• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Fighting Games Weekly | March 24-30 | We talkin' bout brackets. Not a game, brackets.

That was probably the best Marvel Match of the year.
 
SwzgvfA.jpg
 
Guys, is there any article explaining why 2d fighters are more popular than 3d fighters?
I'd like to know why, because I don't feel the same.

And I did play almost every fighter.
 
Bakoery said:
Guys, is there any article explaining why 2d fighters are more popular than 3d fighters?
I'd like to know why, because I don't feel the same.

And I did play almost every fighter.
Click to expand...
In my likely uninformed opinion, I think the mass market is more impressed by 3D graphics but finds 2D gameplay easier to grasp. I think a major initial draw for SF4 was that it appears at first glance to just be "SF2, but in 3D."
 
Bakoery said:
Guys, is there any article explaining why 2d fighters are more popular than 3d fighters?
I'd like to know why, because I don't feel the same.

And I did play almost every fighter.
Click to expand...
Space. 3D games are played in a lamer style. At least with 2D,it's easier to push you into a corner. Of course. My opinion.
 
oneida said:
lamer style how?



any game you do not understand will be clunky, slow, and less fun than games you do understand.
Click to expand...

I understand 8 way runs are part of the game. But all I see is run.stop. wait for poke.counter. (America). Korea, beautiful offense.they go in relentless.
 
Bakoery said:
Guys, is there any article explaining why 2d fighters are more popular than 3d fighters?
I'd like to know why, because I don't feel the same.

And I did play almost every fighter.
Click to expand...

3D fighting games don't do a good job of conveying information to spectator, it's not obvious to random stream viewer what is happening or why. Compare that against the Daigo parry video which brought in lots and lots and lots of people over the years because the game communicates perfectly well what is happening even if you don't play Third Strike.

how many times have you read or heard someone say RE: daigo parry "i'm not totally sure what just happened but it looked like it took a lot of skill" **

With most 3D fighters, at least the ones that I play, so much of what makes a round interesting aren't just the options on the table but more specifically how people are able to make the prediction of which options the other player is going to use. 3D fighters are so mentally engaging, but how are spectators expected to understand that? Watch the first match of the video - do you understand what the players are doing, and if so is that because the game has made those options obvious or is it because you are already bringing some understanding of the game with you?

** I admit that the atmosphere played a huge role in Daigo parry's hype.

number47 said:
I understand 8 way runs are part of the game. But all I see is run.stop. wait for poke.counter. (America). Korea, beautiful offense.they go in relentless.
Click to expand...

so you are saying you don't like the way americans play 3D fighters? why is that a fault of 3D fighters themselves? i don't agree that good american players are as defensive as you're suggesting, but if you think that's the case go to SEGA cup and start guard breaking some fools.
 
oneida said:
3D fighting games don't do a good job of conveying information to spectator, it's not obvious to random stream viewer what is happening or why. Compare that against the Daigo parry video which brought in lots and lots and lots of people over the years because the game communicates perfectly well what is happening even if you don't play Third Strike.

how many times have you read or heard someone say RE: daigo parry "i'm not totally sure what just happened but it looked like it took a lot of skill" **

With most 3D fighters, at least the ones that I play, so much of what makes a round interesting aren't just the options on the table but more specifically how people are able to make the prediction of which options the other player is going to use. 3D fighters are so mentally engaging, but how are spectators expected to understand that? Watch the first match of the video - do you understand what the players are doing, and if so is that because the game has made those options obvious or is it because you are already bringing some understanding of the game with you?

** I admit that the atmosphere played a huge role in Daigo parry's hype.



so you are saying you don't like the way americans play 3D fighters? why is that a fault of 3D fighters themselves? i don't agree that good american players are as defensive as you're suggesting, but if you think that's the case go to SEGA cup and start guard breaking some fools.
Click to expand...

Alright. I have watched the parry video and I must say that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Really godlike!

But I have also seen the first matches of that virtua fighter video and I must say I understood what was going on. This me saying that coming from tekken. I have never played virtua fighter but i can see by the movement and animations what an counter , throw break is etc.

Is this just me or don't people see that when they eventually played an certaint 3d fighter?
 
Oneida. When you say Sega Cup. I think virtua fighter which I don't watch at all. Fundamentally great game. Played vf4 a bit. Translates great to other games.

3D games, sc5,doa5 n tekken. Great. But that option for running really (personally) makes attacking a bigger commitment.

I shouldn't blanket America as defensive. Just the northeast. It's not the game. Just the mentality which makes the game seem boring. I would recommend wnf when Nin made a appearance. Or better yet the south needs their own big streamer.

