I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm just honestly curious. The only fighting game I ever really got into was Tekken Tag for PS2 just because we'd always have a bunch of people playing together in college so I'm not exactly an expert in the genre. Back in the day, Mortal Kombat always seemed (to me) to be much smoother looking and playing. SF always looked like it was moving about 10 frames a second to me. Someone falls and they bounce in like 10 distinct flashes for example. It just constantly looks like it slowing to a crawl.

Do you have a valid criticism of the game beyond just the animation frames? If you just want to look at pretty graphics and mess around with a game while you drink beer, SF2 might not be the best choice. But if you want an intense, competitive game that requires technique, skill, and practice SF2 is up there with the best gaming has to offer.

SF2 is considered the most balanced and perfect fighting experience. with that said most of the depth comes in pro tricks and juggling which I don't care for. I always perfered the alpha games or even SF3. and even so my favorite fighrting game to date is soul caliber 2. Street fighter is still the originator so it has infinite legacy points. Thing is most fo the guys who made street fighter great now work on the guilty gear series.

Do you have a valid criticism of the game beyond just the animation frames? If you just want to look at pretty graphics and mess around with a game while you drink beer, SF2 might not be the best choice. But if you want an intense, competitive game that requires technique, skill, and practice SF2 is up there with the best gaming has to offer.

Well I would think in a fighting game (most of which require impeccable timing for a player to be great), a constant framerate would be crucial. I didn't saying anything about graphics or art style or any of that. I'm talking about how the game seems to significantly slow down constantly. Why does it do that and why doesn't it bother anyone?

I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm just honestly curious. The only fighting game I ever really got into was Tekken Tag for PS2 just because we'd always have a bunch of people playing together in college so I'm not exactly an expert in the genre. Back in the day, Mortal Kombat always seemed (to me) to be much smoother looking and playing. SF always looked like it was moving about 10 frames a second to me. Someone falls and they bounce in like 10 distinct flashes for example. It just constantly looks like it slowing to a crawl.

are you aware that street fighter 2 came out in like 1992 and was a graphical powerhouse for many a year?

Well I would think in a fighting game (most of which require impeccable timing for a player to be great), a constant framerate would be crucial. I didn't saying anything about graphics or art style or any of that. I'm talking about how the game seems to significantly slow down constantly. Why does it do that and why doesn't it bother anyone?

Well, if general game speed is your problem, that is why SF2 Turbo came out (and probably was bigger than the original SF2). In terms of slowdown, like the type of slowdown you saw a lot on Super Nintendo or whatever, I really can't say there is a lot of that on the original arcade units (if you are talking about ports to consoles, obviously its a whole different ballgame). Definitely not on the later games like SF3.

Of course :rolleyes:, and again, I'm not talking about the graphics. Even the new HD one coming out, the videos I've seen retains the same choppy, sluggish framerate.

Well, again, and I don't mean to talk to you like you are an idiot so I apologize if it comes off this way, but I do believe you are complaining about the generally low number of animation frames in the game (which is identical in the new HD remix to keep gameplay the same). That was a hardware limitation back in the day and, yes, people generally found no problem with it. The game's controls are super responsive and crisp, and reactions are instantaneous, so it didn't matter. Mortal Kombat's controls are, by comparison, a total disaster.

Of course :rolleyes:, and again, I'm not talking about the graphics. Even the new HD one coming out, the videos I've seen retains the same choppy, sluggish framerate.

I personally dont think you're a "troll" or inciting anything other than peoples opinions on a subject you find perplexing.

The only issue I have is the fact that you're not going to get anything from these kinds of discussions except variations of "I LOVE STREET FIGHTER. BEST GAME EVERZ", "I HATE STREET FIGHTER. TOTAL SUX" or "STREET FIGHTER? Meh" type responses.

It looks like you personally find it difficult to understand what all the hoopla is about. If its not your cup of tea thats totally understandable, but that should be sufficient.

