Why do you guys hate DOA4¿

[Rikuto]

Interesting. Been checking out some of those charts. Thanks for the link(s).

@Raansu: Unless there has been some empirical standard established for what that terminology means, then yes, it is and always will be an interpretive opinion. If you have such a definition and tested it via a proper statistical analysis, than I will rescind my earlier statement. Basically what you're saying is that "bad" or "flawed" is not based on interpretive opinion, and is established by some universal truth. That is simply not true.

No.

The game is bad. It has less of every situation present that could possibly lead to strategic decision making and the values on different kinds of attacks are completely fucked up with respect to each other.

There is absolutely no refuting this, and it is not an opinion. It's been proven, both on paper and in practice. The last seven years were not imaginary.

 

[Raansu]

I meant to say why would they do such a stupid thing? ( I forgot to put the word "Why")

When we asked Shimbori last year at D i D he pretty much said Itagaki changed it because the Japanese didn't like how DoA3 played. That's really the closest answer we will ever get about why he did it.

 

[Brute]

No.
The game is bad. It has less of every situation present that could possibly lead to strategic decision making and the values on different kinds of attacks are completely fucked up with respect to each other.
There is absolutely no refuting this, and it is not an opinion. It's been proven, both on paper and in practice. The last seven years were not imaginary.

Even if the game only had 3 brightly colored cubes that could be controlled with the LB&RB buttons it's still not universally "bad" for everyone, as "bad" is always subjective. Always. I appreciate your opinion (broken record, I know), and I'm sure it was bad for you, but that does not make it so for everyone. If that were true, humans would posses hive mind, which we don't.
The larger proportion of the community did not find it likable. They are perfectly entitled to that. But calling it universally bad is dismissive (it's technically called a "mind projection fallacy" or sometimes "ethno-centric fallacy").

When we asked Shimbori last year at D i D he pretty much said Itagaki changed it because the Japanese didn't like how DoA3 played. That's really the closest answer we will ever get about why he did it.

That's interesting. Itagaki had some really weird ideas in his later years with Tecmo.

 

[Tenren]

Even if the game only had 3 brightly colored cubes that could be controlled with the LB&RB buttons it's still not universally "bad" for everyone, as "bad" is always subjective. Always. I appreciate your opinion (broken record, I know), and I'm sure it was bad for you, but that does not make it so for everyone. If that were true, humans would posses hive mind, which we don't.
The larger proportion of the community did not find it likable. They are perfectly entitled to that. But calling it universally bad is dismissive (it's technically called a "mind projection fallacy" or sometimes "ethno-centric fallacy").

On a competitive level-- its bad. As a casual game its good. Hell MvC2 was one of the most broken games out there but competitively it was great. You can say DOA4 has no stun system at all. Nothing is guaranteed simple due to you can hold everything at frame 0. That fact alone really hurts the game. Thats like making a shooter but you dont give the player any weapons. When we say its bad universally we mean by comparing to the older version of DOA & all other fighting games and how people want to play them. Yes casual is what sale the market but the FGC is what keeps the game alive. The FSD community as a whole just want to make DOA as good as possible. Even your option count but remember that there will always be one game someone doesn't like while others like it. In this case the majority here have issues with DOA4.1

I guess what it all comes down to is, Its really hard for most people to see what we mean. Simple cuz they haven't played DOA3.1. If you ever get a chance do so. I bet after you will see the deff between DOA3.1,4.0 & 4.1. If you like the way DOA5 is going then you would prolly love 3.1. Even 3.0 is still a better game then 4.1. For many reason. find a use copy at a game store. it will play on 360s

ps ive prolly edited this 100 times lmao

 

[Jefffcore]

It's not all that fun at high level, or near it. Opinions only seem to differ between skill levels or knowledge of other games. Anyone who's played DOA4 at the highest level will tell you "Competitively, it's a bad game". Anyone.

