-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
capcom makes me SICK!!!
- Thread starter BeOnEdge
- Start date
SiegfriedFM
Member
Apparently Capcom doesn't have a team of 2D artists anymore, which is why we're getting minimal 2D changes to CFJ (Ingrid, and Zangief's head).
The problem's twofold, really. Half of it is that collision detection for 2D sprites is inherently different from what you'd get with 3D models, even if you're viewing the models from a fixed side view, '2D' perspective. Code a 3D Street Fighter so that it only considers a punch or kick to have landed when it would actually have made contact with the other model, and you've just altered the timing and behavior of every move in the game, especially if you've translated the characters' movements from 2D to 3D faithfully. A 2D fighter translated into 3D is just not going to play the quite same way no matter what you do with it, just because it's 3D. It's the nature of the beast.
The other half of the problem is that fans of Capcom's 2D fighters don't want 3D versions of those games, since it means sacrificing the 'feel' of sprite-based collision detection and response windows measured in animation frames. Sure, it's possible to implement Street Fighter-style moves and input routines in a 3D fighter, maybe add something like a sidestep, and end up with a game that's fun to play--Rival Schools comes to mind--but it never feels the same, and SF fans aren't going to compromise. They either want 2D gameplay and timing in a 3D package, which is literally not possible, or nothing at all. I doubt that's ever going to change, really.
The other half of the problem is that fans of Capcom's 2D fighters don't want 3D versions of those games, since it means sacrificing the 'feel' of sprite-based collision detection and response windows measured in animation frames. Sure, it's possible to implement Street Fighter-style moves and input routines in a 3D fighter, maybe add something like a sidestep, and end up with a game that's fun to play--Rival Schools comes to mind--but it never feels the same, and SF fans aren't going to compromise. They either want 2D gameplay and timing in a 3D package, which is literally not possible, or nothing at all. I doubt that's ever going to change, really.
BeOnEdge said:
No, you DON'T understand. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about...
Let us have a sprite that must spin around. We'll start at a base point with the character having their leg stretched to the left. For a basic sprite, we might have a frame with the leg to the right, the leg in front, the leg to the left, and the leg behind. For a better animated game, you could add 2 more frames between each 90 degree angle. All in all, you could have between 4 and 12 frames of animation for a single spin. Looking at the 4 frame animation, consider how fast can you flip between frame 1 (leg to the left) and frame 2 (leg in front). There is NO animation in between those positions, so you could really flip between them in an instant. Capcom can set the number of frames in that animation as well as how fast they actually display.
3D does NOT work like that. The way animation is handled in 3D is quite different. The problem is that all of the games in question have too many frames of animation. That is, the frames between the set points are interpolated and smoothed out to the point where you will see 60 frames of animation per second. If a character rotates, there is a new frame every 1/60th of a second. 2D fighters have NEVER featured that many animation frames in a character, and really, that would be incredibly difficult to pull off. You COULD simply draw set frames and not interpolate between them, but then you get rather choppy looking animation. Look at Quake 1 on the PC...that features low framerate animation and it looks dreadful.
Within 1 second, with 4 frames of animation, Capcom could display those 4 frames as fast as they wish as long as they stay within the limits of the framerate. With only 4 frames to display, imagine how many times they could display those 4 frames within 1 second. Another thing to consider is that it is much easier to create collision points when dealing with low numbers of animation frames. Collision detection in 3D is a very different beast. THIS seriously changes the way a game works.
Those 2D games can appear faster and more responsive due to the fact that the developers can control just how fast the limited animation is displayed. Smooth looking 3D will draw all of the frames between the set animation points and LOOK smoother, but if run too quickly, it will look very poor in comparison. I suppose there are ways around this, but nobody seems to have figured it out. I don't care HOW much cel-shading you use, there is no game on the market which is able to accruately convey 2D animation through 3D graphics. Celda looks the part, but when in motion, it is very obviously 3D. The look that you have become so used to in Street Fighter is due to FEWER animation frames, not more.
This has nothing to do with the power requirements from any platform. However, like I said, before...if you believe that PS2 is unable to handle the requirements for this game, I regret to inform you that, based on your assumption, NO hardware available today could handle the game. There are not enough fundamental differences between PS2 and, say, XBOX that it would make a difference for this type of game. XBOX could surely make the game look a little nicer, but better textures and image quality would have no impact on the way the game animates and plays.
Look at a grander scale here...
DOA3 is an amazing looking fighter and perhaps the most technically advanced fighting game available on home hardware. You might say "PS2 couldn't handle THAT", but the fact is, the GAME could easily be done on PS2 or even Dreamcast hardware. DOA2 plays very much like DOA3 and any GAMEPLAY changes made to part 3 could easily be replicated with DOA2's graphics engine. The point is that, although DOA3 looks incredible, there is nothing about the game that couldn't be replicated on older hardware. Now, on PS2, you'd certainly get lower resolution textures and some other missing features...but the gameplay itself could be perfectly captured. Wreckless is one of the best looking games on the system, but the awful looking port of the game to PS2 plays BETTER than the XBOX version despite the fact that it looks 5 times worse. The PS2 port runs at 60 fps and controls better while keeping the gameplay in tact (improving upon it even). However, it simply LOOKS more appealing to the eye.
Any attempt at making an SF game in 3D would not require the benefits of the more advanced hardware. Even if the game looks worse on PS2 hardware, there is no difference between what the machines could accomplish in terms of displaying the game.