Any super crazy looking 3D games?
I never knew about guard crushes.
 
number47 said:
Oneida. When you say Sega Cup. I think virtua fighter which I don't watch at all. Fundamentally great game. Played vf4 a bit. Translates great to other games.

3D games, sc5,doa5 n tekken. Great. But that option for running really (personally) makes attacking a bigger commitment.

I shouldn't blanket America as defensive. Just the northeast. It's not the game. Just the mentality which makes the game seem boring. I would recommend wnf when Nin made a appearance. Or better yet the south needs their own big streamer.

Any super crazy looking 3D games?
I never knew about guard crushes.
Click to expand...

Yeah i can't speak too much about Tekken, SCV or DoA5 because I know very little about those games. I know that SCV implemented a guard crush system to discourage being overly defensive, but I don't know how much impact it made.

part of what makes VF so intense is that all the defensive options are super dangerous for the defender. about half the cast have guard breaks which lead to 40%-60% damage. The other important unblockable move is the throw, which of course everyone has. Everything carries risk. Even backdashing gets blown up so hard in VF - 50% health easily for everyone in the game. in FS they added counter hit properties to hitting evades, too, so if you get hit with a circular it's so dangerous.
 
number47 said:
Oneida. When you say Sega Cup. I think virtua fighter which I don't watch at all. Fundamentally great game. Played vf4 a bit. Translates great to other games.

3D games, sc5,doa5 n tekken. Great. But that option for running really (personally) makes attacking a bigger commitment.

I shouldn't blanket America as defensive. Just the northeast. It's not the game. Just the mentality which makes the game seem boring. I would recommend wnf when Nin made a appearance. Or better yet the south needs their own big streamer.

Any super crazy looking 3D games?
I never knew about guard crushes.
Click to expand...

I play SCV and Tekken. SCV punishes defensive play and Tekken can be played very defensively but America doesn't really play it that way at least when it comes to Tag 2. Tekken 6 you'd have more of a point.
 
oneida said:
Yeah i can't speak too much about Tekken, SCV or DoA5 because I know very little about those games. I know that SCV implemented a guard crush system to discourage being overly defensive, but I don't know how much impact it made.

part of what makes VF so intense is that all the defensive options are super dangerous for the defender. about half the cast have guard breaks which lead to 40%-60% damage. The other important unblockable move is the throw, which of course everyone has. Everything carries risk. Even backdashing gets blown up so hard in VF - 50% health easily for everyone in the game. in FS they added counter hit properties to hitting evades, too, so if you get hit with a circular it's so dangerous.
Click to expand...


Lol. Now vf sounds really interesting. I'll start right before ultra to see how they work together.
 
My buddy Omex put together a vid about how IB/barrier works in BBCP for those who need it: Link

He's a bit silly but whats there is good.

Edit: Have the old TRM video because I keep killing people super hard who don't understand it.

Edit again: have the old knockdown system vid too. I'm only leaving this here since after NA release I keep killing people for rolling/TRM for free, so I guess somebody around here might not know how it all works.
 
3D fighters had their time in the sun (during the dormant Capcom period). I feel they are in this weird spot atm where an iterative approach to some of the handful of relevant franchises has fatigued/alienated many (Tekken, VF) and the streamlined approach (Soulcalibur) has alienated much of its dedicated fan base without expanding.

During the mid-00's the console FPS and online play started taking off and fighters were generally slow to adapt. There was a migration away from the genre, generally, at this point, but 3D fighters were the face of it. It also didn't help that the most important 3D franchise in terms of casual reach at the time - Soulcalibur - stupidly and inexplicably, became a PS2 exclusive with its 3rd game, had less than a 2 year turnaround and was terrible.

All that was left was Tekken 5 and DoA online for a time.

People came back to check on these vestigial franchises some time later and may have felt some alienation or ennui.

I just think a large part of the problem is maintaining the same-old IPs over time. You just can't experiment much with an established IP because people have their expectations regarding how that IP is supposed to be handled. 3D fighters don't have to be seemingly poke-heavy, turn-based and plodding with tumescent movelists - but VF and Tekken do.

3D fighters need an "anime sub-genre" strain, bad. IMO. Viola, EIN and Algo in SCV are a glimpse of that potential.

All there is in the 3D space now is Namco/Sega (and Team Ninja with one franchise), which is silly when I think about it, so unless something crazy happens during Next Gen I only expect it to get worse.
 
Kimosabae said:
3D fighters had their time in the sun (during the dormant Capcom period). I feel they are in this weird spot atm where an iterative approach to some of the handful of relevant franchises has fatigued/alienated many (Tekken, VF) and the streamlined approach (Soulcalibur) has alienated much of its dedicated fan base without expanding.

