[AC] [360] [PS3] [PC] [3DS] [MOB] Street Fighter IV

[icycalm]

EDGE gave SSFIV a 9. I think they gave the original game a 10.

And 3rd Strike, back in the day, a 6 lol.

[icycalm]

http://rllmukforum.com/index.php?s=&sho ... &p=6962155

I'm gonna move away from scores and talk about the accompanying reviews instead. Because that SSFIV one is the laziest 9 I've read in Edge. I don't know why they bothered, it was like something you'd expect from a local paper: a bit of press release mixed in with a few uninspired words from someone who hates their job.

High-brow game criticism.

[A.Wrench]

I was at Chinatown Fair in Manhattan recently and noticed that for lack of a real SSF4 arcade version they've hooked one of the console versions into arcade machines. The arcade sticks were set up to grant 3 minutes per token (25 cents) at a maximum of 12 minutes per player, after which the control stick and buttons would shut off. A clever workaround, but as you might have guessed there was pretty much no player rotation and as a result me and my friend didn't bother waiting for a turn. If we wanted to play twelve minutes of SSF4 against each other we'd just go home.

[recoil]

http://iplaywinner.com/news/2010/6/15/s ... o-3ds.html

I've just received word over Twitter that there was a mention of Super Street Fighter 4 during the CAPCOM slide for the Nintendo 3DS reveal. Wes Phillips, Capcom PR, also confirmed "Street Fighter" is coming to the DS. Nintendo's Press Site also lists a Super Street Fighter 4 3D Edition (name not final) as a third party title for the system. It's coming folks.

Considering Street Fighter 4 was developed for the iPhone, this isn't a huge shock that CAPCOM is making a 3DS port of the game, but the big question is: how will it control? Will it be a somewhat classic control interface or some interaction with the stylus? Will there be 3D elements in game -- perhaps 3D Ultras -- or just a lo-res version of what is already on 360/PS3?

We'll update this post if any new information pops up in the following days!

[faceplant]

Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition is out.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A0BppGvLAo

[faceplant]

Some footage of Mike Ross (Honda) vs. Marn (Yun).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-jOpDvE9Vw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YctK8pdgOmI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9n-LRNLXCo

[nothingxs]

DICTATORSHIP OF THE FIREBALL, DESTROY THE RED PARRY MENACE!

I never got this argument. Are people upset that opponents now have options to deal with fireballs instead of falling into the same traps EVERY time? It's not like it's a done deal either, you still have to time it right. I mean, no one complains about the sidestepping in KOF, so why this? Maybe Capcom fans feel they're entitled to a free shot every time.

I know I'm really late to this, but I think it deserves an answer.

The problem with parrying in 3S and what it does to fireballs is that it almost entirely eliminates their usefulness. People always had ways to deal with fireballs, and even the most complex of traps in games like Super Turbo have a weakness that can be exploited to escape the trap. And that's just only talking about what parrying does to fireballs; parrying does a lot of things to 3rd Strike that pretty much water it down into a relatively nonsensical, pure guessing game that's rife with parry option selects where your opponent always loses if they press a button.

As for your example of sidestepping in KOF: all a side step does is dodge and evade a fireball, but it doesn't give a character any advantage in terms of forward progress. It's also a relatively risky endeavor. Parrying isn't a risky endeavor; successfully executing a parry carries no risk. Successfully using a dodge carries a bit of risk.

Rolling in KOF is an even more questionable method of getting around fireballs. It works fine against fast fireballs, but rolling past a slow fireball gets you punished more often than not as rolls are not invincible near the tail end.

[icycalm]

I know I'm really late to this, but I think it deserves an answer.

There's no "being late" in this forum. Threads do not come with expiration dates. If people are still playing and talking about Pac-Man, I don't see how the same would not apply to fucking SFIV.

[JoshF]

parrying does a lot of things to 3rd Strike that pretty much water it down into a relatively nonsensical, pure guessing game that's rife with parry option selects where your opponent always loses if they press a button.

Throw, use a hard to parry EX move, or stop doing predictable pokes like it's SF2. Third Strike isn't perfect; it could have used another update but then again which fighting game could not? I would've liked to see Capcom work on that game instead of dressing up (or is it down?) Street Fighter Zero in 3D minus air blocking, the end result of which is more or less the same Street Fighter we've been playing for fifteen years that is now miles behind some of SNK, Arc System Works, and Examu's efforts.

[SPD]

Throws are easily techable, EX costs meter, doing extremely predictable things gets you punished in Street Fighter II too.

Parry as it is in Street Fighter III not only removes projectile zoning (which is present in pretty much every good 2D fighter ever, and there's nothing wrong with it), it also removes lots of other play styles. Even though on paper Third Strike has more options than, say, Super Turbo, parry kills most of them and you get a pretty limited game at higher levels.

Plus, they are extremely safe compared to other defensive mechanisms found in other games. You can do ridiculous option-selects such as SGGK .

For a detailed explanation (by a top player that has won / placed well in Second Impact and Third Strike tournaments) on why SFIII style parries are detrimental to the game, check Viscant's posts in this thread. If you still don't get it after reading that, then I don't know what to tell you.

[nothingxs]

For a detailed explanation (by a top player that has won / placed well in Second Impact and Third Strike tournaments) on why SFIII style parries are detrimental to the game, check Viscant's posts in this thread. If you still don't get it after reading that, then I don't know what to tell you.

In particular, pay close attention to how Viscant describes the situation between Vega and Blanka, and why there is a very deep multi-level mind game embedded in something as simple as Vega and Blanka waiting each other out. Then think about why that same multi-level mind game cannot possibly exist in 3rd Strike because of the presence of parries.

Also, JoshF, we already had a way to deal with predictable pokes in SF2... footsies. Alternatively, if the poke is so predictable, simply beat them out with a good, high-priority move (such as a Shoryuken). All of the issues people have with older Street Fighter games and why parrying "fixes" these problems are always ridiculously perplexing, because solutions to these problems were already there.

[JoshF]

I'd like to see Viscant take his surgical mastery of Third Strike to KSK's Gamer's Vision. My guess is we'd get repeat of the lol-worthy Wong/Ortiz vs. Kuroda/Hayao.

All of the issues people have with older Street Fighter games and why parrying "fixes" these problems are always ridiculously perplexing, because solutions to these problems were already there.

This is a problem. Capcom fans (and designers) think "we're already there" so where is there to go other than goofy 3D, FMV supers, and roster fanservice? Here's a hint, get out a telescope and look a couple miles up the road to where SNK, Arc System Works, and Examu have been. Yeah, SF3 parrying isn't perfect but going into the time machine wasn't the answer, considering older Street Fighter games still exist. Maybe Blitzkampf-style parrying (possibly with more difficult input) is preferable where there's more oppurtunity to punish, or would that still be guesswork compared to SF2 high-level yomi reversals which are somehow not based on guessing?

[SPD]

I'd like to see Viscant take his surgical mastery of Third Strike to KSK's Gamer's Vision. My guess is we'd get repeat of the lol-worthy Wong/Ortiz vs. Kuroda/Hayao.

Dumb fallacy. Look, I can do it too: Viscant can easily rape you at Third Strike, so why should anyone care about your opinion?

So, how about you address any of the points he raises?

This is a problem. Capcom fans (and designers) think "we're already there" so where is there to go other than goofy 3D, FMV supers, and roster fanservice? Here's a hint, get out a telescope and look a couple miles up the road to where SNK, Arc System Works, and Examu have been. Yeah, SFIII parrying isn't perfect but going into the time machine wasn't the answer, considering older Street Fighter games still exist. Maybe Blitzkampf-style parrying (possibly with more difficult input) is preferable where there's more oppurtunity to punish, or would that still be guesswork compared to SF2 high-level yomi reversals which are somehow not based on guessing?

SF3 parrying is far from perfect, yes: it's terrible, and unneeded. People could get around fireball "traps" just fine without any dumb homogenizing universal system. Why give everyone the same catch-all tool when you can give everyone different ways to deal with different situations? Why kill many interesting strategies that add variety (and complexity) to the game?

The main issues with SFIII parries is that they have no whiff animation, and that they take much less time to execute than a special move. That allows you to do all sorts of retarded option selects, react much faster and take much less risks than with a special move, a roll or a properly done parry.

As for properly done parries, check Accent Core's slashbacks. You need to press two buttons, they have only two active frames (red parry-like timing), cost meter (but give you meter back if you successfully slashback something) and leave you vulnerable for 30 frames. They take much more skill, are much riskier while still give high rewards, and (their most important quality) they don't override other defensive options. So, characters like Potemkin can use them to get around stuff like Eddie's drills, but it's not the catch-all solution it is in the Street Fighter III series.

Note: we agree in that SFIV (and its sequels) is a terrible game. You just don't have enough knowledge on fighting games to realize WHY it sucks. You bring up meaningless stuff like "roster fanservice" and "FMV supers", as if KOF or Guilty Gear didn't have any of that. SNK's and ArcSys best games also have effective zoning / long range characters.

The real problem lies in stuff you don't understand or know about. Six frame long reversal inputs, terrible jumps, crossups that push characters away, autocorrecting specials, crap throws (two buttons, shit range, easily techable, crouch teching option selects, terrible damage), slow walk speed, low damage, extremely high damage scaling, dumbed down characters (much weaker than in previous incarnations, and every new update the game gets lowers more and more the power of most characters), dumbed down inputs (like down forward, down, down-forward for Shoryukens, which allows you to do them from a crouching position), Ultras that reward you for getting hit, stupid combo system, and a large et cetera.

Capcom did some good things with SFIV, like focus attacks, focus cancels and armor moves (an interesting solution to the zoning strategies you dread so much). The problem is that those interesting things came with all the other problems I mentioned, most of which come from Capcom trying to please casuals to boost sales (as if a new Street Fighter after ten years weren't enough to make the game sell on its own). That's the real problem, not Capcom not evolving or the game playing like SF2 (which is a retarded claim for anyone who ever played games like ST or Hyper Fighting above scrub level).

[Marble]

Why kill many interesting strategies that add variety (and complexity) to the game?

While parries may nerf some strategies (like the use of fireballs as zoning tools and catalysts as mentioned extensively), parries also create a bunch of new strategies (more on this below).

As for properly done parries, check Accent Core's slashbacks. You need to press two buttons, they have only two active frames (red parry-like timing), cost meter (but give you meter back if you successfully slashback something) and leave you vulnerable for 30 frames. They take much more skill, are much riskier while still give high rewards, and (their most important quality) they don't override other defensive options. So, characters like Potemkin can use them to get around stuff like Eddie's drills, but it's not the catch-all solution it is in the Street Fighter III series.

Parries don't override other defensive options. Good 3S players can block well and, besides a few, block often. Also, simply tapping the wrong direction at the wrong time can be a big enough risk, especially when you're in range of a Chun with SA2.

Getting a parry off doesn't always equal free damage, anyway. Not if you parry a cancellable move, at least. The opponent only remains in parry freeze for a few frames (give or take, depending on if the move is light/medium/heavy) and after that is free to special/super cancel. So if you parry a move you have to decide - are you going to go for the most damaging punish, risking them supering through it? Block, baiting their super and causing them to waste meter as well as get you a free punish? Or go for low but (usually) assured damage, such as an instant DP or a throw? Obviously it gets more complex than this when you bring character specific situations and whatnot into it.

Something else I really like about parries is the way they allow you to get out of chip situations without meter, just pure precision (which makes the parry my favourite anti-chip system. Chip is never free in 3S under any circumstances... except the first hit of KKZ). It would be a lot harder to implement stuff like this (parrying supers on reaction and even anticipation, that is) if the motions were more than forward and down.

I genuinely enjoy that the SFIII series has weakened fireballs in exchanged for a faster pace that's more movement oriented, and a more complex close-up system. I don't necessarily want other fighters to be like that (I love SFII and wouldn't change anything about the system, besides the somewhat random damage) but I really do feel that the SFIII series (particularly 3S) is totally fucking brilliant and definitely has a flavour you won't find in any other 2D fighter.

Note: we agree in that SFIV (and its sequels) is a terrible game. You just don't have enough knowledge on fighting games to realize WHY it sucks. You bring up meaningless stuff like "roster fanservice" and "FMV supers", as if KOF or Guilty Gear didn't have any of that. SNK's and ArcSys best games also have effective zoning / long range characters

But stuff like "goofy 3D" and "FMV supers" do leave SFIV worse off, though. Criticizing a game's audiovisual aspect is definitely not meaningless. With the ultra animations you have the added problem of them going on for so long it gets boring and makes it easier to win by time out. Your criticisms of the game are on point to, but just saying.

[JoshF]

Dumb fallacy. Look, I can do it too: Viscant can easily rape you at Third Strike, so why should anyone care about your opinion?

Actually you can't do that because I never claimed some move was easy to do, you did. Parrying is real easy to do in a fictional match, you'll never miss. I'm claiming Capcom stupidly and lazily went into the time machine.

So, how about you address any of the points he raises?

All 3 SF3 games have had a rigid top tier. 2 out of the 3 games have been horribly unbalanced almost solely because the #1 & 2 characters can use parry better than all the others.

Third Strike's and Second Impact's tier issues have more to do with high-damage and/or too many stocks of certain Super Arts that are easily hit-confirmable, an issue that would still exist even without parrying. That's like saying some characters use jump better if they have a broken combo that starts with a jump-in.

I skimmed the rest, and he's right about a lot of stuff. SF3 parrying would make Mike Bison-style charge-punch moves suck, because they're easily parry-able like fireballs but put you right next to the opponent for easy punishment. However I think that character type and parrying could work together if you tweak it (even in Third Strike I think they're okay from up to mid-range if done randomly enough.) Anyway, my point now is not that SF3-style parrying is perfect, it's that they didn't even try to make SFIV a modern fighter. "Fundamentals" is a nice cop out you can use with any game (a platformer with double jumping and no inertia ruins the fundamentals of Adventure Island.) While adding new things can take away from fundamentals, they also have a tendency of making a game unique and interesting.

The real problem lies in stuff you don't understand or know about. Six frame long reversal inputs, terrible jumps, crossups that push characters away, autocorrecting specials, crap throws (two buttons, shit range, easily techable, crouch teching option selects, terrible damage), slow walk speed, low damage, extremely high damage scaling, dumbed down characters (much weaker than in previous incarnations, and every new update the game gets lowers more and more the power of most characters), dumbed down inputs (like down forward, down, down-forward for Shoryukens, which allows you to do them from a crouching position), Ultras that reward you for getting hit, stupid combo system, and a large et cetera.

All of which is worthless to me because I had the intuition after playing it for 15 minutes and realizing I pretty much played it before that I'd have more fun fucking around in KOFXI's training mode. I didn't need to play it for a year (or co opt the info from people who have on SRK) and get into the details to figure that out. You'll find that I'm a scrub at most of the games I don't like.

[SPD]

While parries may nerf some strategies (like the use of fireballs as zoning tools and catalysts as mentioned extensively), parries also create a bunch of new strategies (more on this below).

Parries, more like "nerfing" fireballs, almost completely remove them from the game. Save for a couple supers such as Urien's Aegis Reflector and EX fireballs, projectiles don't have place in 3S as zoning tools.

Besides as mentioned, they don't just remove that. Long range characters (like Dhalsim, Axl or Chang), pressure based rushdown characters (ST Balrog, KOF 98 Terry), mid-range poking characters (ST Vega, Daimon, Ralf) and several others are inviable in 3S, thanks to parries.