There, you've just said it. It would be easier, but it looks "odd" doesn't it? 2D and 3D animation are very different and can be used very differently in a game. You can't perfectly emulate 2D with polygons.
Quick summary...
Anything that Capcom could come up with on XBOX could be done on PS2 or even Dreamcast. The improvements made to the hardware have no bearing on how a 3D SF game could play.
If you still believe that PS2 could not handle the concepts for the game, then you are basically saying that, with ALL current hardware, it is IMPOSSIBLE. The difference between PS2 and other hardware is not great enough to matter and has no bearing on how this game would play.
2D and 3D animation are very different things. They are used differently and, to the player, they will always look and feel different.
That's it!
Ah, I see you were talking about the JP version of AM. You see, my reference point for the vast majority of these games is the US versions. The US version of AM that I have played was a very constant 60 fps and, in the 30 minutes that I played the game, I encountered no slowdown. Perhaps it is there, but if one can play for 30 minutes with no slowdown...I'd say its just fine. You have played the JP version, yes?
Did Chaos Legion JP have issues as well? I have finished it on PS2, and framerate was something that stuck out in comparison to the PC version. The PC version had a LOT of slowdown problems in large battles and the special attacks from your legion always dropped you to 30 fps. It was quite refreshing to see those large battles hold a rock steady 60 fps. There were perhaps a few bouts of slowdown, but when you get right down to it, it's no different from most other games. Pretty inconsistant? Where did you get THAT from?
Judging a game's framerate by saying "most Capcom PS2 games feature slowdown SOMEWHERE in the game" is just foolish. Even games like Metroid Prime have some slowdown (and it can be a problem during the Omega Pirate fight). Virtually ALL 60 fps games on consoles will have slowdown SOMEWHERE in the game...but when you can achieve 60 fps at least 95% of the time (or more), it isn't something you can complain about.
I don't agree with the inclusion of...
-Capcom vs. SNK 2 EO (Studio 1)
...under XBOX. When comparing this game to the other versions, it is very clearly that it does not run nearly as well. This isn't slowdown we are talking about here...the game NEVER runs perfecty smooth. It has a VERY strange look to it that I can't even properly explain. Background animation and scrolling is simply not correct, though.
Now, based on your lists...
78% of all Capcom games on PS2 run at 60 fps.
64% of all Capcom games on GC run at 60 fps.
70% of all Capcom games on XBOX run at 60 fps (though several have major issues)
Yeah, but it gets a boost by those shit disney titles.
So, PS2 is still in the lead. MOST of my framerate judgements come from actual experience...whereas I'm not so sure you've played ALL of those games. Perhaps you have, though...
Now, my original post surely makes more sense...though the percentage was a bit off.
As you can see, that is pretty accurate. The 30 fps list...
-Clock Tower 3 (Studio 3)
-Glass Rose (Studio 3)
-MegaMan X: Command Mission (Studio 3)
-Monster Hunter (Studio 1)
-Resident Evil Code: Veronica X (Studio 3)
-Resident Evil Outbreak (Studio 1)
-Resident Evil Outbreak: File 2 (Studio 1)
-Resident Evil Survivor 2: Code Veronica (Studio 3)
I own Clock Tower 3, so I knew the framerate, but I never included this as a Capcom game. I had completely forgotten about Glass Rose and really, I've never played or even seen it in motion. That never entered my mind. I've never HEARD of Survivor 2-CV, so I could not have included that...and I ignored the Outbreak SEQUEL. So, considering that I originally stated...
...I'd say that this entire argument was almost worthless as I was PRETTY darn close to covering the 30 fps base. PS2 has a greater ratio of 60 fps titles available than the other systems and you've just proven that. Like I said, my percentage was off, but my idea was correct.
Could you fools stop claiming Street Fighter EX sucks? It's still the most competitively solid 3D fighter Capcom's released to date. Plus the EX series managed to successfully pull off the two-in-one combo system, as well as Super cancels and 'delayed hyper combos' a la SF3 and MvC2.
It may not be aesthetically pleasing and it hasn't upstaged the best 2D SF titles, but the gameplay is there, even at high competitive levels. Anyone who says different hasn't invested adequate time in the games (eg. doesn't know what he's talking about).
It may not be aesthetically pleasing and it hasn't upstaged the best 2D SF titles, but the gameplay is there, even at high competitive levels. Anyone who says different hasn't invested adequate time in the games (eg. doesn't know what he's talking about).
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
OR...
Why not just render all the charcaters, incorporate some snazzy lighting effects and keep the gameplay and collision detection the same?
Why not just render all the charcaters, incorporate some snazzy lighting effects and keep the gameplay and collision detection the same?
SiegfriedFM
Member
They couldn't render the characters in 3D (like KI) and make 60 fps sprites. Rendered sprites have way more colours than handdrawn ones (unless you dither them like the HORRIBLE Ragnagard on Neo-Geo or KI on SNES), so they take up more memory. No console could handle decently big 60 fps prerendered fighters. Besides, even if they made exact 3D models of the SF characters, rendered them with cel shading, pasted them as sprites into a regular 2D engine, they still wouldn't look the same. And if they managed to make exact looking cel shaded models that moved EXACTLY like the 2D version, they might as well dump them into a 3D engine to begin with.
SiegfriedFM
Member
Joe is very small, if you blew him up to SF proportions he wouldn't be as smooth and detailed. Besides, that game hardly has the exact moves and hit boxes needed for SF...
Similar threads
- Poll