Games

[El Chaos]

BlazBlue -Chrono Phantasma- American release date and launch bonus announced: http://blazblueuniverse.com/release-dat ... -announced

Aksys Games is pleased to announce a launch bonus for the PlayStation®3 entertainment system 2D fighting game, BlazBlue: Chrono Phantasma! All Limited Editions and first run standard edition copies will include an insert with a DLC code for the conniving arch-nemesis of Ragna the Bloodedge, Yuki Terumi! Pre-order your copy today! BlazBlue: Chrono Phantasma will be available March 25, 2014.

Pre-order your copy today at Amazon or GameStop!

[El Chaos]

http://postback.geedorah.com/foros/view ... 437#p19437

Chrono Phantasma Extend, basado en la revisión 2.0 actualmente en los salones y con desarrollo del modo Story, anunciado para PS3, PS4 y X-Box One para Abril:

http://www.famitsu.com/news/201412/16067985.html

[slayer]

http://gematsu.com/2014/12/first-look-b ... sma-extend

The uprgaded version of Chrono Phantasma will bring characters Celica and Lambda-11, who were introduced in version 2.0 of the arcade version earlier this year, to consoles. The total amount of playable characters is now 28.

The full story of the original Chrono Phantasma is included, complete with full voice-overs, as well as an original “Extend” episode.

The “Extend” episode is set in the past. Bullet’s Story is just one of the additional scenarios, providing a close-up on the heroic past of the wandering mercenary. In order to discover the truth of her comrades’ death, she infiltrates the Sector Seven research organization.

BlazBlue: Chrono Phantasma Extend is due out in Japan on April 23.

BBCPE_Fami-shot_12-17_001.jpg (114.57 KiB) Viewed 20795 times

BBCPE_Fami-shot_12-17_002.jpg (127.52 KiB) Viewed 20795 times

BBCPE_Fami-shot_12-17_003.jpg (125.62 KiB) Viewed 20795 times

BBCPE_Fami-shot_12-17_004.jpg (48.31 KiB) Viewed 20795 times

BBCPE_Fami-shot_12-17_005.jpg (55.49 KiB) Viewed 20795 times

[quash]

I read the posts from Lord Knight that explain why he thinks the original BB is a 3 star game. While I agree with that assertion, what tips the scale for me is a reason he neglected to mention, which is the dreaded 7A+B+C option select.

There were two things that allowed this to work:
- B+C buffered a throw tech for ~20 frames (don't remember the exact number anymore)
- You could barrier jump the first frame out of blockstun by holding 7/8 and then pressing A+B.

Using this in practice was really quite easy and got you out of a lot of situations at virtually no risk. You could block low, for example, and then hold 7 A+B+C while your character would auto-guard the rest until you were out of blockstun, at which point you would jump out at the first frame possible, immune to anti-airs due to barrier and immune to throws for ~20 frames due to the tech buffer. At this point in the series, there were also no normals equal to or faster than jump startup, and even if there were, they could have just held barrier for a bit to push you out of range for them.

While it didn't necessarily negate the offensive prowess of the stronger characters, it did greatly reduce the weaker characters' ability to keep people cornered. It made the characters that were already too strong even stronger, and left the weaker characters struggling against each other.

If it doesn't sound like much to you, consider that these two mechanics were notably absent in CS1, and the tech buffer was replaced with a counter hit throw state. Instead of buffering a throw tech by preemptively pressing B+C, you were now in a state where if you were thrown, it would be inescapable and deal more damage. This ended up having more implications than perhaps initially foreseen, and arguably became one of the most important mechanics in the game. They ended up creating an entirely new guessing game all for the sake of preventing people from being untouchable in the air.

The issue with CT overall was that it was chock-full of these kinds of oversights and poor judgement calls; the above option select was just the culmination of two particularly bad ones. It's pretty telling when you have people complaining that both offense and defense are too strong, which is something you do not hear often. Typically a game will lean too far in one direction, but BBCT was such an odd mixture of mechanics left virtually unchecked that it managed to create many degenerate strategies in both situations.

Still, it did implement some neat ideas and they did do a good job of giving each character a unique playstyle. The game was obviously not all bad, and I don't want to make it sound like it was; it was just not in any way what you would have expected from the same developer that gave you Accent Core two years earlier. It was a slick looking game with some neat ideas, but it didn't do enough to make sure all those neat ideas would actually work well in practice.

[icycalm]

My only problem is that it doesn't seem to me that you guys grasp the meaning of the ratings. I still find it hard to swallow the idea that BB deserves only three stars. Three stars mean "decent, but you miss nothing by skipping it", and if someone said that on the day of BB's release -- when there were no other 720p 2D fighters worth playing, essentially -- it would have been a crime. Dragon's Crown is a 1-star game mechanically, but 5-star aesthetically (if not indeed 6-star), so in my unfinished review I give it 3 stars, and for anyone who is interested in and fascinated by 2D graphics I'd even give it 4 stars -- meaning a "recommendation" -- meaning "try this game".

That doesn't mean that I advise people to sink 40 hours into Dragon's Crown. I played it for 6 -- until stages started repeating -- and then stopped. But during those 6 hours I did get a 3-star level enjoyment out of the game, if not indeed a 4-star level for the first half an hour or so, despite the 1-star mechanics.

I mean, all the mechanical issues you guys mentioned obviously took weeks if not months to surface, but what about the level of fun people were having BEFORE they surfaced? Never mind that a lot of players came into the party late and learned about all the issues immediately via YouTube before even touching the game -- if some aspies want to ruin the experience for themselves it's not my problem. But I find it hard to stomach the idea that BB is a decent but mediocre game that no one should go out of their way to play. If you enjoy fighting and/or 2D games I think you OWE it to yourself to try this game out. Maybe not so much today, that there are alternatives, but CERTAINLY when it originally came out, and for several years afterwards, even if its updates and sequels had never been released. Is taking the 2D fighter to 720p widescreen worth nothing then? Is it not worth at least an extra star?

I think you guys are arguing between yourselves if a game is worth 3.7 or 4.9 stars, but since pretty much EVERY SINGLE game you play is worth above 3 stars, because that's how highly evolved the FTG genre is, when it comes to rating these games you entirely forget to compare them to the REST of the games on the market, including in other genres, and expect perfection that takes 1000 hours to master to give a game any more than an average mark.

I don't know what I am going to do about this. Maybe we'll stick to the plan and give 3/5 to the original and 4/5 to some of the sequels I guess. But something inside me tells me they should all get 4. I feel that an injustice is being done otherwise.

As for this:

The game was obviously not all bad, and I don't want to make it sound like it was; it was just not in any way what you would have expected from the same developer that gave you Accent Core two years earlier. It was a slick looking game with some neat ideas, but it didn't do enough to make sure all those neat ideas would actually work well in practice.

It makes sense if you consider that, had they stuck too close to AC, people would have complained that it's too similar. That they got a chance to keep making updates and improving their original concept is proof that the players found the game worth playing and supporting: whether this was because the mechanics held promise, or because of the aesthetics, is one thing I would have liked to see answered in a review, because the game has had a long history compared to the vast majority of FTGs that have been released in the 10 or so years that this renaissance has so far lasted, and if this was due to its aesthetic superiority it must mean that aesthetics, too, count for something in the genre, as opposed to mechanics trumping everything to the extent that players would have been perfectly happy to play with ACTUAL HITBOXES as long as the mechanics of the game were the best mechanics ever.

[icycalm]

Is taking the 2D fighter to 720p widescreen worth nothing then? Is it not worth at least an extra star?

Or is the extra star already included in the 3-star rating, and BB would have been a 2-star game if it had featured regular GG-level aesthetics?

The problem is you guys can't help me answer these questions because you are not well versed in how the rating scheme works.

[quash]

I mean, all the mechanical issues you guys mentioned obviously took weeks if not months to surface, but what about the level of fun people were having BEFORE they surfaced?

