No, what I said is another way of saying "what about RB2?" Because I drew his attention to RB2, he had to tell me what he thought about RB2.
Namco Bandai Games
No, what I said is another way of saying "what about RB2?" Because I drew his attention to RB2, he had to tell me what he thought about RB2.
Well it isn't necessarily the same, you could have phrased it a lot better, instead of including your own personal feelings towards the game. "Yeah it's called RB2" is not the same as "But what about RB2?". What you said is moreorless a shortened way of saying "RB2 is better", and that attitude's quite hypocritical considering the other day I saw you wrote you had problems last year with people passing their opinions off as fact. Not everyone regards RB2 as highly as you do you know.Originally Posted by MysticGospel
Okay, if you say
You're clearly saying that you don't like BL, RB, RB2 or UT. So I then draw your attention to one of those games by sayingCan this generation please just have one game that I'll be happy with, like I was with BT3?
I could have worded it nicer if I wanted to but I didn't, which doesn't matter because if I directly drew your attention to RB2, then you're going to present your thoughts which was my intention.Yeah, it's called RB2
As for what I said about not liking passing your opinion off as fact, I don't do that. When have I praised the game without it being a response? I have absolutely no problem if you say "I just don't like x" what I do have a problem is if you say "I don't like x because of y and z" and y and z doesn't make sense to me which is why I challenge it.
Last edited by MysticGospel; 05-25-2012 at 03:37 PM.
Meh, it just sounded to me like the type of thing you do a lot, that plain single response "It's RB2". You must admit you've done that quite a bit, and your lack of sounding a bit nicer made it seem to me like you were doing just that now too.
Anyhow, the way one words his 'questions' can result and influence the type of answer they are likely get. If you're snide and sarcastic then you're likely to get a different response than if you're open and neutral, as you feel pressure to compromise and express an altered view.
I'm generally aware that the tone shifts the nature of the argument, but that's not only a responsibility on my end.
Hmm, that may be true. Still, disregarding most of what I said, it may be unclear just what you're trying to get at by stating it that way as it's quite vague. I mean if it were me, I would have responded with "Uh no, RB2 didn't make me as happy as BT3 did", since I wouldn't have realised that you were trying to get me to say what I feel about it, but rather challenging my opinion.
Anyway, does anyone have any ideas of how a different 3D fighter could play, which strays from the basic Tenkaichi formula such as smash attacks and cutscene supers? I've been asking NB for awhile to do something different, so I was wondering how anyone thinks such a game could work?
And then I would have asked why, which would have resulted in you presenting your thoughts.
Why not try an approach similar to that of the "Killer Instinct" game franchise, but on a 3D scale?
Personally I don't think another 3D fighter should stray from the Tenkaichi formula because so far that formula is the closest to what any DBZ fight has been for the most part. Smash attacks have always been a major part of what DBZ was, powerful physical displays of strength that sent enemies flying into mountains and buildings, reshaping the battlefield until either someone died or there was nothing left to destroy. Sure you could do without the cutscenes like the first Budokai Tenkaichi, but then you'll have people whining about the lack of cinematics.
I think where Spike/Namco Bandai went wrong was the laziness and lack of detail they put into each individual character. The differences in most of the characters were mostly visual; everyone pretty much fought the same. Characters lacked individuality, probably in the interest of balance and quickly putting out another disappointing title they could milk year after year. If you could master one character you pretty much mastered them all. I'd like to see something like Zenkai Battle Royale, they seem to be slowly adding characters over time. And with the Playstation Network and XBox Live, that's definitely an option for developers to slowly work on and introduce new characters into the game through updates and downloadable content, giving them much more time to do things right and give most of the more unique characters different fighting styles, strengths, weaknesses, builds, etc. It's the lack of effort that causes another disappointment year after year. There is so much more that could have been done with the technology given, the Tenkaichi engine didn't have to be so basic.
What are your thoughts on how another game should work?
We're not thinking in the same way, Klepto. So, in DBZ every fighter performed the exact same basic hits followed up by generic followup hits to the left, right, up or down? You're thinking on the very vague scale, like the idea of a 3D arena and being able to hit your character across it. I however am thinking very specifically in how each character fights, their basic hit set ups, if there are any cancellable moves, if some characters have super attacks with different start up speeds and such and such.
The thing about the basic Tenkaichi formula is that it was designed in a way that meant a lot of characters could be created at a time without as much time and effort it would usually take. How? They gave *everyone* the same basic moves, and made every super (rush) attack a cutscene with the same exact start up animations, speeds and for the most part distances. No super attacks had advantage (invisibility frames) over any other, but the properties for each are literally the same. This makes it equal, however it means that characters have no distinct strengths or weaknesses, and is the reason why once you've mastered one character you can fight any other character without having to adapt so much. I mean, if I play SF I really, really have to play differently with Ryu (for example) against Ken and Blanka. Personally I find it really difficult to adapt to Blanka, and there's other characters who I still need to learn to deal with like Vega. In Spikes games this is near non-existant. It makes it incredibly accessible, however so much so that the extent that you are always learning new things in the game is so little compared to these other good fighting games.
Anyway I'm getting too much in depth. I actually understand why Spike went with this method, it's actually clever. Because they made it the way they did they could cram in so many characters within their incredibly small time constraints; usually even getting about 20 well-made characters in a single game is a tough job for a good fighter which is developed for a *lot* longer. But Spike found a way to do it, and even if it took a lot of the depth it could have had a way and made every character so remarkably similar, they at least got the sales which is what they wanted. However, it's been years since then and years of the same sort of thing. Back when T1 was released it was new, fresh, people were interested. But now a lot of us are older and able to see the blatant shallowness, and less people are giving in. The idea isn't fresh, so there's less interest; if they want to sustain interest they are seriously going to have change things up (for the better, not like UT) and alter their formula. Their priorities must change, from content, to gameplay. Content can be added after time, as we go along. However once you make characters linear from the beginning, then it's very difficult to improve them along the way.
Anywayy, my thoughts. I've thought up an idea to improve upon Spikes formula rather then dish it out completely and start over, because ofcourse I actually want them to use my ideas. I was thinking of making a new thread. Basically, it's keeping supers as cutscenes, but changing each moves 'start-up' animation completely. You know that generic dash every character shares when they do a rush super? Yeah, I want that gone.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
