Western Media and VF4 Evolution

[ QUOTE ]
SummAh said:
i don't think he is indicating SC2 is a bad game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read again, I never said he was.

 

[ QUOTE ]
but you're making it sound as if : SC2 is a bad game

[/ QUOTE ]

Read again, I said he's not.

If u thought I meant it as ' u're wrong'.
Plz dont'~

 

If making it sound = indicating. Then I guess you're right.

P.S. naaaah forget it !!!

 

Hey, just remember that the original Soul Calibur had a quest like mode...so EVO is immitating that /versus/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

i explained it to u in irc

n u agreed

so i cannot be bothered typing out the same thing again~

( i am so lazy..I cannot even be bothered to copy n paste, old friend haha)

 

You old piece of shit Heheh. God bless you homie.

 

Alright then, I'LL say it: SC2 isn't a bad game, but it's nowhere near on par with Evo.

It's like they took a step backward (i'm comparing PS2 versions of both games).

Characters dodging horizontal attacks - passing right through the weapon, overall terrible hit detection, massive slowdowns, substantial clipping problems (look at Mitsurugi's 1P shoulder guard, if you can see it through his arm), questionable character design (e.g. Heihachi, Talim, Spawn, Necrid, Link), tedious and useless Weapon Master mode, no CG endings (not a flaw, but why remove them for the sequel?), unplayable characters in the game, pushover AI (you can literally mash B and win on all difficulties), too easy GI's, and the game speed is way too fast.

Aside from that, it's tight.

 

Well, the sidestepping is an issue IMHO...it makes the game too damn chaotic. GI is useless at high level play though, you miss and your at like a 40 frame disadvantage.

 

Hum.

[ QUOTE ]
Aeon said:
Characters dodging horizontal attacks - passing right through the weapon, overall terrible hit detection, massive slowdowns, substantial clipping problems (look at Mitsurugi's 1P shoulder guard, if you can see it through his arm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Noted, but then again clipping occurs with certain items on characters (VF characters don't have enough default accessories to clip in the first place), and you can dodge horizontal attacks in VF as well. I don't see why you're complaining about this in SC and not in VF.

[ QUOTE ]
questionable character design (e.g. Heihachi, Talim, Spawn, Necrid, Link), tedious and useless Weapon Master mode, no CG endings (not a flaw, but why remove them for the sequel?), unplayable characters in the game, pushover AI (you can literally mash B and win on all difficulties), too easy GI's, and the game speed is way too fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm subjective much? I don't see a problem with Heihachi, Talim, Spawn or Link's character design (I don't like Necrid), and neither do other people... then again there are people who think that Virtua Fighter's character designs are plain and boring.

Weapon Master mode? Tedious, sure. Useless? Just as useless as Kumite mode and Quest mode are. Again, it's a subjective topic. And WTF with the CG endings? Soul Calibur had the EXACT SAME hand drawn endings that are in SC2 plus a short CG movie ending for arcade version that's in the console version.

And who exactly are these unplayable characters? There is no one that is deemed unplayable in the game. Sure, there is a visible tier of characters, but there is no one who has been said to throw off the balance so much in the game that they should be banned.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Characters dodging horizontal attacks - passing right through the weapon, overall terrible hit detection, massive slowdowns, substantial clipping problems (look at Mitsurugi's 1P shoulder guard, if you can see it through his arm), questionable character design (e.g. Heihachi, Talim, Spawn, Necrid, Link), tedious and useless Weapon Master mode, no CG endings (not a flaw, but why remove them for the sequel?), unplayable characters in the game, pushover AI (you can literally mash B and win on all difficulties), too easy GI's, and the game speed is way too fast.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the only comment you made about the game that I expect a game reviewer to comment about is the easy A.I. The rest of your comments (clipping, slowdown, and hit collision - all of which appear in Evo as well - notwithstanding) are primarily intermediate to advanced flaws in the fighting game system, and I think it's impractical for us to expect a video game reviewer who only plays a game for a few days or weeks to uncover these kinds of issues. These guys just don't have the time to dissect any game the way we would.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Reno said:
Noted, but then again clipping occurs with certain items on characters (VF characters don't have enough default accessories to clip in the first place), and you can dodge horizontal attacks in VF as well. I don't see why you're complaining about this in SC and not in VF.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because characters in VF don't dodge through horizontal attacks like they do in SC2. Right through the weapon. It's actually pretty fun to watch.

