BlazBlue

[Taylor]

You are, at best, arguing semantics over the blurrier boarders of two phrases. Do you have a solid point to make or are we going to define what a clone is in the next series of posts -- to then work out if comments like “just a modified street fighter clone” are derision or completely empty?

You can call it sport, I think your arguing for the sake of it and had every intention to before you even read the post. We need to stop this, Sentura.

[Skjalg]

i enjoy fighting games. perhaps not to the point of enthusiasm or fanboyism, but i still enjoy them. to put it like a programmer: i base their equality in the same sense as you would compare two classes inheriting the same interface: they can still both be called by that interface.

Haha, I see your point there, except it doesnt make any sense when you look at your arguments in this thread (referring to the anime arguing), on that point the two fighting games do not implement the same interface

[Taylor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_VO3JIEGXU

Use to dodge predictable American moves.

[Sentura]

You are, at best, arguing semantics over the blurrier boarders of two phrases. Do you have a solid point to make or are we going to define what a clone is in the next series of posts -- to then work out if comments like “just a modified street fighter clone” are derision or completely empty?

i'm not sure how much this is semantics. from a logical point of view, you can have a 2d fighting game with a set of rules and/or actions/moves. if those rules or actions/moves are changed, then you would essentially have a new, modified game. in this way, any fighter is pretty much a replica of a former fighter. sure it's grossly oversimplified, but it still gets the point across. my question really is, what makes you think this will be any different than the rest? what makes you think it will be better? more popular? or in any way exceeding what a previous game in the genre has done?

You can call it sport, I think your arguing for the sake of it and had every intention to before you even read the post. We need to stop this, Sentura.

i have a point with what i am saying; so no, i'm doing it just for the sake of it. neither had i the intention to argue before i saw whatever post you refer to.

Haha, I see your point there, except it doesnt make any sense when you look at your arguments in this thread (referring to the anime arguing), on that point the two fighting games do not implement the same interface

i disagree; they implement it to a varying degree. some methods are left out whereas others are used.

[Taylor]

As I see it this entire debate is about what defines a "clone" and an "anime game." You wrote sentences in your initial post like "it's just a modified street fighter clone." Which I would read as a negative connotation as it implies that it deviates very little from the street fighter formula, but when I took issue with this saying they are actually far apart, you seem to argue that all fighting games are street fighter clones, just as every first person shooter is a clone of another. So the word “clone” and your previous statement mean very little.

The same thing happened with the "anime game" argument, I disagreed and pointed at its influences and the opinion of people who play fighting games but you said anything possibly relatable to anime means its anime because that's how it appears to a layman (though you also said popular opinion is never true, which is interesting).

What’s different than street fighter? Well which street fighter? If you go by the Marvel vs. Capcom spin-off things are a little simpler but there’s world warrior, hyper fighting, super turbo, alpha 3, third strike, snk, tatsunoko, mini-mix. They are all different.

Air dashes, double jumps, triple jumps, super jumps, rapid cancels, instant guard, barrier guard, instant barrier guard, gold burst, green burst, blue burst, guard libra, negative penalty, advanced input, ukemi rolls, counter assault, heat gain, drive attacks, life leech, freeze, shadow, magnetize, insect swarms, dash attacks, installs, poison, projectile limiters, negative edge sub-characters— Why am I writing all this? You know what, I give up. Yes, it's the same as street fighter.

[Sentura]

As I see it this entire debate is about what defines a "clone" and an "anime game." You wrote sentences in your initial post like "it's just a modified street fighter clone." Which I would read as a negative connotation as it implies that it deviates very little from the street fighter formula, but when I took issue with this saying they are actually far apart, you seem to argue that all fighting games are street fighter clones, just as every first person shooter is a clone of another. So the word “clone” and your previous statement mean very little.

aren't 2d fighters about 2 or more avatars playing it to the death/K.O. in a 2 dimensional scene? every game in the genre deviates very little from each other; i'm sorry if i offended your connoisseuric senses by suggesting that they may be called clones. we've had discussions previously where you've misinterpreted my statements, so i'm thinking we're arguing about different things?