I was among the first people outside of Japan to play the game thanks to a local arcade getting it within weeks of its release, so I get what you're saying. And you're right, people were enjoying the game immensely for those first few weeks in particular because it was all a mystery as to how all this stuff was supposed to work.

I stuck with CT longer than most people did, and I was still able to enjoy it in spite of its drawbacks. At the same time, however, there was a lot that kept the game from reaching greatness, and there was a feeling of mutual agreement on the game needing to go back to the drawing board on a lot of things. Which is what ended up happening, for better or worse.

Is taking the 2D fighter to 720p widescreen worth nothing then? Is it not worth at least an extra star?

It is definitely worth recognizing the first game to bring the genre to HD. That's why I'm still speaking highly of it in spite of all the issues it has.

For its time, yes, it was the best 720p 2D fighter. If you compare it only to SFIV or KOFXII, it may as well be a 5 star game. But once we start comparing it in its entirety to all the games that came before it, it becomes clear that the game was not as big a leap forward for the genre as it could and should have been.

It makes sense if you consider that, had they stuck too close to AC, people would have complained that it's too similar. That they got a chance to keep making updates and improving their original concept is proof that the players found the game worth playing and supporting: whether this was because the mechanics held promise, or because of the aesthetics, is one thing I would have liked to see answered in a review, because the game has had a long history compared to the vast majority of FTGs that have been released in the 10 or so years that this renaissance has so far lasted, and if this was due to its aesthetic superiority it must mean that aesthetics, too, count for something in the genre, as opposed to mechanics trumping everything to the extent that players would have been perfectly happy to play with ACTUAL HITBOXES as long as the mechanics of the game were the best mechanics ever.

I would definitely argue that the main appeal of BlazBlue from the beginning was its aesthetics. Back when the game was first announced and there had been nothing released on the game's mechanics, people were going crazy over the way the game looked and nothing else. It stands to reason, then, that even though the first game wasn't particularly good mechanically, it was able to keep people's attention long enough due to its superior aesthetics.

[quash]

Or is the extra star already included in the 3-star rating, and BB would have been a 2-star game if it had featured regular GG-level aesthetics?

I should have just said that to begin with. Yes, that is with the extra star already included.

For what it's worth, I take a lot of things into consideration when it comes to this. Xrd, for example, is a 5 star game to me. I have a few issues with it mechanically, but it still has the potential to be an overall better game than XX. Whether it stays on that track or not remains to be seen, but as of right now I would say that it can stand on its own merit on both the mechanical and aesthetic front. +R may be a better game mechanically (and that advantage is large enough to make it superior overall), but its aesthetics will limit it in the long term. Xrd already looks better, it just needs mechanical improvement.

[quash]

Three stars mean "decent, but you miss nothing by skipping it", and if someone said that on the day of BB's release -- when there were no other 720p 2D fighters worth playing, essentially -- it would have been a crime.

I agree with this sentiment. However, there are plenty of other games you could have said that for when they first came out that are still relatively decent when compared to games that came out after them.

If you were to take the mechanics of GGXX and update the aesthetics, you would be left with a somewhat dated but still playable game mechanically, and an aesthetic powerhouse. I basically just described Xrd right there, except that it used #R as its mechanical base.

If you were to take the mechanics of BBCT and update the aesthetics, it would have strong aesthetic appeal and not much else going for it.

It's not that it's something we've all seen before, because Xrd is #R with two new mechanics and it's doing quite well. It's that the initial concept wasn't particularly great to begin with, aesthetics be damned.

[icycalm]

It's not that it's something we've all seen before, because Xrd is #R with two new mechanics and it's doing quite well. It's that the initial concept wasn't particularly great to begin with, aesthetics be damned.

But the aesthetics should not be damned, because if they were BB would never have succeeded commercially, not even been developed in the first place, and today you wouldn't have had Xrd. And the game's "initial concept" which you say "wasn't particularly great to begin with" INCLUDED the aesthetics, which WERE great, and which you continue to discount, if only unconsciously.

You are not evaluating these games holistically. You have your mind set on a specific part of the experience -- the 1000th hour of play or whatever -- and if a game only satisfies for 30 or 40 hours it's a two-star game for you simply because of that. But not all of us need to play every single game for 1000 hours in order to enjoy it, and I want the review to reflect this viewpoint too.

But basically, what happened was that the game took a hit on the mechanical front in order for the developer to be able to invest in the aesthetics. Apparently they didn't want to risk going all out on all fronts. For accessibility reasons perhaps? To pander to casuals and scrubs? And the same thing happened with KOF12 and SF4. New aesthetic approaches, but mechanically all the games were a step back compared to their predecessors, if not more than one step. And yet, which of the three was the best mechanically? Blazblue, right? And which was the best aesthetically? Blazblue again, and by a huge margin. And I say, isn't this game worth recommending to people, when it delivered on all fronts more than all its competitors and ushered in a new era, the benefits of which we are still deriving today?

I say the game is worth four stars. If it was worth recommending on release, it is worth acknowledging this in its review and not docking it points for failing to age very gracefully. Lots of experienced players played it on release and enjoyed it, even if briefly, and that enjoyment is worth acknowledging in the review. That's my take on this.

[icycalm]

I am probably defending it so much because I don't play these games very much. I am not a big fan of the genre by any stretch: brawlers are superior for me, and these are the "fighting games" I play a lot. Or take for example the RTS genre, which is one of my favorites. Planetary Annihilation is much better aesthetically than SupCom, but if it had been inferior mechanically I would be raising a stink, for sure. So I guess I'll trust you guys and go with the three-star rating, but I'll add my comments in the text to even things out.

[quash]

I think that would work well. It was the best game among the 720p fighters of the time, but that transition was pretty rough across the board. It's worth playing today as a history lesson, but even from the perspective of single player, the later games offer a much more complete experience.

I get what you're saying about them dedicating more resources to the aesthetics. That's why I wouldn't give the game a rating lower than 3, even if some aspects of the game are deserving of it. At the same time, it was a significant step backwards from a mechanical standpoint, and it took the series a good while to establish its identity in this sense.

It definitely nailed the aesthetics better than either SFIV or KOXII. It took the much improved KOFXIII for that series to reach a point where it could even be comparable, whereas every version of SFIV looks exactly the same. BlazBlue, on the other hand, had no major aesthetic issues from the beginning, which allowed them to polish up the game's look as time went on.

Mechanically they all went in pretty different directions from their first installments, with BlazBlue being the most inventive, if nothing else. They're supposedly considering turning the series into a 2 on 2 fighter.

[icycalm]

It's worth playing today as a history lesson, but even from the perspective of single player, the later games offer a much more complete experience.

And a 2015 Ferrari offers a "much more complete experience", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, than a 1960 Ferrari.

I don't care about "history lessons". I care about the value of the game at the time of its release. You don't seem to understand what that means, otherwise you wouldn't be comparing it with its sequels.

It definitely nailed the aesthetics better than either SFIV or KOXII. It took the much improved KOFXIII for that series to reach a point where it could even be comparable

KOF12 was so ugly I couldn't play it for more than an hour. Unless they redrew everything from scratch, I am sure the same is true of 13. You are saying it's comparable to Blazblue, which means you should avoid ever opening your mouth again on the subject of aesthetics for the sake of my blood pressure.

whereas every version of SFIV looks exactly the same.

lol you can't get a single thing right, can you? Successive versions of SF4 have seen huge improvements in terms of aesthetics, especially character design. I can't play with any of the initial cast because they are all so ugly, but I'll gladly play with a number of the latecomers. If the entire game had been made to the later standard, it could have been called even beautiful.

BlazBlue, on the other hand, had no major aesthetic issues from the beginning, which allowed them to polish up the game's look as time went on.

How do you "polish a game's look" when the art assets remain identical lol? It's not a 3D game where you can add effects!

Just please, never speak of aesthetics again. Ever. I will add a little paragraph myself about that aspect in your reviews.

And for the love of God stop making shit up because I can't stand it and I'll be forced to ban you. They "polished Blazblue up" lol. Jesus fucking christ.