 

[Brute]

It's not all that fun at high level, or near it. Opinions only seem to differ between skill levels or knowledge of other games. Anyone who's played DOA4 at the highest level will tell you "Competitively, it's a bad game". Anyone.

Likely accurate.

 

[Chaos]

When we asked Shimbori last year at D i D he pretty much said Itagaki changed it because the Japanese didn't like how DoA3 played. That's really the closest answer we will ever get about why he did it.

Holy crap! That REALLY makes me worried about DOA5 but I wonder how japan feels about it?

 

[Forlorn Penguin]

When we asked Shimbori last year at D i D he pretty much said Itagaki changed it because the Japanese didn't like how DoA3 played. That's really the closest answer we will ever get about why he did it.

Wow. That's incredibly stupid. Thanks, Itagaki.

I guess what it all comes down to is, Its really hard for most people to see what we mean. Simple cuz they haven't played DOA3.1. If you ever get a chance do so. I bet after you will see the deff between DOA3.1,4.0 & 4.1. If you like the way DOA5 is going then you would prolly love 3.1.

I've never played 3.1 unfortunately, but I did watch the stream of it that Gill Hustle linked to last week. Just from watching that I can say the game looked fantastic and way better than 4.

Even 3.0 is still a better game then 4.1. For many reason. find a use copy at a game store. it will play on 360s

Is 3.0 considered bad?

Holy crap! That REALLY makes me worried about DOA5 but I wonder how japan feels about it?

It was Itagaki's reason for destroying DOA4, not TN as a whole. Itagaki is gone now, and TN is completely different.

 

[Raansu]

3.0 isn't bad, it just isn't as good as 3.1.

 

[Rikuto]

Even if the game only had 3 brightly colored cubes that could be controlled with the LB&RB buttons it's still not universally "bad" for everyone, as "bad" is always subjective. Always. I appreciate your opinion (broken record, I know), and I'm sure it was bad for you, but that does not make it so for everyone. If that were true, humans would posses hive mind, which we don't.
The larger proportion of the community did not find it likable. They are perfectly entitled to that. But calling it universally bad is dismissive (it's technically called a "mind projection fallacy" or sometimes "ethno-centric fallacy").

Except the vast majority of the community does hate it.

If we didn't, this topic wouldn't exist.

Paradox.

And if a game is not being played due to its faulty gameplay system, it is not a competitively viable game. To be competitive means to compete with OTHER PEOPLE, and you can't compete if nobody is competing. Therefore it is competitively bad, and everyone who refuses to play the game has been quite up front with why they refuse to play it.

Taking all of the evidence into consideration, it cannot be considered subjective because it lacks competitive functionality which leads to a lack of interest. There is no subjectivity to be had here, its all concrete cause-and-effect.

 

[Brute]

Except the vast majority of the community does hate it.
If we didn't, this topic wouldn't exist.
Paradox.
And if a game is not being played due to its faulty gameplay system, it is not a competitively viable game. To be competitive means to compete with OTHER PEOPLE, and you can't compete if nobody is competing. Therefore it is competitively bad, and everyone who refuses to play the game has been quite up front with why they refuse to play it.
Taking all of the evidence into consideration, it cannot be considered subjective because it lacks competitive functionality which leads to a lack of interest. There is no subjectivity to be had here, its all concrete cause-and-effect.

Either you don't know what the word "paradox" means, or you intentionally used it incorrectly given the context. There is also a strange bit where by "vast majority of the community" implied hive mind given the accompanied quote, but I'll ignore that altogether as someone inferences can be inaccurate.

You're just stating your opinion (and that of others), and then claiming that it is in fact not an opinion at all because a majority agrees with you. By that logic, we should all uniformly agree that Yahweh is the sovereign God of the Earth (as Christianity and Islam make up a collective 54% (approx.) of the Earth's population), realize that He probably wouldn't approve of DOA, and then stop playing altogether.
Generalizations and mind projection fallacies are a nasty bit. A majority may be right (and often are), but that doesn't give universality to the topic unless it can be proven. This cannot be empirically studied as it deals with a subjective social construct that each individual interprets in their own way. You are perfectly entitled to think it's bad, along with "the larger community," but those do not assert universality.

 

[Rikuto]

To be honest, I think you're simply throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

The game was bad competitively, thus people did not enjoy playing it in a competitive environment (even when they did go, it was for money and not game itself as can be widely attested by anyone in attendance), thus it was not played. This is not theory or opinion, it's recorded history with an encyclopedia of facts backing it up.

Each fact lead to the other. That's all that has been said here, and not a single portion of that argument can be refuted.

It has nothing to do with Hive minds or Jesus. It has everything to do with the fact that it was a bad game.

Now if you choose not to accept that reality, then that is on you. Something tells me however, that this is largely because you were not actually one of the people playing the game in tournaments and running into the same roadblocks as everyone else was.

This is not where the opinion grows from either, it is still a fact that the game is bad competitively. A man who never comes out during the day can think the sun does not exist, but this is not so.

 

[Awesmic]

Well, that went way over my head. We were just talkin' about DOA4 and its accurate competitive history, and Brute takes it so personal that he wants to bring religion to the table. For the record, I practice Shequanism, and Christie is my based god...dess.

But seriously, Brute. Chill. No one's saying you're obligated to hate DOA4 yourself. If you have fond memories of the game, that's your thing. Heck, I do too... without that game I probably wouldn't be as close to the community as I initially hoped, and would probably end up playing DOAX to various music from Nobuo Uematsu for another 7 years. But that wasn't the case.

Granted, my opinion towards what DOA4 meant to me may not be a popular one, but what matters is that I want to move forward and embrace a path that will make our beloved franchise even better, and DOA5 is lookin' up.

 

[Forlorn Penguin]

3.0 isn't bad, it just isn't as good as 3.1.

Oh, okay. Where does 3.2 stand?

You are perfectly entitled to think it's bad, along with "the larger community," but those do not assert universality.

It's not so much the opinion that DOA4 is bad, but rather the fact that it's heavy reliance on randomness makes it not competitively viable.

I enjoyed playing DOA4 casually too, but it's easy to see that it was terrible in real high level play, which is what really matters.

 

[Rikuto]

3.1 > 3.2 > 3.0


All decent games, however.

 

[Raansu]

Ive honestly never played 3.2 so I can't really say anything for sure, but as far as I'm aware 3.1 and 3.2 are more or less identical minus changes to the free step making tracking a bit tighter as they were trying to fix Hayate's cartwheel.

 

[Chaos]

On a competitive level-- its bad. As a casual game its good. Hell MvC2 was one of the most broken games out there but competitively it was great. You can say DOA4 has no stun system at all. Nothing is guaranteed simple due to you can hold everything at frame 0. That fact alone really hurts the game. Thats like making a shooter but you dont give the player any weapons. When we say its bad universally we mean by comparing to the older version of DOA & all other fighting games and how people want to play them. Yes casual is what sale the market but the FGC is what keeps the game alive. The FSD community as a whole just want to make DOA as good as possible. Even your option count but remember that there will always be one game someone doesn't like while others like it. In this case the majority here have issues with DOA4.1

I guess what it all comes down to is, Its really hard for most people to see what we mean. Simple cuz they haven't played DOA3.1. If you ever get a chance do so. I bet after you will see the deff between DOA3.1,4.0 & 4.1. If you like the way DOA5 is going then you would prolly love 3.1. Even 3.0 is still a better game then 4.1. For many reason. find a use copy at a game store. it will play on 360s

ps ive prolly edited this 100 times lmao

The thing thats funny I never played 3.1 but I hate the mechainics on DOA4 and only played the demo maybe because I play Tekken & Doa3 most of the time I guess. Now since Shimbori is in charge and wants to make the fighting game ever, I can finally see what it feels like playing a competitive DOA.

 

[Forlorn Penguin]

3.1 > 3.2 > 3.0


All decent games, however.

Ive honestly never played 3.2 so I can't really say anything for sure, but as far as I'm aware 3.1 and 3.2 are more or less identical minus changes to the free step making tracking a bit tighter as they were trying to fix Hayate's cartwheel.

Okay, cool. Thanks.

 

[Brute]

To be honest, I think you're simply throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Nope.

The game was bad competitively, thus people did not enjoy playing it in a competitive environment (even when they did go, it was for money and not game itself as can be widely attested by anyone in attendance), thus it was not played. This is not theory or opinion, it's recorded history with an encyclopedia of facts backing it up.

That's phrased with bias, and is again an opinion that you want to indicate as fact. There may be a lot of facts that support your opinion (which seems to be a hypothesis). From a ridiculously unnecessary but technically accurate standpoint, it would read:
"A large proportion of the DOA community has been observed (scale req.) not enjoying the competitive aspects of DOA4 as much as previous titles (stat req.). The intent of the tournaments involving the game were strictly commercial and did not emphasize the technical, competitive nature of the game, as indicated by some (source req.), and it is believed that this (an observably less competitive fighting build, scale req.) was an indication that the primary independent variable as to why proportionally less players played the game than previous installments (C.I. req.). This is my hypothesis, which is supported through the empirical data of my observations as can be viewed through enyclopedias (source req.) and facts (source req.)."

Each fact lead to the other. That's all that has been said here, and not a single portion of that argument can be refuted.

It most certainly can (proving causality is very difficult). Not that if the above experiment were run I believe it would prove false (I actually speculate it would be very accurate), but that does not change the context of the word "bad." That word is always subjective. No testing can change that. It's a word that is socially constructed and applied to different perspectives.

It has nothing to do with Hive minds or Jesus. It has everything to do with the fact that it was a bad game.

Agreed and disagreed. It has to deal with a perception of "bad."

Now if you choose not to accept that reality, then that is on you. Something tells me however, that this is largely because you were not actually one of the people playing the game in tournaments and running into the same roadblocks as everyone else was.
This is not where the opinion grows from either, it is still a fact that the game is bad competitively. A man who never comes out during the day can think the sun does not exist, but this is not so.

Your "reality" is subjective, and is constructed based on your cognitive bias.

I think there may be some confusion. I'm not arguing that it was competitively viable. In fact, quite the opposite. Hopefully everyone's aware of that.

@Awesmic: This is how I chill. I don't get worked up in debates. I actually find them calming, and I like hearing others' opinions on matters, even if they differ from mine. Others' opinions are particularly amusing when the individual refuses to acknowledge it's even an opinion. Perception is such an intriguing human condition.

edit: Well this turned out to be a long post. I don't hold it against anyone if they don't read the whole thing. =P

 

[Raansu]

but that does not change the context of the word "bad." That word is always subjective. No testing can change that. It's a word that is socially constructed and applied to different perspectives.

Wow dude you are so far off base here it's not even funny. If the word bad is always subjective then I guess I should start doing drugs huh? Because apparently those being bad is just subjective even though we all know medically that doing heavy drugs is not exactly the best thing for your health. Believe me I would know, I've seen my sister go down that path.

You're literally just throwing out semantics and debating on a subject you have no understanding of. No one is telling you to dislike DoA4 or to stop playing it, but like it or not it is a fact that DoA4 is fundamentally flawed. As Rikuto said, the last seven years were not imaginary. The game has been broken down piece by piece both on paper and in practice. It has been proven to be a bad fighting game on a competitive level. You can enjoy it casually all you want, but there is no argument to the fact that DoA4 is a garbage game when it comes to competitive game play. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

Go read the first page of this thread dude. It's explained pretty well why the game is bad.