The same thing happened with the "anime game" argument, I disagreed and pointed at its influences and the opinion of people who play fighting games but you said anything possibly relatable to anime means its anime because that's how it appears to a layman (though you also said popular opinion is never true, which is interesting).

i use the word anime in connotation with the anime drawing style. street fighter had the anime movie as well as a certain art style from the second game (but even the first was anime in my eyes). it's all described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime. if you have a different definition of what anime is, or what an anime game is, then please, feel free to describe it.

What’s different than street fighter? Well which street fighter? If you go by the Marvel vs. Capcom spin-off things are a little simpler but there’s world warrior, hyper fighting, super turbo, alpha 3, third strike, snk, tatsunoko, mini-mix. They are all different.

Air dashes, double jumps, triple jumps, super jumps, rapid cancels, instant guard, barrier guard, instant barrier guard, gold burst, green burst, blue burst, guard libra, negative penalty, advanced input, ukemi rolls, counter assault, heat gain, drive attacks, life leech, freeze, shadow, magnetize, insect swarms, dash attacks, installs, poison, projectile limiters, negative edge sub-characters— Why am I writing all this? You know what, I give up. Yes, it's the same as street fighter.

i don't get why you're writing it either; i'm not asking what exact moves it differs from in street fighter. i'm asking what new it brings to the scene; sort of like skate did to skateboarding games, or what half-life did to FPS games. i'm not sure whether you intentionally web yourself into questions or a certain reasoning that i never posted. i only used street fighter as a concrete example of a well known fighter, not as the best fighter of all times.

[Taylor]

Shut up.

[Skjalg]

Heh I think i gotta side with Taylor on this one.

What you're basically saying here, Sentura, is that all fighting games are clones of street fighter.

Whcih means that all RTS's are clones of read alert, or that all fps games are clones of quake... I think you get the picture.

The nuances and new shit each game has brought are too numerous to list, at this point (with all games) the innovation lies in the details.

[Sentura]

innovation never comes in details. innovative games come with new systems that put them far into unknown territory, and where the whole game is at stake if it fails (e.g., mirror's edge). games where the details are "innovative" are just modified clones, even if those details are enough to make a list of say, 50 improved moves or similar. this is why i mentioned games like skate, which did exactly that: created a new system and threw it out there.

quite frankly i'm getting tired of seeing games upon games offering little improvement over the previous, or things that could have been essentially added as an expansion, DLC or just patched in. of course almost all those games are investments, but really, there's bound to be a better way to invest money rather than cycle through a new madden, call of duty, or tony hawk's game every single year. this has always been my gripe with the industry, and it's a shame that you can get away with it.

[Skjalg]

No, its not Sentura, because not every game is about bringing something new to the genre or carving a new one.

Sometimes its about making something that has been done before, only better, with better graphics (you probably dont care about that, but many do), more flawless gameplay or with a better story. Or better yet with a continuing story.

There are only so many games that can innovate like in the old days, (like the ones you mentioned) since most of the good ideas are taken already and thus the good combination of these already existing elements will make a better game than there already exist. Also, the innovative games need to have a strong backing of a good developer behind them that has produced some un-innovative games (Read; Dice and battlefield series).

[Sentura]

i disagree; graphics, extra units etc. are at most expansions, and i can't honestly see how they can at any point warrant an entirely new game. i know you are biased towards starcraft 2, and blizzard in general (because that's what they do), but i think those practices are bad. bad in the sense that they present an example to not innovate games at all and just make a fortune on replay or sequential games.

i'm not saying every new game should be a new mirror's edge, but they at least should show some effort of improvement, even if it's a sequel. assassin's creed 2 is a perfect example of how a sequel should be: new game mechanics/systems, new setting/atmosphere, an entirely different storyline - all in a package that still fits into the pieces from the previous game. starcraft 2 on the other hand, bring the same gameplay, with improved graphics, a few extra units and/or minor changes and a story that has never been the main focus of the game. a sequel to a game should be considered more than just, "oh hey, let's do a fan service and make a new version of X and charge the fans for it". it should be something that occurs with more fluidity from the first game, and it should bring with it at least some sense of innovation.

to me it looks like you have the defeatist attitude of not being able or not wanting to improve upon a concept, and that's a shame. every media has gone through some sort of evolutionary process wherein people have tried to make different things possible. some failed, some succeeded, but the difference is that they tried. and with today's digital age, where changes can be done and undone within seconds, we should try to improve more than ever - not indulge ourselves in old, stale concepts covered by beautiful graphics.