During the mid-00's the console FPS and online play started taking off and fighters were generally slow to adapt. There was a migration away from the genre, generally, at this point, but 3D fighters were the face of it. It also didn't help that the most important 3D franchise in terms of casual reach at the time - Soulcalibur - stupidly and inexplicably, became a PS2 exclusive with its 3rd game, had less than a 2 year turnaround and was terrible.

All that was left was Tekken 5 and DoA online for a time.

People came back to check on these vestigial franchises some time later and may have felt some alienation or ennui.

I just think a large part of the problem is maintaining the same-old IPs over time. You just can't experiment much with an established IP because people have their expectations regarding how that IP is supposed to be handled. 3D fighters don't have to be seemingly poke-heavy, turn-based and plodding with tumescent movelists - but VF and Tekken do.

3D fighters need an "anime sub-genre" strain, bad. IMO. Viola, EIN and Algo in SCV are a glimpse of that potential.

All there is in the 3D space now is Namco/Sega (and Team Ninja with one franchise), which is silly when I think about it, so unless something crazy happens during Next Gen I only expect it to get worse.
Click to expand...

Techromancer comes to mind.
So does Project Justice. Just saying. What went wrong with thoses. Dreamcast didn't do enough?
 
Bakoery said:
Guys, is there any article explaining why 2d fighters are more popular than 3d fighters?
I'd like to know why, because I don't feel the same.

And I did play almost every fighter.
Click to expand...

Much much much smaller move lists/toolsets in 2D games

You can watch a few videos and pretty much get the gist of what a character is about in a 2D game

While in 3D games I don't think character playstyles and differences are as apparent or defined. I know nothing about 3D games and have no idea how I would pick a character besides aesthetic differences.
 
number47 said:
Lol. Now vf sounds really interesting. I'll start right before ultra to see how they work together.
Click to expand...

VF is a sobering game to learn because it doesn't fuck around with rule exceptions and stuff like that. if you attack out of frame disadvantage you will get blown up and there are no true blockstrings like in SF. this video details pretty much everything you'd need to know to play at a high level. it's really long so don't worry about learning everything at once, but give it a watch and take in whatever you can.
 
Yea I agree, we need an anime/VS game variant of a 3D fighter to spice things. Like a Marvel game in a 3D plane.

A 3D fighter with air dashes, heavy projectiles, flashy moves, aerial combos/launchers, teleport moves (real ones), special power ups etc.
 
Retro_ said:
Much much much smaller move lists/toolsets in 2D games

You can watch a few videos and pretty much get the gist of what a character is about in a 2D game
Click to expand...

This is key for me. I'm not interested in memorizing 50+ moves for a character, so I mostly stick to games with smaller movesets, which is generally the 2D games.
 
I agree with having more variations on the 3D genre.

if there is any problem with the way VF is now it is that there are few alternatives for those who don't like turn based fighting. VF has slimmed down its movelist significantly with recent revisions R and FS. But, again, this is a problem of letting people know about stuff instead of letting them figure it out on their own, i guess.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with "turn based" - let frame advantage mean something. Reward the player for blocking an attack because it keeps the flow of a match from becoming stilted without taking away an attacker's ability to steamroll opponents he is able to figure them out.

Parallax Scroll said:
This is key for me. I'm not interested in memorizing 50+ moves for a character, so I mostly stick to games with smaller movesets, which is generally the 2D games.
Click to expand...

You don't have to know more than 4 moves to play well.
 
Retro_ said:
Much much much smaller move lists/toolsets in 2D games
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure if that's true. Move lists in 2D fighters can be almost as expansive once you account for literally everything (standing/crouching/jumping normals, close/far normals, target combos, throws, specials, supers, etc., with different variations according to button). It's just incredibly easier to categorize them and determine their purpose in 2D games, and 3D movelists tend to have a lot of fluff in their presentation.

Despite casually playing 3D fighters on and off since VF2, it wasn't until about 2 years ago that I finally just went out of my way to watch LA Akira's breakdown of VF5 on Ultrachen and got a pretty good idea of how to break down a movelist in a 3D fighter. And a 2-hour video plus half an hour of practice in training mode was at least good enough to go 2-2 at EVO, fwiw.

Dahbomb said:
A 3D fighter with air dashes, heavy projectiles, flashy moves, aerial combos/launchers, teleport moves (real ones), special power ups etc.
Click to expand...
Play VOOT. The mech fighter subgenre is as close as you're going to get.

I'm not even joking. I would re-subscribe to Gold if people got on that.
 
oneida said:
You don't have to know more than 4 moves to play well.
Click to expand...

I've heard this as well. but as a new player, how do you pick them?

It's not really different than 2D games. Not like every character uses every special or every button they have availible to them. but because there are alot less options overall it's alot easier for new players to weed out the good ones. Especially during actual play.
 
Bakoery said:
Guys, is there any article explaining why 2d fighters are more popular than 3d fighters?
I'd like to know why, because I don't feel the same.

And I did play almost every fighter.
Click to expand...

Because SFIV happened and changed a lot of common thought on what a fighting game should be like.

Prior to that, there was a lot less tolerance for things like fireballs or link based combos.

During the PSX/N64/Saturn console days, 3D fighters pulled ahead with the advent of 3D graphics. Since no one wanted to play games with sprites, 2D fighters were pushed back as a result. But SF4 put them back on top. The updated graphics gave them mass market appeal. Games like Tekken or Soul Calibur can't live off the fact that they're 3D anymore.

Since the base of 2D fighting was developed a generation prior to 3D fighting games, their gameplay is more...minimalist? Not only smaller movesets but...there would never be something like 8 way run in a SNES/Genesis game. And the character archetypes are way more broad and they rely on extravagance. Super moves, special moves and what not. That just appeals more to people than 3D fighters, who are totally defined on only kicking and punching. Maybe the infighting in 3D fighters is more defined than 2D....But just on an appeal basis, it's hard to compete with games that involve you flying across the screen, shooting plasma beams, etc.

If I were to compare it to something else in gaming...it's like Mario games. A lot of people think 3D mario games are taking a backseat to 2D games of the same franchise. Games like Mario 64 and the first Tekken/VF games were created during a time where exploring new types of gameplay came with the new technology of the time. But that novelty isn't there anymore.
 
I would still play a new 3D Mario though. Super Mario Galaxy games were excellent and I would much rather play that over another SMB rehash.
 
Sixfortyfive said:
I'm not even sure if that's true. Move lists in 2D fighters can be almost as expansive once you account for literally everything (standing/crouching/jumping normals, close/far normals, target combos, throws, specials, supers, etc., with different variations according to button). It's just incredibly easier to categorize them and determine their purpose in 2D games, and 3D movelists tend to have a lot of fluff in their presentation.

Despite casually playing 3D fighters on and off since VF2, it wasn't until about 2 years ago that I finally just went out of my way to watch LA Akira's breakdown of VF5 on Ultrachen and got a pretty good idea of how to break down a movelist in a 3D fighter. And a 2-hour video plus half an hour of practice in training mode was at least good enough to go 2-2 at EVO, fwiw.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the whole but I don't like the word "fluff" - Lau has, for example, like 4 full circulars, and they're all good. I wouldn't call any of them fluff, though, because I might opt for a slower circular that leaves my opponent side-turned if my opponent isn't cancelling his evades. Or, if he is, I might use a faster, less safe circular because I don't think he'll cancel in time. Or, if he's a scrub and just mashing buttons, I'll use the circular that puts me into kokei because from that stance I can launch someone who's just pushing buttons. Or, if I'm near a wall, I could use my low circular because it'll give me a short wall combo.

All of those moves effectively serve the same purpose: they beat players who sidestep at medium disadvantage. And, if you don't want to learn all of them, you absolutely do not have to, because knowing one will serve that purpose. But having these options gives attackers more flexibility, and makes them harder to read.

And this ties into what I said earlier about only needing 4 moves to play VF well. I stand by that. If you play the frames and watch your opponent, you can succeed against any opponent with P, 6P, 2P, and throw. Obviously only using 4 moves limits your options in a lot of ways, but you'll be surprised how many mixups you can put people into based off of those 4.
 
number47 said:
Techromancer comes to mind.
So does Project Justice. Just saying. What went wrong with thoses. Dreamcast didn't do enough?
Click to expand...

those were meant for Japanese arcades. without arcades they had no chance of competing with Tekken, DOA and SC in the console market and with global marketing too.


Retro_ said:
Much much much smaller move lists/toolsets in 2D games

You can watch a few videos and pretty much get the gist of what a character is about in a 2D game

While in 3D games I don't think character playstyles and differences are as apparent or defined. I know nothing about 3D games and have no idea how I would pick a character besides aesthetic differences.
Click to expand...

For a while though, it was 3D fighters who absorbed the casual market, mainly with Tekken, DOA, Smash and Soulcalibour .


