchet said:

I must suck at Brawl. After all, I played against my friend who had EXACTLY the same skill level that I did (by the way, I'm making this scenario up), and somehow, he managed to beat me (very much so). I was using Donkey Kong, and he was using Wolf. I could have sworn that the characters were equal, but somehow I still got my ass handed to me. It must have been because I suck at Brawl. What wonderful logic.

And I'm not talking about the characters, but the entirety of the series is based on a gimmick. Everything about it. You have items, characters, stickers, stages, etc...all based on previous Nintendo games or even games from third parties. Yep, they actually broke the golden rule of the game and added two characters which consistently appear on rival platforms. Snake was acceptable since he was asked for by his respective creator, but Sonic? Talk about satisfying the fanboys.

What's wrong with gimmick characters though? We had Link, who fit the theme of the game perfectly. We had Spawn, who came from an alternate comic universe (thus we can say that the time lines are different and it makes sense). And then we had Heieachi (spelling?), who traveled back in time (pretty stupid, I would have picked a different character). If you really wanted a technical fighter without stupid characters, you would buy a Virtua Fighter game.

Besides, the Star Wars characters make perfect sense. Did George Lucas ever specify when the Star Wars universe took place relative to our own? Just because Yoda and Darth Vader are "OMGZ TEH FUTURISTIC!!!" doesn't mean that they don't fit.

 

Not sure why you even wrote the first paragraph when you admit you made it up... so yeah... we'll just move onto the second.

I agree you could call Sonic and Snake gimmicks sorta.  Definitely added as fanservice, but neither is grossly unbalanced.  still, as you said, the whole game is a "gimmick."  It's an entire game based on fanservice, so adding more isn't a big deal. 

Soul Calibur started as a good technical fighter with great balance. I wanted it to stay that, but they broke that to focus on selling the game through side characters.  And no, Star Wars characters don't fit.  Not because of the time as much as the setting.  They stuck Star Wars characters in a world full of magic and martial arts.  And btw, a lightsaber should cut THROUGH swords. >_>