[Zyn]

I thought this was a thread about the latest fighter-game BlazBlue, not a wall of text about "Every game has to be new and innovative or else it sucks".

[Skjalg]

i disagree; graphics, extra units etc. are at most expansions, and i can't honestly see how they can at any point warrant an entirely new game. i know you are biased towards starcraft 2, and blizzard in general (because that's what they do), but i think those practices are bad. bad in the sense that they present an example to not innovate games at all and just make a fortune on replay or sequential games.

I actually agree with you there, except you forget that in most cases new graphics means a new engine, which means it isnt compatible with the old game and you cant really patch it.

i'm not saying every new game should be a new mirror's edge, but they at least should show some effort of improvement, even if it's a sequel. assassin's creed 2 is a perfect example of how a sequel should be: new game mechanics/systems, new setting/atmosphere, an entirely different storyline - all in a package that still fits into the pieces from the previous game. starcraft 2 on the other hand, bring the same gameplay, with improved graphics, a few extra units and/or minor changes and a story that has never been the main focus of the game. a sequel to a game should be considered more than just, "oh hey, let's do a fan service and make a new version of X and charge the fans for it". it should be something that occurs with more fluidity from the first game, and it should bring with it at least some sense of innovation.

Starcraft 2 brings the same gameplay as starcraft because its a sequel. What you are basically saying is that terminator 2 should have been a car racing movie and not an action packed awesomefest featuring arnold because thats just copying the first movie. The story in starcraft 1 is awesome, and its one of the things blizzard is most renowned for (making awesome stories and plot twists). Saying anything remotely otherwise is completely retarded and shows your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

Also, you make it sound like the fan doesnt want "new version of X", if they didnt they wouldnt buy it, now would they? You make the developer look like a big bad wolf for delivering a sequel, (except if its assassins creed 2, like thats not an exact clone of the first game. Oh, you mean its so awesome since its a new settings and a new story. Well NEWSLFASH sentura, its a singleplayer game. What they really did was add some extra weapons, change up the story some and make some new buildings and enemies (just to bring the argument and narrowmindedness down to your level, no offence ubiguys, i loved ac) Sometimes I wonder if you ever read what you have written to check if it sounds stupid. You really should start. You contradict yourself in everyother sentence, you even try to prove your ridicilous statements by disproving them.

to me it looks like you have the defeatist attitude of not being able or not wanting to improve upon a concept, and that's a shame. every media has gone through some sort of evolutionary process wherein people have tried to make different things possible. some failed, some succeeded, but the difference is that they tried. and with today's digital age, where changes can be done and undone within seconds, we should try to improve more than ever - not indulge ourselves in old, stale concepts covered by beautiful graphics.

Wow.. seriously? Follow my advice and read through that again, then think hard and long about what you just said.

As a last note, I just want to point out how lame you sound when all you talk about is innovation is everything, then bring out assassins creed as an example of great innovation (lol) and the fact that developers do nothing but milk their products and IPs is something we should strive to get rid of. The most anticipated games for 2010/2011 is SEQUELS, you can ask anyone. Its because then the customer knows what he will get.

[Erratic]

I think it's the difference between just enjoying things rather than breaking things down to a point of making you want to blow your brains out. The mind jerk must stop.

[Taylor]

It's all irrelevant anyway. BlazBlue's drive mechanic is innovative, as are many of the character specific properties, and it vastly improves on the existing mechanics of its predecessor (compare Nirvana to Eddie, for example).

Anyway, Gamechariot has updated.