And please; the clipping in SC2 is light years beyond the little there is in Evo. And what about the slowdowns?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see a problem with Heihachi, Talim, Spawn or Link's character design (I don't like Necrid), and neither do other people... then again there are people who think that Virtua Fighter's character designs are plain and boring.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how exactly is that supposed to affect my opinion of SC2 character designs? I think Talim is a joke, and she's not alone as Necrid, Spawn, Link and Heihachi join her in the comic relief category. None of those characters belong in SC.

[ QUOTE ]

Weapon Master mode? Tedious, sure. Useless? Just as useless as Kumite mode and Quest mode are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know that i agree here. The tournaments in Quest mode are far superior in terms of immersiveness than any of the dungeon crawling crap they've got going on in WMM.... may be subjective there, but the objective reality is that there's far more to do in Quest than there is to do in WMM.

[ QUOTE ]

And WTF with the CG endings? Soul Calibur had the EXACT SAME hand drawn endings that are in SC2 plus a short CG movie ending for arcade version that's in the console version.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but there's no CG ending in SC2 while there was one in SC1, right? And didn't i say this wasn't a flaw? I don't remember. It was a long time ago. Like 2 posts or something.

[ QUOTE ]

And who exactly are these unplayable characters? There is no one that is deemed unplayable in the game. Sure, there is a visible tier of characters, but there is no one who has been said to throw off the balance so much in the game that they should be banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes, the unplayable characters are Berzerker (Rock), Assassin (Hwang), and Lizardman (don't bother telling me about 1 mission in WMM, that doesn't count in my book). That's what i'm referring to. Although it's interesting that you inferred i meant that there are SC2 characters so horrendous that one should not even bother to play them. The "tiers" aren't so apparent in Evo, if they exist at all.

 

[ QUOTE ]
sixtwo said:

I think the only comment you made about the game that I expect a game reviewer to comment about is the easy A.I. The rest of your comments (clipping, slowdown, and hit collision - all of which appear in Evo as well - notwithstanding) are primarily intermediate to advanced flaws in the fighting game system, and I think it's impractical for us to expect a video game reviewer who only plays a game for a few days or weeks to uncover these kinds of issues. These guys just don't have the time to dissect any game the way we would.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hmm... there is some clipping in Evo, and it definitely sucks, but if anything the hit detection was vastly improved over VF4 and i have yet to see any slowdown, save for the occasional sputter before the match starts, which is a bit off-putting. Nothing during the round and certainly nothing on par with the frame rate drops in SC2. But it's there in Evo as well. But pick Ivy and Kilik and go to the windmill stage, do lots of fancy moves and see what i'm talking about in SC2. And it's not a particularly rare occurrence either.

With respect to reviewers, i don't expect them to find any fault with SC2 whatsoever. They'll tell everyone it's the "greatest fighter ever made", and most people, for whatever reason - be it *gasp* fanboyism, genuine like for the game, inexperience with other fighters, what have you - will agree. Which is pretty sad, really, because i consider it to be slightly less than adequate as a sequel to SC, although it's pretty solid as a fighting game overall. The reviewers will tell them that because that's what most people want to hear, bottom line. Nobody wants to hear that their favorite game may be all that great. In fact, how dare i inject some objectivity into video game review!!?!?! Shame on me.

 

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, how dare i inject some objectivity into video game review!!?!?! Shame on me.


[/ QUOTE ]

You'll discover that rarely is there any objectivity in video game reviews, or for that matter any critique of creative entertainment; how could there be? Video games are not scientific, and people will have an emotional response to different things, it can't be helped. If you like a game, support it, and hope it succeeds. But don't try to place logistical justifications on something that isn't logically formulated in the first place.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Aeon said:
And please; the clipping in SC2 is light years beyond the little there is in Evo. And what about the slowdowns?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the nature of the clipping in SC2 was totally different from Evo I'd agree, but it comes from the same problem of having random clothing accessories clip through things. It's only more apparent in SC2 because most of the costumes in the game are pretty elaborate compared to Evo. However to fault Namco for not doing anything to fix it while not doing the same to AM2 is IMO not fair. I wouldn't expect either company to dedicate any processing power to ensure that clothing or anything else non-vital to the game doesn't clip.