[quash]

BlazBlue may use 2D character sprites, but the game utilizes 3D graphics for many other things.

The effects on most of the moves are in 3D. There's entire stages that are nothing but 3D assets. A lot of the move effects have changed since CT, as have things like the clash effect (compare CT's pitiful clash to the ones used in the later games). Some of the sprites have even changed, with some characters sporting slightly different outfits than they did before. Nevermind the improvements to the HUD, character select screen, etc.

They even changed the soundtrack in CP, which was a trademark of the series.

I mean, you said it yourself:

Aesthetically, at least, they've come a long way since CT.

The differences between CT and CP could make you think that the latter belongs to a different series entirely. There's nothing wrong with the way CT looks, it's just that CP looks better.

[icycalm]

BlazBlue may use 2D character sprites, but the game utilizes 3D graphics for many other things.

If you speak this way to me again you will be banned. The insult implied above -- that I do not know this -- is completely unacceptable, especially coming from an aspie who thinks that Blazblue and KOF13 are "aesthetically comparable".

The effects on most of the moves are in 3D. There's entire stages that are nothing but 3D assets. A lot of the move effects have changed since CT, as have things like the clash effect (compare CT's pitiful clash to the ones used in the later games). Some of the sprites have even changed, with some characters sporting slightly different outfits than they did before. They even changed the soundtrack in CP. Nevermind the improvements to the HUD, character select screen, etc.

IT'S STILL NOT THE SAME THING WITH A 3D GAME LIKE CRYSIS WHERE YOU CAN IMPROVE THE LOOK OF THE WHOLE GAME BY APPLYING A SINGLE EFFECT THROUGHOUT, RETARD! YOU UNDERSTAND LESS ABOUT HOW GAMES WORK THAN I DID WHEN I WAS 9!

You are obstinately hanging on to pedantry ("LOOK IT HAS A POLYGON ERGO IT IS A 3D GAME!") to avoid shutting your stupid mouth and acknowledging that you know nothing about these things!

None of the stuff you are talking about has anything to do with "polish". You simply have no idea what you are talking about. They merely added more stuff, they didn't "polish" anything.

I mean, you said it yourself:

Aesthetically, at least, they've come a long way since CT.

I did not mean by this what you think I meant. This is what YOU think:

The differences between CT and CP could make you think that the latter belongs to a different series entirely.

You think the games have different art styles!

And maybe they do if you are an aspie retard who has nothing better to do with his time than to pose on videogame forums as an aesthetics connoisseur. But I am not. So I'll ban you and save myself the aggravation of having to deal with your 24/7 butthurt rationalizing. Goodbye.

[icycalm]

This is the second time he's been banned, and, looking back on it, it seems for the same reason: trying to protect his laughable ego on a videogame forum by making shit up.

9 times out of 10 when I unban someone I end up regretting it. They never change and never learn anything. I trashed every single aesthetic comment he made, on BB, KOF and SF, and gave him a clear warning to stop talking about these things since he obviously had nothing of value to contribute -- even worse, his stupid remarks were of NEGATIVE value, since they were stupid -- and how does he respond?

He comes back to give me a lecture on the 3D assets in Blazblue lol.

Absolutely zero awareness of where he is and who he is talking to, never mind of the actual subject he is discussing.

I simply cannot tolerate such rank stupidity and complete disregard for my time and mental tranquility.

[icycalm]

And of course, he came back when the site became free. While the subscription was in effect, he stayed away, like all the other half a dozen malignant retards I have banned since I opened the floodgates again.

We will be going back to the subscription model soon.

[Sparkster]

http://www.siliconera.com/2015/07/12/bl ... -playable/

Arc System Works have announced BlazBlue Central Fiction, the next BlazBlue fighting game. Central Fiction will include new playable characters in Hibiki Kohaku and Naoto Kurogane. You can watch a trailer for the game below.

BlazBlue Central Fiction doesn’t have a release date yet, but the game’s first location test will begin on July 18th in Japan and will last three days.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxXGVJSINHk