Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
Pretty sure it was Itagaki who said that, not Hayashi.
New Doa 5 Characters
- Thread starter target1995
- Start date
Pretty sure it was Itagaki who said that, not Hayashi.
Black Dragon
Active Member
And Hayashi said it during an NG3 interview (can't remember where, though).
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Hayashi wanted to keep them separate as well. I also get the impression from him that he doesn't really care about DOA and that he sort of seems forced into it.
Look at how quickly they want to get DOA5 out there versus how much time and attention is being given to NG3. I wish they'd just split the team up into seperate NG and DOA teams. The DOA games got better as TN was working on them consistently 1 > ++ >2 > 3 > XBV > NG.
I think 2U was sort of a refresher for the team since they hadn't done a fighting game in a while to prep them for 4. I got the same impression with Dimensions as well. I kind of wish there were just consistent people working on the series rather than having them come back to it every so often.
What were we talking about? New characters or something? Sorry.
Look at how quickly they want to get DOA5 out there versus how much time and attention is being given to NG3. I wish they'd just split the team up into seperate NG and DOA teams. The DOA games got better as TN was working on them consistently 1 > ++ >2 > 3 > XBV > NG.
I think 2U was sort of a refresher for the team since they hadn't done a fighting game in a while to prep them for 4. I got the same impression with Dimensions as well. I kind of wish there were just consistent people working on the series rather than having them come back to it every so often.
What were we talking about? New characters or something? Sorry.
I say no new characters. Just bring back all the old characters. You already have too much on your hands, TN. More characters means more hassle for competitive players and believe me, every competitive Tekken player would say the same thing.
Game Over
Well-Known Member
New characters helps draw new buyers which helps a game make money. Sure, if the roster stayed the same from game to game, then the team can focus more attention on balancing the characters. But adding a list of new things (including characters) is a business decision that needs to be made within the realm of every fighting game. Even VF does it, and it is the most balanced of the bunch.
While some competitive players may grumble at the "hassle" of learning how to handle new characters, that's not the devs' problem, that's strictly the problem of those players. And quite frankly, if someone can't step up to the "new challengers", then they deserve to get beat by them!
Megawarrior
Active Member
I completely agree. Also, I think there should be a minimum of 3 characters.
^^^ 3 is too much. 2 is more than enough.
Yeah, but not when it's 4 whole new characters on top on an existing 35+ in Tekken. VF5 was 20 characters with one new character (Teka-Arashi is a reboot, not really a new character) and DOA4 had 20. For those who play multiple fighting games competitively, this is more like doing taxes. If you like that, you're more than welcome to play tabletop warhammer.
Yeah, but not when it's 4 whole new characters on top on an existing 35+ in Tekken. VF5 was 20 characters with one new character (Teka-Arashi is a reboot, not really a new character) and DOA4 had 20. For those who play multiple fighting games competitively, this is more like doing taxes. If you like that, you're more than welcome to play tabletop warhammer.
Game Over
Well-Known Member
Technically, VF5 (all iterations) added 3 "new" characters to the roster ... Blaze, Eileen, Jean.
As for Tekken, yeah the roster is kinda insane, but then the mechanics of Tekken allow a competent player to lame out a new character more easily than other 3D fighters. A player who is on-point with his/her spacing, baiting, punishing, juggles, etc. can rely on solid fundamentals to outplay someone rocking a new character (unless that particular opponent is equally solid).
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
Yea sure, but new players? forget it.
A new player has to master their own character, learn all the movement fundamentals and get good at them, and then learn the recognize the dangers every single other character represents.
When the roster is that huge, it's intimidating as a mother fucker.
A new player has to master their own character, learn all the movement fundamentals and get good at them, and then learn the recognize the dangers every single other character represents.
When the roster is that huge, it's intimidating as a mother fucker.
Anyone ever thought of adapting the Rifleman's Creed to fighting games? As silly as it sounds, it's creative. Hell, it might even lower the intimidation rate.
But for the sake of argument, let's say the silly idea isn't enough. Realistically, you'll also have to consider a balance of a willingness to learn the character as well as a fundamental liking for the character from the get-go in order for the silly idea to be effective. This is why I stuck it out with Christie as long as I have, despite the drastic negative changes she had coming into 4.1 IMO, if more people applied this, I believe more people would have backbone in sticking it out for the character they actually WANT to master. /2cents
But for the sake of argument, let's say the silly idea isn't enough. Realistically, you'll also have to consider a balance of a willingness to learn the character as well as a fundamental liking for the character from the get-go in order for the silly idea to be effective. This is why I stuck it out with Christie as long as I have, despite the drastic negative changes she had coming into 4.1 IMO, if more people applied this, I believe more people would have backbone in sticking it out for the character they actually WANT to master. /2cents
Game Over
Well-Known Member
When I say "new players", I'm mainly talking about "new" casual players who would look at the huge roster in Tekken very similar to one giant box of action figures. The more characters, the more potential fun with friends. Not every "new" player is going to be a new "serious" player.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
That doesn't make it any less detrimental to someone who wants to learn it though.
Who cares about what the casual scrub wants, their interests are fickle as the wind and they'll buy anything for stupid reasons. You never need to justify a games design choices for a casual player. More often then not they are idiots anyway, and are only buying the game because out of their sixteen friends, the intelligent one recommended it.
And people are stupid sheep when it comes to gaming. Just look at modern warfare. Not to say it doesn't have its merits, but I guarantee most of the people playing it are not playing it because it's a decent game. They are playing because it's what everyone else does and they want to fit in.
In an alternate universe, MK could just as easily be more popular than street fighter, halo might be a failed launch title, and games workshop could have shitstomped all over blizzard.
At some point after a game becomes established, it doesn't have to keep making choices that only serve to shoot their players in the feet.
Game Over
Well-Known Member
At the end of the day, game companies make business decisions that, whether their particular hardcore audience likes it or not, are intended to help each game sell as many copies as it can to as many people as it can. And casual gamers, whether respected or not by the hardcore audience, do count towards the success of a game if they buy the game for whatever reason.
It's a delicate situation to be in to have to make choices to either make a better game or make a better selling game. On one side of the spectrum, you've got games like COD that sacrifice significant quality and draw significant sales. On the other end of the spectrum, you've got games like VF that produce significant quality and draw mediocre sales. Between the two spectrums lies a very fine line, and an indeterminate grey area.
I'm sure this is just one of the things that can drive various dev team leaders to early grey hairs through constant contemplation on questions like "How much is too much?", "How far is too far?", "How many is too many?", etc., the ever-present artistic/graphical dilemma of the "uncanny valley", and other issues that may come up on a regular basis.
It's a delicate situation to be in to have to make choices to either make a better game or make a better selling game. On one side of the spectrum, you've got games like COD that sacrifice significant quality and draw significant sales. On the other end of the spectrum, you've got games like VF that produce significant quality and draw mediocre sales. Between the two spectrums lies a very fine line, and an indeterminate grey area.
I'm sure this is just one of the things that can drive various dev team leaders to early grey hairs through constant contemplation on questions like "How much is too much?", "How far is too far?", "How many is too many?", etc., the ever-present artistic/graphical dilemma of the "uncanny valley", and other issues that may come up on a regular basis.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
Warning: Mean spirited post is mean spirited.
You notice how starcraft 2, for example, did not suffer this problem?
It removed redundant units and added new ones with similar but different functions to make the game unique. People did not get butthurt and mass ragequit because firebats are gone. It's still more popular than jesus because it retained what made it a competitive game without overcomplicating itself, and gave casuals cool shit to play with so they can get the fuck over themselves and enjoy the game.
Brand name sells. Once it's established the casuals can go fuck themselves, they'll keep spending their money on the game like an addict buys heroin. At this point it's time for the real players to take the power reigns. If it goes down the path of quality, sales are only going to increase even more because it's managed to break the quality and popularity barrier.
That's when a game becomes iconic.
You notice how starcraft 2, for example, did not suffer this problem?
It removed redundant units and added new ones with similar but different functions to make the game unique. People did not get butthurt and mass ragequit because firebats are gone. It's still more popular than jesus because it retained what made it a competitive game without overcomplicating itself, and gave casuals cool shit to play with so they can get the fuck over themselves and enjoy the game.
Brand name sells. Once it's established the casuals can go fuck themselves, they'll keep spending their money on the game like an addict buys heroin. At this point it's time for the real players to take the power reigns. If it goes down the path of quality, sales are only going to increase even more because it's managed to break the quality and popularity barrier.
That's when a game becomes iconic.
Game Over
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind that A LOT of Starcraft's popularity (and stability of fanbase) comes from having so many pro leagues and televised coverage dedicated to it. Starcraft has been the MOST supported competitive game in the world for years now, with other games just trying to catch up. And many Starcraft "fans" are people who don't even play the game, but just like to watch others play or discuss the game. These "fans" play a big part in keeping Starcraft as popular as it is. If anything, Starcraft is the closest game to truly being mainstream popular (where average people would watch Starcraft tournaments on TV the same as they watch pro sports)!
Had CGS stuck around, all games associated with it would've likely seen similar (but not equal) benefits. Starcraft can be seen as an exception to the general notions being discussed here, or seen as one of very few games to have found that "sweet spot" between quality and popularity.
Had CGS stuck around, all games associated with it would've likely seen similar (but not equal) benefits. Starcraft can be seen as an exception to the general notions being discussed here, or seen as one of very few games to have found that "sweet spot" between quality and popularity.
No, I still think having more than 2 new characters in doa5 is going to be a hassle for everyone. Yeah, you can have good spacing and fundamentals and yeah yeah whatever, but it's going to be a pain in the ass when you're going against a Bob players for the first time.
x Sypher x
Active Member
Wow, the trailer actually looked better than what the game is now. I'm guessing that was the X05 build.
Game Over
Well-Known Member
The problem with Bob was that he was HELLA BROKEN from the start of T6! Any character that is BROKEN will be a pain to deal with ... just look at Jin in T4! Problem with Bob dwarfed any problems at the start with Alisa, Zafina, Leo, or Lars.
Game Over
Well-Known Member
That was from E3 05, a build that was not as "complete" as the X05 build, and also not as "stripped" as the final build.
When you look back at it, Bob didn't seem as different as something like Lars and Alisa, who were like characters from a completely different game when they first came out. Imagine putting a Tekken character in VF.