Slowdown I concured with, I didn't want to bother saying "I agree". I figured my silence on that would be enough /versus/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]

And how exactly is that supposed to affect my opinion of SC2 character designs? I think Talim is a joke, and she's not alone as Necrid, Spawn, Link and Heihachi join her in the comic relief category. None of those characters belong in SC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I not say that was a subjective thing? The point I was making is that you shouldn't knock a game on something that's so subjective as "art". Everyone is going to think differently about character designs for both games. To say that one is better than the other because of said design is going to lead to a lot of arguments.... like this one /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Besides, there are things that Evo is way better than SC2 in that you could've brought up /versus/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know that i agree here. The tournaments in Quest mode are far superior in terms of immersiveness than any of the dungeon crawling crap they've got going on in WMM.... may be subjective there, but the objective reality is that there's far more to do in Quest than there is to do in WMM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far more to do? Uh, like what? As far as I'm concerned the only thing Quest has over WMM is continuity. WMM actually ends while Quest doesn't. In both you're still playing various "missions" with different objectives and rules and in both you're buying items to customize the game. To me there is no difference except in the way the two modes look.

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if i'm wrong, but there's no CG ending in SC2 while there was one in SC1, right? And didn't i say this wasn't a flaw? I don't remember. It was a long time ago. Like 2 posts or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, there's no CG ending in SC1 at all. In fact, SC1 is completely devoid of any CG movies.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes, the unplayable characters are Berzerker (Rock), Assassin (Hwang), and Lizardman (don't bother telling me about 1 mission in WMM, that doesn't count in my book). That's what i'm referring to. Although it's interesting that you inferred i meant that there are SC2 characters so horrendous that one should not even bother to play them. The "tiers" aren't so apparent in Evo, if they exist at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it was a simple misunderstanding of what you said in your first post. When I read "unplayable" I thought of that as "not playable because they are banned for being broken or no one uses them because they completely suck". And tiers are pretty apparent in Evo (at least to me), you only need to look at VF.net statistics for that. It becomes very clear who are considered the best characters in the game by players.

 

Well, i'm one of those people who doesn't think "everything is subjective". I think that's a copout, really. I believe there's an objective reality about which we formulate opinions, and the extent to which our opinions approximate that reality is governed by how careful and responsible we are when we formulate them.

So with respect to "logistical justifications" - whatever that means - i think there's probably some support for the notion that a responsible person interested only in the evaluation of the product would divorce emotional reaction from the equation.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Reno said:
If the nature of the clipping in SC2 was totally different from Evo I'd agree, but it comes from the same problem of having random clothing accessories clip through things. It's only more apparent in SC2 because most of the costumes in the game are pretty elaborate compared to Evo. However to fault Namco for not doing anything to fix it while not doing the same to AM2 is IMO not fair. I wouldn't expect either company to dedicate any processing power to ensure that clothing or anything else non-vital to the game doesn't clip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the cause of clipping wouldn't necessarily change from game to game, maybe you're right. The degree to which models are clipping probably would change, and i'm arguing that it does. You can argue that it's because of "more elaborate costumes", which i think may sound good but is complete baloney, especially considering all the items and such that characters can don in Evo. I also conceded that clipping does occur in Evo, but nearly as much as in SC2. BTW, what are you basing your observations on? Do you also own both games? Which version of SC2 do you have?


[ QUOTE ]

id I not say that was a subjective thing? The point I was making is that you shouldn't knock a game on something that's so subjective as "art".

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? OK. I'll knock it not for lackluster "art". but for unbalanced character design. Have you played Heihachi yet?

[ QUOTE ]
Far more to do? Uh, like what? As far as I'm concerned the only thing Quest has over WMM is continuity. WMM actually ends while Quest doesn't. In both you're still playing various "missions" with different objectives and rules and in both you're buying items to customize the game. To me there is no difference except in the way the two modes look.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's absurd, and you know it. Besides the fact that WMM "ends", how 'bout the number of items there are to unlock? How 'bout the fact that Quest mode isn't complete until it's completed with every character, as opposed to any character? C'mon buddy, you're smarter than this.

