wildmonkey

Where do people get this "SF4 stuck in the 90s" crap from?  These people heard the phrase "hit detection" from somewhere and are tossing it around and complaining as if they even understand any of the game's intricacies.
 
Nothing new in SF4?  Here are some of SF4's gameplay features:
 
1)   Focus Attack.  A great addition, especially it taking place of parries(which even many of the high lvl SF3 players hate).  Variable charge time, 3 levels each with different properties.
2)   FADC.  Opens up a world of creative combo options.
3)   EX moves.  Not only does it effectively give each character more moves, due to the properties of the EX versions, it adds a whole new dynamic to the game going beyond just the moves themselves.  Sure SF3 already had this but SF4 has...
4)   Unified Super/EX meter.  Visual indication of up to 4 readied EX bars, and a Super meter of equal length for every character, unlike the trashy Super Arts system of SF3.
5)   A very well defined chains-vs-links-vs-cancels system.  Comboing effectively actually require some skill, instead of the usual dial-a-combo you find in most 3D fighters.
6)   Revenge meter and Ultra Combo.  This I don't really like personally(at least in its current incarnation), but it's something new to the series nonetheless.
7)   Armor system.  The relationship of armor property of moves and armor breaking is yet another new addition to SF4. 
8)   A more refined juggle system.  It requires you to learn how to juggle instead of just mashing out anything on an airborne target.
9)   Perhaps a fighting game that's the "most balanced at launch" to come out in YEARS.  SF3 is better, really?  Do people even know SF3 at higher lvl is basically just Chun Li?  Some people complain about Sagat in SF4, but that's just what they heard somewhere.  Sagat being a bit OP doesn't even matter at intermediate lvl play.  Sagat is nowhere near the utter IMBAness that is SF3 Chun Li.
 
People complain about SF4 not having anything new, but damn near 100% of those same people probably didn't even care to find out if in fact there are anything new in SF4 below the surface.  All these people complaining left and right, I wonder if any of them can even perform Ken's BnB combo with any consistency in a real match.  In case you don't know what it is, it's crouching LK into crouching LP into crouching LP into HP shoryuken.  It's small under-the-surface things like what's behind why or why not this combo can be pulled off that makes a fighting game.
 
Fighting games are in the niche pit they are in today because of these same whine-happy crowd that likes to bitch without even trying for a second to understand why things are the way they are.  It's the same reason why 3D fighters are more popular among the casual players.  They approach any fighting game with the same mash-happy mentality, they want flashy results with minimal practice.  If something has too much depth, it's the developer's fault.  If it takes too much skill, it's the developer's fault.  3D fighters are only perceived to be "better" because at the casual level it takes MUCH LESS skill to be seemingly successful at one.  You can't really get any more brain-dead easy beyond dial-a-combo.  It's all kinda sad.
 
And what's this shit about Capcom not ever taking any risks or trying anything new?  Just the visual direction of SF4 itself IMO is a HUGE risk on Capcom's part, especially since they know better than anyone how terribly the EX games flopped, and how much they are hated.  If you ask me, just a simple Focus Attack would've been great, but they made sure to add depth to it by making it able to cancel certain moves, making it dash cancel-able, making its charge time variable, giving it different levels each with distinct properties, and also making you lose life even when you parry with it.  Just the Focus Attack alone can be much elaborated upon, yet, nothing new in SF4?  Stuck in the 90s?  Where do people get the shit they smoke?  Firesale at the local drug dealer's place?
 
Don't complain about the mechanics of a 2D fighter if you clearly favor 3D fighting games, they are two very different sub-genres.  Don't  expect one to be like the other, it's your own fault for expecting as such.  However, I can't help but be curious, those of you who compare SF4 to these other fighting games with seemingly perfect "hit detection," do you even understand THOSE games?  Or do you just somehow magically FEEL it in your gut that they play better?  In StarCraft, Marines can gun down capital ships orbiting in space, Mutalisks can flap their happy little wings and fly through space, and the Vulture is the fastest unit in the game even faster than fighter jets built out of advanced alien technology.  StarCraft must be a terrible piece of crap huh?  You know why those things are in the game?  You know why things like cross-overs are in the game?  It's all for GAMEPLAY!  No one gives a flying fuck about realism in a game.  Even lots of movies are unrealistic as fuck, why do you expect it from games?  These are not even sims.
 
By the way Tekken has the same ghost limbs thing.  Try a move with low crush properties vs a low attack, even if they nail you in the legs it won't register.  It's intentional.  Namco must've been smoking crack for putting something like that in the game, or does that automatically qualify them for the "never try anything new" award?  But is that really important?  You can jab at a guy's toes and carry him all the way across the stage to the opposite wall, all in the most realistic manner possible of course.  Not to mention, anyone having played Tekken long enough would've seen their share of funky angled hits.  People have always complained about EWGF launching from out of nowhere never touching in TTT, and just check out how Bryan magically nails a Mishma during a WGF with his Mach Kick and appear magically behind them in that game.  Yeah, but hit boxes in 2D fighters are the work of the devil, SF4 suck.  Sure.
 
A side note, Capcom did try some other stuff in the past.  For 3D other than the EX games, there were also the Rival Schools games and the Power Stone games.  Although I haven't spent too much time on any of the EX or Rival Schools games, I'm fairly certain that they were still 2D in gameplay.  However, the Power Stone games were true free-roaming 3D, albeit not strictly 1-vs-1 IIRC.  Capcom does try different things all the time, but there is never a need to bend any of their existing series out of shape as they can create a new series anytime for something new.  Don't expect SF4 to be COMPLETELY unlike SF2 or ST, since they belong in the same series of games within the SF franchise.  Any Alpha game will behave like the games in the Alpha series, a VS game will behave like the games in their respective series, so on and so forth.  Since SF4 belongs to the series of the officially(and canonical) "numbered" games, it is only logical that it was designed as such.  That one's not so hard to understand now is it?