Regarding 2d fighters, they were popular too, since Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct absorbed casual players. But when Mortal Kombat went 3D too. It was exactly that move that lessened the impact of 2D fighters for a while. Only with the arrival of Marvel vs Capcom 2 would the genre rejuvenate again. Still that game wasnt as widespread as Mortal Kombat.

this all changed when Capcom decided to make SF4 and use pseudo-3D graphics to take those players back.
 
DryEyeRelief said:
Because SFIV happened and changed a lot of common thought on what a fighting game should be like.

Prior to that, there was a lot less tolerance for things like fireballs or link based combos.

During the PSX/N64/Saturn console days, 3D fighters pulled ahead with the advent of 3D graphics. Since no one wanted to play games with sprites, 2D fighters were pushed back as a result. But SF4 put them back on top. The updated graphics gave them mass market appeal. Games like Tekken or Soul Calibur can't live off the fact that they're 3D anymore.

Since the base of 2D fighting was developed a generation prior to 3D fighting games, their gameplay is more...minimalist? Not only smaller movesets but...there would never be something like 8 way run in a SNES/Genesis game. And the character archetypes are way more broad and they rely on extravagance. Super moves, special moves and what not. That just appeals more to people than 3D fighters, who are totally defined on only kicking and punching. Maybe the infighting in 3D fighters is more defined than 2D....But just on an appeal basis, it's hard to compete with games that involve you flying across the screen, shooting plasma beams, etc.

If I were to compare it to something else in gaming...it's like Mario games. A lot of people think 3D mario games are taking a backseat to 2D games of the same franchise. Games like Mario 64 and the first Tekken/VF games were created during a time where exploring new types of gameplay came with the new technology of the time. But that novelty isn't there anymore.
Click to expand...
I kind of thought the same. I distinctly recall some of the mass market disappointment of Street Fighter 3 ("disappointment of the year" in at least one magazine whose name escapes me at the moment) being that it simply had 2D graphics and nothing to do with how it actually played. 3D graphics/movement itself was a selling point in the mid to late 90s. That novelty is no longer relevant.

oneida said:
I agree with you on the whole but I don't like the word "fluff" - Lau has, for example, like 4 full circulars, and they're all good. I wouldn't call any of them fluff, though, because I might opt for a slower circular that leaves my opponent side-turned if my opponent isn't cancelling his evades. Or, if he is, I might use a faster, less safe circular because I don't think he'll cancel in time. Or, if he's a scrub and just mashing buttons, I'll use the circular that puts me into kokei because from that stance I can launch someone who's just pushing buttons. Or, if I'm near a wall, I could use my low circular because it'll give me a short wall combo.

All of those moves effectively serve the same purpose: they beat players who sidestep at medium disadvantage. And, if you don't want to learn all of them, you absolutely do not have to, because knowing one will serve that purpose. But having these options gives attackers more flexibility, and makes them harder to read.

And this ties into what I said earlier about only needing 4 moves to play VF well. I stand by that. If you play the frames and watch your opponent, you can succeed against any opponent with P, 6P, 2P, and throw. Obviously only using 4 moves limits your options in a lot of ways, but you'll be surprised how many mixups you can put people into based off of those 4.
Click to expand...
Fluff in presentation, not in content.

As in each individual variation on a string being listed as its own move. "PP," "PPP," and "PPPP" being listed as totally separate things. Every single variation of the basic neutral P+G throw (accounting for all possible orientations of player and opponent) being listed separately. Sure, it makes sense because the command does result in a different move in each circumstance, but it's these kinds of things that makes the lists look more bloated than they really are.

Then you get into things like how some of the longer strings with gaps should only be used after a launch/crumple/whatever and never raw because they're interruptible, but there's no indication for this; those strings are just lumped in the middle of other striking attacks of all types. Stuff like that gives you no indication as to what your "pokes" should be.
 
Dahbomb said:
Yea I agree, we need an anime/VS game variant of a 3D fighter to spice things. Like a Marvel game in a 3D plane.

A 3D fighter with air dashes, heavy projectiles, flashy moves, aerial combos/launchers, teleport moves (real ones), special power ups etc.
Click to expand...

Like Rise of the Imperfects?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Famitsu Sales: Week 48, 2025 (Nov 24 - Nov 30)
Sales-Age 
30
665
ShadyAcshuns replied
[IGN] 30 Horror Game Masterpieces
12
317
LordOcidax replied
Top Upcoming March Games
Opinion Event Trailer 
12
257
IbizaPocholo replied
Battlefield 6 will be available for a new free trial from March 17 to 24
Event Trailer 
0
99
IbizaPocholo replied
The State of Fighting Games
2
99
2K
NeverYouMind replied
Top Bottom