[ QUOTE ]

Nope, there's no CG ending in SC1 at all. In fact, SC1 is completely devoid of any CG movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, save the openings. Evo doesn't have CG endings either. None of which i EVER considered to be a big deal, as i have mentioned more than once.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it was a simple misunderstanding of what you said in your first post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it was.

[ QUOTE ]
When I read "unplayable" I thought of that as "not playable because they are banned for being broken or no one uses them because they completely suck".

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you did.

[ QUOTE ]
And tiers are pretty apparent in Evo (at least to me), you only need to look at VF.net statistics for that. It becomes very clear who are considered the best characters in the game by players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go that far. There's no real clear delineation in Evo, and i would argue that there really isn't one in SC2 either, although there are characters in both that are fairly abusable. The current consensus among SCers is that Cervantes can spam one or two moves and win easily, as can Taki and maybe Ivy. Namco has never been big on balance. Just ask anyone that's played in a tournament against a Mishima.

I've seen VF.net statistics, but those stats reflect popularity, and nothing more. And those stats have been that way basically for every iteration of the game. Akira, Lau, Jacky, Kage are always the most used.

 

[ QUOTE ]
So with respect to "logistical justifications" - whatever that means - i think there's probably some support for the notion that a responsible person interested only in the evaluation of the product would divorce emotional reaction from the equation.


[/ QUOTE ]

To a small extent, possibly. But when the evaluation of a product entails whether or not that product is "fun," there is an element of subjectivity that will outweigh any objective attribute you could apply to that product. I don't care how more technically sound VF is, or how quicker the loading time is, or how the clipping is kept to a comparable minimum; if a reviewer has more fun playing SC2 he's going to say it's a better game. I don't think there's anything tragically wrong about that, no matter how much I may disagree with the conclusion. Subjectivity isn't a copout; it's human nature. To think that one's personal preferences with regard to enjoyment should be swayed by purely objective factors is ridiculous.

It is not, contrary to your intimation, a reviewer's job to point you as a consumer toward the most "objectively sound" product, although I admit it should be a factor in an overall review of any game. I think a purely objective approach would offer nothing but the most base obsevations, which isn't really meaningful at all.

 

[ QUOTE ]
sixtwo said:

To a small extent, possibly. But when the evaluation of a product entails whether or not that product is "fun," there is an element of subjectivity that will outweigh any objective attribute you could apply to that product. I don't care how more technically sound VF is, or how quicker the loading time is, or how the clipping is kept to a comparable minimum; if a reviewer has more fun playing SC2 he's going to say it's a better game. I don't think there's anything tragically wrong about that, no matter how much I may disagree with the conclusion. Subjectivity isn't a copout; it's human nature. To think that one's personal preferences with regard to enjoyment should be swayed by purely objective factors is ridiculous.

It is not, contrary to your intimation, a reviewer's job to point you as a consumer toward the most "objectively sound" product, although I admit it should be a factor in an overall review of any game. I think a purely objective approach would offer nothing but the most base obsevations, which isn't really meaningful at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're refuting your own argument. If everything is subjective and no one person's subjective experience can be faithfully similar to another's, then the only thing a reviewer can usefully do is present the review in an objective fashion. Otherwise, the review itself is useless. His/her emotions while playing the game are meaningless, because that's no fair approximation of how you'll feel when YOU play it. In fact, most gamers will probably tell you that they don't trust reviews; and when they do read them, it's to get facts about the game.

In no way, shape or form did i say that one's opinion should change in the light of objective facts. That's silly. A person's opinion is formed as a reaction TO those objective facts. I don't play a game with my eyes closed, say it's fun, then open them and say the graphics suck therefore i don't like it. C'mon, man. Really. Graphics, crappy or otherwise, clipping, gameplay, are all taken into account. IF a reviewer has more fun playing SC2 and can't tell me why, then his opinion means squat (if it even meant anything in the first place).

 

[ QUOTE ]
You're refuting your own argument. If everything is subjective and no one person's subjective experience can be faithfully similar to another's, then the only thing a reviewer can usefully do is present the review in an objective fashion. Otherwise, the review itself is useless. His/her emotions while playing the game are meaningless, because that's no fair approximation of how you'll feel when YOU play it. In fact, most gamers will probably tell you that they don't trust reviews; and when they do read them, it's to get facts about the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how I'm refuting my argument at all. Nowhere did I say everything is subjective. In fact, I conceded that there should be a level of objective evaluation in all reviews. Also, I never said that one's subjective experience was unique; nothing could be further from the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
In no way, shape or form did i say that one's opinion should change in the light of objective facts. That's silly. A person's opinion is formed as a reaction TO those objective facts. I don't play a game with my eyes closed, say it's fun, then open them and say the graphics suck therefore i don't like it. C'mon, man. Really. Graphics, crappy or otherwise, clipping, gameplay, are all taken into account. IF a reviewer has more fun playing SC2 and can't tell me why, then his opinion means squat (if it even meant anything in the first place).


[/ QUOTE ]

If there are any reviews in any major (or even minor) print publication that you feel are written in an appropriately objective way, I would earnestly be interested to know which publications those are. Further, I'd like to know what objective factors you think are accecptable for review, and what subjective factors aren't. Also, I'm curious as to whether or not you think other forms of creative entertainment like music, movies, or literature are equally subject to objective evaluations. While I don't dispute that there are objective factors to all of the above, and that they are important to a degree, I must question how valid they are when compared to personal preference, which I would easily claim the most important factor in any of them.

 

Like i said, if a reviewer can tell me he has a strong opinion one way or another and can't tell me why, can't tell me on what criteria or phenomena he based that opinion, then the review is worthless. Fact is, there are very, VERY few strongly opinionated reviewers that approach any title objectively and are able to show me the issues on which they're erecting their opinion. Tom Chick's review of MOO3 comes to mind, and was fairly objective despite the mighty bandwagon that had been rolling for months beforehand.

Ultimately, taking stock in any review boils down to whether or not i'm willing to trust the reviewer's judgment. Most of the time i'm not. But when i can see that the reviewer isn't one of those "the game is just fun" people, i'm more willing to suspend my cynicism. I mean, Satanic worship is no doubt fun for some people, but that doesn't legitimize the opinion. Some stuff inherently sucks.

Of course, that's just my opinion. /versus/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I don't know that there are "subjective factors" i would say are okay for reviewing... i don't even know what "subjective factors" refers to... but "fun factor", being the penultimate 'subjective factor', i guesss, i think is bunk to review. E.g. Gamespot's "reviewers' tilt"... c'mon. I don't give a shit what tilt the guy brings to the review. He could have been angry that day, or drunk, or annoyed at having to review a game instead of watching Will and Grace or whatever. Graphics, the specifics of gameplay, Sound... all these things can be reviewed objectively. Either the game looks good or it looks like crap. We've seen enough video games by now to know what looks good and what doesn't. Sure, the line is in different places for lots of folks, but it's there for everyone. So you don't go into a review and say "the game looks awesome!" when you're talking about MOO3. Instead, you present screenshots, talk about polygon counts or the nature of voxels and how outdated they are, then offer an opinion about whether it works for the game. I can agree with that opinion or not, but that doesn't matter. The objective facts are there for me to make my own predetermination. That's what i think reviews are good for.

Literature, movies, and so forth... i think all these media are subject to objective analysis (heh) in much the same way. I can tell you about the types of special effects used in the movie, or whether Storm's accent made a return, or whether the storyline made any sense. But if you want to see the movie and judge for yourself, what you're probably not interested in is whether i thought the movie was "great" or a "bummer". "Subjective factors" are useless to other's because they're easily influenced by lots of things that may have absolutely nothing to do with the product in question (hence the term "subjective"). Maybe my popcorn was too salty. Who knows?

Also, keep in mind that a video game isn't a work of art. It's a prodcut, with an assigned value by the producer. It's a consumer good. Appreciation of art is another issue, and far more subjective. Some people will tell you that everything is art, and everything therefore has subjective value. I think that's crap. Some stuff isn't art. But that's another discussion. /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif