best 2d fighter ever?

Look, I don't think you realize how much some of us in this discussion know about MvC2. I used to be an addict. I went to SRK.com all the time, I watched the videos, I went to tournaments, and I've seen all the things you've mentioned performed in real life, if not doing it myself. -and I also don't think you realize that those of us willing to discuss the point all agree the MvC2 is a great fun game...just not the "best" 2D fighter of all time.

What I find strange is that you defend all the glitches and gameplay anomalies as some sort of mecca for strategy...it's obvious Capcom didn't really intend most the stuff you see at high level play, but people have spent so much time with the game, and the engine allows for so many variables, that all sorts of weird stuff has come out. Maybe you like that, but it seems more like an easter egg hunt to me. People spend more time developing tricks and patterns than actual strategy, in my opinion. Half the matches I see experts play are constant super-jumping, which is not only a pretty sloppy game "feature" as it is (as a super jump allows you to constantly change direction mid air), but also noticeably "un-strategic", as one player or another is not even visible for the majority of the match.

As for telling us why players are doing things in a match video, I'm not sure what the point would be. Chances are, we've already seen the videos, and if I had a match video of Pong, I could tell you why the players made each move, but that doesn't really prove anything.

But really, I think I already explained MvC2's faults in a previous post. I think the problem now is more how one defines strategy and depth, and how one defines "fighting".

MvC2 has more variables than any other fighter I can think of, and very loose engine mechanics. There is inarguably a lot of content. But does that make it deep? No, I think that makes it complicated.

And bizarrely, for a game with so many variables, it seems like most players, even good ones, have a strategy formulated and devised *before the match*. Matches involve the players trying to control the variables in a way that makes their "strategy" the winning one. It's like a football team that had all it's plays chosen ahead of time, and only differed in the execution. I'm sure that team would not be deemed 'strategic'. I think a game like SF3 provides you all the tools, and a consistent environment, to create and formulate strategies dynamically during a fight, which is where it's depth really lies.

But then again, you were open to the idea of classifying MvC2 as something other than just a fighting game...it seems to me like you want to elevate it on some pedastel, and bestow upon it a genre all unto it's own, like, "The God-King Strategic Combat Game", but it seems more like a shooter/action/fighter hybrid to me. Like I said before, no one's saying it's not entertaining.

But as far as being a nominee for the "Greatest 2D Fighter Ever", there is a remarkably small degree of actual "fighting". Much like how I think SSBM is a great game, it would still be folly to dub it the greatest 3D fighter ever. Your argument about distance games and all that are likewise inaccurate. EVERY fighter I've ever played have distance games, and range is always a factor. In a game like SF3, there's little of strategic value you can do from a full screen away, but then again, the characters aren't flying all over the place, 3 screens up and all that. Urien's honking leg sweep is a range game unto itself. It's all just contextual. I know it's off topic, but games like Tekken and VF, that don't have projectiles of any sort, have some of the deepest range games I've ever seen.

This is slowly degrading into nothing.

Quote:

---

And the idea of being "honorable," and refraining from the cheap stuff because it somehow makes you a better player (but only if better = stupid).

---

I guess I missed where either Apok or StriderKyo mentioned this.

Quote:

---

What makes MvC2 fun is the strategy. Seeing something new and saying to yourself, "Damn, that's tricky, and hella good. How am I going to beat that?" - and then you come up with a counter. The game is light-years beyond any other fighting game, and like I said before, re-classifying the game as something other than a "fighting game" wouldn't be the stupidest idea I've read on this forum.

---

Yet, oddly enough, all of this can apply to a large number of fighting games.

Oh, and while I'm at it... We all know VOOT has the deepest range game out there. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tain
Oh, and while I'm at it... We all know VOOT has the deepest range game out there. :D

---

There's certainly no arguing with that. In fact, VOOT is perhaps the only fighting game in a long time that could stand to be classified as something else, though it is what it is.

Quote:

---

For me... Everything goes.

---

Therein lies our difference. I feel that the moves should be an equal level of usefullness, with no moves dominating over others to that characters rely simply on one and can rip through others with that alone. SFIII has every regular attack respond in such a way that they all have a specific purpose. Many work on a level that are solely good for anti-air, others work for countering, others are good simply for confusion tactics. The regular attacks alone could constitute all the fighting the game would need, but then it intergrates the special attacks to truly flesh out the game. Many special attacks, especially ranged ones, and are useful only in combos, though there are plenty that have range. Attacks to be used to to break through opponents attacking who in turn try to attack ranged can be found in wonderful form in Alex, Oro, and Chun Li (probably more, but I remember these off the top of my head), all of whom have ranged attacks specifically designed to counter ranged attacks. This works both ways, as their anti-ranged ranged attacks (that's an odd classification) can be turned against them, often through ranged attacks. The range game is there, but you have to look for it.

Quote:

---

Re-dizzies, plus the crazy damage scaling (that makes every consecutive hit in a combo less damaging - it's in all Street Fighters) means that any infinite alone with get you, at the most, 60% health on ONE of the three characters. That's 60% of 300%.

---

Wrong. I've seen infinites both in my own living room and videos on the net (it wasn't me doing this, it was another friend who loves combolicious fighting games, he also showed me an infinite with Hinata in Project Justice. Mr. WhiteFolks showed us an infinite in MvC2, though I have found others). Now, you seem to not grasp what the word "infinite" means. In fighting games, an infinite would be a combo from which 100% damage is given, because it is "infinite", i.e. without end. So I've seen 100% damage combos.

Now, you could translate that to 33.3%, which just leads into what I saying before on this. The entire game is based on this, whoever gets the first hit wins. Match starts, characters trade a couple blows, one launches into a combo and the other dies from it. Repeat twice over. In SFIII, yes, combos dealing that much and more do exist. However, one cannot do them continuously like one can in MvC2, in SFIII a single large combo is usually the best that can be done per round (sometimes match), with much more focus on smaller combos. Along with that, parrying allows one to negate block damage, and I find purposefully killing through that stupid. But that's just me (if Capcom would simply have block damage not be able to kill, I'd be a bit happier).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tain

Oh, and while I'm at it... We all know VOOT has the deepest range game out there. :D

---

Y'know, if I could figure out how to make VOOT anything BUT a range game, I'd probably like it alot more. I could never get how to effectively close in on an opponent in that game; it was always just me and my opponent shooting at each other from across the level, occasionally getting close enough to do something else.

Quote:

---

Y'know, if I could figure out how to make VOOT anything BUT a range game, I'd probably like it alot more. I could never get how to effectively close in on an opponent in that game; it was always just me and my opponent shooting at each other from across the level, occasionally getting close enough to do something else.

---

What VR do you play as? For some VRs, like Grys-Vok, the only close-combat work they do are evasive moves for getting the hell outta close combat! For some, like Apharmd B, nearly the whole game you'll try to catch them in some CC. Anyway, I usually catch the opponent on landings or on knockdowns. If they try to dash out of there, I'll either follow their dash, or circle-slice. You'd be surprised at how effective that can be. Well, aside from these options, most methods of rounding up rely on who you're playing as, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Y'know, if I could figure out how to make VOOT anything BUT a range game, I'd probably like it alot more. I could never get how to effectively close in on an opponent in that game; it was always just me and my opponent shooting at each other from across the level, occasionally getting close enough to do something else.

---

A strict full-range game will get you nowhere in VOOT. Many of the ranged attacks work much better at close range, as too much distance makes it way too easy to dodge attacks. I usually fight about double of close-combat range (CC range being where the VRs activate their CC attack), and try to keep it close to that, only falling back to dodge amongst obstacles when nessecary.

I tend to use... Er, can't remember his name. It's a variation VR, he has the camo pants and uses a dropkick bomb (one of my favorite attacks in the game).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gamevet
When I first played Street Fighter III : 3rd Strike, I asked myself: Can a 2-d fighter look any better than this? Then I played Alpha 3 on my Dreamcast. The game is just beautiful, and has all the great gameplay of Street Fighter's of the past. My vote for the best 2-d figter ever!

---

fuck, i can't think of a way to make fun of you at the moment, but man, you're a fuckin idiot.

how the hell did everyone hear let that slide?

Quote:

---

A strict full-range game will get you nowhere in VOOT. Many of the ranged attacks work much better at close range, as too much distance makes it way too easy to dodge attacks. I usually fight about double of close-combat range (CC range being where the VRs activate their CC attack), and try to keep it close to that, only falling back to dodge amongst obstacles when nessecary.

---

Yeah, medium range is nice for most VRs, but some can do full-range quite well. Take Raiden, for example. With his weapons, he can herd up the opponent from far distances quite well, and trick him into getting smacked by his center weapon.

Quote:

---

I tend to use... Er, can't remember his name. It's a variation VR, he has the camo pants and uses a dropkick bomb (one of my favorite attacks in the game).

---

Apharmd. Now the question: Apharmd B or Apharmd S? They both have the same left weapon, which includes the dropkick bomb (right-turbo LW). Apharmd B has the tongfers, and is the king of CC. Apharmd S is the "heavier" variant, more tooled to combat outside of CC.

If you were playing as Apharmd B, well, no wonder you say full-range doesn't work to well. :) His right and center weapons are very, very weak, at almost any range. The center weapon is usually only used to offset projectiles or, with some of the turbo and crouching variations, stun the opponent. The left weapon is a strange one, as it's "soccer bomb" variations can be used to knockdown, but other than that, I mainly use it for defense.

I used to play alot of MvsC2 (mostly because it's the only fighting game my friends could understand) and while it was fun, I have to say I enjoy playing SFIII: TS much more.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucas Barton

fuck, i can't think of a way to make fun of you at the moment, but man, you're a fuckin idiot.

how the hell did everyone hear let that slide?

---

Someone did'nt, and after pulling out both games, I now realize that Street Fighter 3 has more frames of animation, while Street Fighter Alpha 3 has VGA support.


Now go take your 17 year old smart ass, and go beat off with your powerglove, because it is'nt all that great either.