And, as Viscant mentions in the link I've posted, it dumbs mindgames down terribly to guessing games.

Parries don't override other defensive options [...]

Most of them. How many times you see someone using a special as an anti-air in 3S? How do people evade projectiles, punish slow moves? Parry is the main option in the vast majority of cases.

You are right in that (at higher levels), getting a parry doesn't equal free damage. That's because top players use mostly really fast, safe pokes that are harder to punish with parry. Still, thanks to the nature of parry and option selects, the parrier will get huge advantages in most situations.

Something else I really like about parries is the way they allow you to get out of chip situations without meter [...]

You can avoid that in other SF games too, via invincible moves (and since reversals generally have 1-frame windows, they are pretty damn hard too).

King of Fighters' rolls also give you a way to avoid chip but don't have such negative consequences as SF3-style parries. They require even more precision than pulling an invincible reversal special in Street Fighter since you don't have piano inputs in KOF.

I genuinely enjoy that the SFIII series has weakened fireballs in exchanged for a faster pace that's more movement oriented, and a more complex close-up system.[...]

I don't think Third Strike's close range fighting is more complex than in other Street Fighters. ST's close range game is extremely complex (sweeps being actually good have a lot to do with this) and okizeme is so much more powerful in there. Alpha 3, while has weaker normals that dumb its close range game a bit, has all sorts of fun bullshit with VCs that are far more complex than anything in 3S.

In any case, I think it's not enough to compensate the absolute lack of long ranged game, how it dumbs mindgames down, and how many strategies it destroys. Besides, Third Strike is no match to truly close-range oriented fighters such as Virtua Fighter. To me, the real beauty of (good) 2D fighting games is how you can play them at many distances, the relevance of positioning (something 3S also eliminates) and its particular take on okizeme.

But stuff like "goofy 3D" and "FMV supers" do leave SFIV worse off, though. [...]

What I was saying is that "FMV supers" aren't anything new (HSDMs in KOF 2002, Instant Kills in Guilty Gear, or pretty much any long super ever are mostly the same, they last about as long as Ultras), and fanservice rosters are pretty common in KOF (the best KOFs are dream matches, and Guilty Gear X got like three new characters in the whole series).

As for the goofy 3D, Street Fighter had goofy stuff before (see Blanka and Balrog in earlier games), but yeah the dumb new ultras take it to a next level. Still, that's not that relevant compared to the actual system, and I haven't seen really valid criticisms from Josh in that aspect.

Actually you can't do that because I never claimed some move was easy to do, you did. Parrying is real easy to do in a fictional match, you'll never miss. I'm claiming Capcom stupidly and lazily went into the time machine.

You quickly dismissed Viscant's points by saying that he would get bodied by Japan's finest, instead of actually providing valid counter-arguments.

Anyways, his main point is that parrying involves MUCH less risk than other defensive options found in fighting games, such as rolling, laying down, using an invincible move, etc. and he's completely right about that.

When you miss a Shoryuken, roll, lay down, parry with whiff animation, you are helpless during the move's recovery, free for punishment. This doesn't happen with SFIII's parries, the window for punishment is minuscule in comparison.

Third Strike's and Second Impact's tier issues have more to do with high-damage and/or too many stocks of certain Super Arts that are easily hit-confirmable, an issue that would still exist even without parrying. That's like saying some characters use jump better if they have a broken combo that starts with a jump-in.

The top tiers are tops for more than just that. They have good / safe damaging options against parry. Chun and Ken have fast, long ranged pokes, Yun has Genei Jin bullshit that is so random that is hard to parry, Makoto can destroy you from a throw, Yang and Urien have unblockables... parry has a lot to do with the tiers in Third Strike.

Even though everyone's parry is exactly the same, not every character can get the same rewards out of them.

I skimmed the rest, and he's right about a lot of stuff. [...]

Maybe characters like Bison could work is parries were as tight as in Accent Core.

And SFIV did add new things. Focus attacks are a type of parry like technique that are pretty well thought out. They add variety since all focus attacks have different properties. With a bit of tweaking (low and high focus attacks, for example) they would be great.

Focus cancels are new too, a roman cancel mechanic. If "special" xx focus, Ultra weren't as good as it is, it would be a great addition to the game.

Armor moves are an interesting way to avoid projectiles and other stuff from a risk-reward standpoint.

Capcom did add new mechanics to Street Fighter. The problem isn't lack of innovation, it's mostly dumbing things down to cater to casuals.

All of which is worthless to me because I had the intuition after playing it for 15 minutes and realizing I pretty much played it before that I'd have more fun fucking around in KOFXI's training mode. I didn't need to play it for a year (or co opt the info from people who have on SRK) and get into the details to figure that out. You'll find that I'm a scrub at most of the games I don't like.

I can understand that, but still your reasons for disliking it are bullshit, and so are your reasons for liking Third Strike.

[Marble]

Parries, more like "nerfing" fireballs, almost completely remove them from the game. Save for a couple supers such as Urien's Aegis Reflector and EX fireballs, projectiles don't have place in 3S as zoning tools.

Yep. Cool.

You are right in that (at higher levels), getting a parry doesn't equal free damage. That's because top players use mostly really fast, safe pokes that are harder to punish with parry. Still, thanks to the nature of parry and option selects, the parrier will get huge advantages in most situations.

Not even limited to high level (it's not hard to stick out a low forward after parrying a low forward) - it's not free because the opponent still has options just as I explained. And yeah of course the parrier gets the advantage lol, anything else would be absurd.

Most of them. How many times you see someone using a special as an anti-air in 3S? How do people evade projectiles, punish slow moves? Parry is the main option in the vast majority of cases.

Okay, fair enough about the anti-air comment. But isn't it a bit more interesting that the grounded opponent can't just DP every deep jump-in, they have to instead mix it up out of fear of a jump-in parry? Not like that's really a common tactic though, since the grounded person will always have more options.

Blocking, counter-poking etc, is still very important in 3S of course. When I played Tokido, his ability to zone well, read my patterns and stuff all my moves was a lot scarier than his parrying ability.

You can avoid that in other SF games too, via invincible moves (and since reversals generally have 1-frame windows, they are pretty damn hard too).

Not all characters have good reversals (or should, for the sake of character diversity) and even then most would still lose to certain things (fireball supers, for one) so parrying is still the only way to avoid chip applicable to any situation (if you have the precision to full parry a super, which is much more fun than doing a wake up DP).

I don't think Third Strike's close range fighting is more complex than in other Street Fighters. ST's close range game is extremely complex (sweeps being actually good have a lot to do with this) and okizeme is so much more powerful in there.

Well I've given (some of) my reasons, let's hear yours (besides "sweeps").

Anyways, his main point is that parrying involves MUCH less risk than other defensive options found in fighting games, such as rolling, laying down, using an invincible move, etc. and he's completely right about that.

When you miss a Shoryuken, roll, lay down, parry with whiff animation, you are helpless during the move's recovery, free for punishment. This doesn't happen with SFIII's parries, the window for punishment is minuscule in comparison.

I see where you're going with this. Looking at (for example) a wake up situation in the most basic way, if you wake up guess parry you only have a 1/3 chance of guessing right (high, low, throw) and even with various option selects, you're either parrying high or low. If you wake up shoryu it will beat out all three of these options, everything except block. You’re right that you cannot bait a parry in the same way you can a shoryu, but clearly they still carry a lot of risk.

[El Chaos]

But stuff like "goofy 3D" and "FMV supers" do leave SFIV worse off, though. [...]

What I was saying is that "FMV supers" aren't anything new (HSDMs in KOF 2002, Instant Kills in Guilty Gear, or pretty much any long super ever are mostly the same, they last about as long as Ultras), and fanservice rosters are pretty common in KOF (the best KOFs are dream matches, and Guilty Gear X got like three new characters in the whole series).

But a Guilty Gear Instant Kill does exactly that, it doesn't take into consideration the duel's remaining time. At least in many KOF games, SDMs like Iori's Ya Otome or King's Illusion Dance do take a while to finish with the clock still ticking, and the opponent is left with nothing else to do for their duration if they get caught (hence a "FMV super"), but once someone successfully lands an Instant Kill nothing else really matters anymore.

And the Guilty Gear series got twelve new characters after the first installment. Street Fighter II got nine, and III got eight.

[nothingxs]

As an aside: I write about this game, sometimes. You can read it here. It deals with what I've observed is a growing (bad) trend in Street Fighter players: shitty defense.

Also,

Okay, fair enough about the anti-air comment. But isn't it a bit more interesting that the grounded opponent can't just DP every deep jump-in, they have to instead mix it up out of fear of a jump-in parry? Not like that's really a common tactic though, since the grounded person will always have more options.

No, it really isn't any more interesting. And as for avoiding chip damage, the best way to avoid having to take any chip damage that might kill you is to simply never get yourself in the situation that would make chip damage kill you in the first place. I still don't understand how this makes parrying any more interesting.

Honestly, the way I've come to terms with my dislike for 3S is simply thinking of it as what would happen if we limited some bizarre combination of Tekken and Virtua Fighter to a 2D plane, added some Street Fighter theory and tried to make it work.

[Marble]

And as for avoiding chip damage, the best way to avoid having to take any chip damage that might kill you is to simply never get yourself in the situation that would make chip damage kill you in the first place. I still don't understand how this makes parrying any more interesting.

Of course. But still, as long as you still have life there should be a way out. If you can parry well, there is. Once the attacker realizes this it becomes impractical for them to try and chip kill again, hence they have to use a more advanced strategy than just "execute a super and instantly win." So the defender can get out of otherwise unavoidable deaths which forces the attacker to try something more elaborate - this makes the game more interesting for both sides.

[SPD]

Yep. Cool.

So, you think that taking away options instead of adding more is a good thing?

Not even limited to high level (it's not hard to stick out a low forward after parrying a low forward) - it's not free because the opponent still has options just as I explained. And yeah of course the parrier gets the advantage lol, anything else would be absurd.

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said. The reason why parries are not completely free is that people stick to fast, safe pokes or stuff that is hard (Genei-Jin) or impossible (Karakusa) to parry. A lot of things that are possible on other games become unviable in 3S, so variety is reduced.

And I said "huge" advantage. And for minimal risk, compared to other defensive mechanisms. This is definitely not a good thing.

Okay, fair enough about the anti-air comment. [...]

No, it isn't. It just reduces the things you can use as anti-airs. Note that "antiair specials" includes things like projectiles too, and slower normals that are commonly used as antiairs in other games become unsafe in 3S.

Well I've given (some of) my reasons, let's hear yours (besides "sweeps").

Okizeme is much more powerful (crossups aren't very good in 3S thanks to parry; if you input a parry at the right time during a crossup you either parry or block), projectiles are useful not only as long-range zoning tools but also as close ranged pokes (some of which knock down and allow for knockdown mixups), normals are much better and useful, there's less risk of getting countered since doing a psychic invincible move requires much more commitment than option-select parrying so there's more freedom at that range, throws are much better and set up knockdowns and mixups if teched (no option select throw teching either), positioning being much more relevant than in 3S, among other things.

I see where you're going with this. [...]

They carry some risk (if they didn't carry ANY risk at all the game would be complete utter garbage instead of just mediocre), but much less risk than other defensive mechanisms.

Of course. But still, as long as you still have life there should be a way out. If you can parry well, there is. [...]

Why should you have an easy way out of EVERY situation? That just encourages sloppy play. If you get yourself into a tough spot you should have a tough time getting out of it. Or at least pay a price for it (which is what Guilty Gear does with Bursts and Faultless Defense).

If you are in a situation where you can kill your opponet via chip damage, you outplayed your opponent and put him in a situation where you can kill him that way. There's nothing simple about that. You still have invincible specials and supers to get out anyways.

Besides, having a way to bypass chip damage for free just encourages defensive play.

[icycalm]

Fix your quote attributions. Do it now.

And watch your tone. I am not talking about this last post specifically, but about previous ones. I haven't bothered to read through the latest posts in this thread yet, but from what I skimmed there's a good chance I'll ban you when I do.

[Marble]

So, you think that taking away options instead of adding more is a good thing?

No, the reason I responded like that is because the discussion isn't going anywhere by you bringing up stuff that has long been established (what parries do to fireballs). Again, parries may take away some options but in return add new ones (some of which I've elaborated on) and, just for one series, I say "cool."

As for parries not being free (after you parry a cancellable move, is what I was saying) and risk, I don't want to repeat myself any more.

No, it isn't. It just reduces the things you can use as anti-airs. Note that "antiair specials" includes things like projectiles too, and slower normals that are commonly used as antiairs in other games become unsafe in 3S.

You can use a wider variety of moves as anti-airs because people occasionally jump in hoping to parry these slower normals. There are a few characters that can put anti-air fireballs to good use (mostly Urien). In addition, there's stuff like using shoryu xx fireball super as an anti-air, which even if they do parry, you get a free mix up from.

Okizeme is much more powerful (crossups aren't very good in 3S thanks to parry; if you input a parry at the right time during a crossup you either parry or block), projectiles are useful not only as long-range zoning tools but also as close ranged pokes (some of which knock down and allow for knockdown mixups), normals are much better and useful, there's less risk of getting countered since doing a psychic invincible move requires much more commitment than option-select parrying so there's more freedom at that range, throws are much better and set up knockdowns and mixups if teched (no option select throw teching either), positioning being much more relevant than in 3S, among other things.

Still, I think 3S' up-close game is more complex. Since throw's have start up and whiff animation that leaves you free to apply pressure with normals that give you the most options (0 frame throw in ST meaning you get thrown if you get in close on their wake up) and also means there are more throw baiting tactics. There's also the parrying and the mix ups that come with it I've talked about which add a lot of complexity. Also; any parry option select involving a throw does require a lot of commitment.

I do agree that generally the ST way of doing techs is better (in regards to the thrower getting some positioning advantage) but one positive of the 3S way is that no one gets an advantage if both players throw on the same frame, unlike ST where who gets the throw is random.

Why should you have an easy way out of EVERY situation? That just encourages sloppy play. If you get yourself into a tough spot you should have a tough time getting out of it. Or at least pay a price for it (which is what Guilty Gear does with Bursts and Faultless Defense).

If you are in a situation where you can kill your opponet via chip damage, you outplayed your opponent and put him in a situation where you can kill him that way. There's nothing simple about that. You still have invincible specials and supers to get out anyways.

Besides, having a way to bypass chip damage for free just encourages defensive play.

Who said anything about easy, yet alone free? It can be really tough to parry your way out of a chip situation - as opposed to in other SFs where chip situations are often IMPOSSIBLE to get out of (You can't shoryu through everything). And even as the attacker, I think it's more fun that against a good opponent I can't just chuck a super/special out and win.

[icycalm]

Since throw's have start up and whiff animation

What is a "throw's"?

Also; any parry option

Don't do this again. It makes you look like a retard and makes me consider banning you.

[nothingxs]

[...] hence they have to use a more advanced strategy than just "execute a super and instantly win." So the defender can get out of otherwise unavoidable deaths which forces the attacker to try something more elaborate - this makes the game more interesting for both sides.

The problem here is that you assume that there wasn't a whole match played before this situation arose. The match was likely interesting for both sides before this situation came up. This situation came up precisely because one player managed to outplay another. His reward for that was to win the match.

The situations you're proposing thus far in which parrying would "make the game more interesting" so far are baffling at best, because the game was already very interesting in the first place.