It's not my favorite fighting game but I respect people who like it and can see why they would like it just not my game personally, I'm a Soul Calibur guy though

Sounds like maybe our standards have changed in some ways. If a game had a crap framerate today but had great controls and great graphics for its time, it would still get blasted for the crap framerate. Just like at the EA games on PS3 last year, and those weren't even that bad! Just imagined if CoD4 was the same game it is at 25fps.

You think? Was the Atari 2600 pushing 60-frames a second? Did we like it?

The only issue I have is the fact that you're not going to get anything from these kinds of discussions except variations of "I LOVE STREET FIGHTER. BEST GAME EVERZ", "I HATE STREET FIGHTER. TOTAL SUX" or "STREET FIGHTER? Meh" type responses.
Come on, he got a much better, well thought out answer than that in the second post! There are many reasons that people are huge fans of Street Fighter II. I've been into the Street Fighter franchise since I was 11 years old on a cruise to the Bahamas and I found out that people didn't know how to get their quarters out of the slot machines.

The original poster seems to be confusing slowdown and refresh rates with the limited amount of frames of animation in the original games. The Alpha series and III are far superior in terms of smoothness and play mechanics, but people still enjoy playing Street Fighter II for nostalgia purposes. I'd far prefer a game based on the Alpha engine with HD Remixes graphics, but I'll be first in line to get HD Remix when it is released.

People liked Street Fighter because it's easy to pick up and play and perform many of the special moves, but with practice, whole new layers of strategy open up. It's a skill based endeavor like any good shooter or sports game. And it's a hell of a lot of fun.

I understand what your saying. It's like, when you knock the other guy down and they skip across the screen on their back-kind of odd. Good explanations have already been posted. It's a pioneer of the fighting genre, and the characters are pretty badass. People get attached to certain characters, which truly is a testament of the game itself. But, since no one else is making a fighting game with Hadokens and fierce uppercuts, it still offers a unique gameplay experience.

I'm with you NoThru22-much rather prefer Alpha and SFIII.

Come on, he got a much better, well thought out answer than that in the second post!...

...People liked Street Fighter because it's easy to pick up and play and perform many of the special moves, but with practice, whole new layers of strategy open up. It's a skill based endeavor like any good shooter or sports game. And it's a hell of a lot of fun.

So you'd be a variation of the "I LOVE STREET FIGHTER. BEST GAME EVERZ." grouping ;)

I understand what you mean. Ultimately, I dont see a real point in trying to understand why people do or dont like something like a game since it really is a matter of personal preference, nostalgic influence, environment, etc. Personally, as an example, I cannot BELIEVE there are folks out there that really like Battlefield Bad Company. But starting a thread to ask what people see in it will not make me like the game any better.

But hey, Im sure Ive brought up many a seemingly pointless thing myself. So Ill stop talking...... now.

EDIT: I was an SFII fan back in the day. Although I ended up playing on the SNES more than anywhere else. Yes, I know, that officially makes me lame.

A lot of the 30 and up crowd here grew up playing it in the arcade. We all see memories of our childhood through rose colored glasses. Today's young gamers probably don't "get it" in terms of the hardcore Street Fighter love.

I played it on SNES too (and sometimes the arcade) but just at a friend's house. He loved it. I didn't know why. :)

I'm 28 and I loved it.

A lot of the 30 and up crowd here grew up playing it in the arcade. We all see memories of our childhood through rose colored glasses. Today's young gamers probably don't "get it" in terms of the hardcore Street Fighter love.

Exactly.

I'm 36 and used to quarter SFII like crazy in the local arcades. Back then it was almost a SFII vs. MK crowd. I eventually phased over to MK once MKII came out, and then gently rolled over to Fatal Instinct since by that time SFII was "old school". :)

-JR

I burned out on fighting games years ago and other than a very brief session with the XBLA demo, I haven't played any of the Street Fighter II games since the 3DO days. I also used to own several versions for the SNES and Genesis.

As to its enduring popularity; the limited animation notwithstanding, it was a very deep fighting game and one of the first to introduce and popularlize all sorts of play mechanics like special moves, combos, etc. I also think that giving each of the characters an evergrowing backstory and incorporating an over-arching storyline to the game helped its longevity.

As for me, my biggest complaint was with the single player game and how your opponents were able to perform all kinds of cheap moves and attacks, especially when you got to the last couple of bosses. Every fighting game did this to some degree, but SFII was notorious in that regard and I remember hurling many a profanity and the occasional controller back in the day.

The simple answer is that it was a balanced fighting game that allowed players to excel with just about any character. Unfortunatley those strengths do not translate to the controllers that ship with consoles.

because when i was a kid i poured more quarters into the street fighter II machine at the 7-11 then i have in every parking meter since

because when i was a kid i poured more quarters into the street fighter II machine at the 7-11 then i have in every parking meter since

i've poured a grand total of 0 quarters into a parking meter :D

You know I remember when at least $50 in quarters was utilized by people taking turns continuing to try and beat Vega. When it first came out, it looked like it was as smooth as H3 is today. I love the characters and it will always stand out in my memories as a kid as I probably dumped a paychecks worth of quarters in 7-11.

When I moved to GA, it was alot harder to get to arcade areas and hence I missed the MK series. By the time I saw it, it was so different and ridiculously over-violent than SF that it didn't really grab my attention. Tekken 1 and Soul Caliber also flew by me as I just wasn't into any of those 3-d fighting games. Tekken 2 was the first of very few 3D games I liked mainly because at that time, I wasn't really going to the arcades anymore and it was on the PS1. And SF vs Xmen type games had me back interested in 2D games again.

If you mostly played SFII on SNES (that system was unheard of when I was playing SFII) then you never really got the full experience that it had. I think that everybody just experiences video games in different ways. There are many here that absolutely hate H3. I can't understand why, while some don't understand why all the COD4's are just mind numbing to me. It's all in how YOU see the game.

I eventually phased over to MK once MKII came out, and then gently rolled over to Fatal Instinct since by that time SFII was "old school".
i take it you mean Killer Instinct, because Fatal Instinct was a movie...

I think the OP does not remember, was not around, or did not actively take part in the hypnotic sounds, sights, and feel of that beautiful but extinct dinosaur we call the arcade.

Those days may be dead and buried, but the memories of hours, days and months spent in arcades bonding with other like minded teenagers will be forever etched in the minds of millions of Americans much as the 'mom and pop soda shop' or 'drive-in theater' were for previous generations. In short, Street Fighter earned it's spot in the pantheon of American culture.

I'm not sure which Street Fighter you're referring to, but aside from SF being a huge part of youth culture for the Gen-X's, depending on which installation you play, it's also a really tactical game when played at a competitive level, arguably much more than any other fighting game title. It's goes beyond being flashy and "cool", and is kinda like chess, with an added element of skillful execution. A lot of players still play SF games religiously.

I doubt SF4 will be as good as some other SF titles, in terms of competitive play. I hope I'm wrong, though.

I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm just honestly curious. The only fighting game I ever really got into was Tekken Tag for PS2 just because we'd always have a bunch of people playing together in college so I'm not exactly an expert in the genre. Back in the day, Mortal Kombat always seemed (to me) to be much smoother looking and playing. SF always looked like it was moving about 10 frames a second to me. Someone falls and they bounce in like 10 distinct flashes for example. It just constantly looks like it slowing to a crawl.

Outside of the gameplay in terms of graphic quality Street Fighter vs. Tekken is apples to oranges. Street Fighter is hand drawn artwork vs Computer Generated polygons.

You have to appreciate the Cell drawn Art Form to enjoy the graphic beauty of something like Street Fighter HD. It's the work and talent of traditional artist vs. a skill of a computer graphics technician. Would you compare the graphics of a well drawn animated cartoon movie to a CGI generated movie? You could but the styles would make the comparisons almost meaningless for most purposes.

depends on how you look at the "framerate"

for an excellent skilled player of SF2, you rely on EVERY frame, knowing the pixel hit detection area, and distance to exploit maximum effect. Some of the slowdown is built into the game, some other slowdowns are just the nature of graphical limitations, but its definately not a deal breaker. If you are good you work your ways around it and use it to your advantage.

a lot of other games do play like this and its not just SF2. It's just the nature and style of most 2D fighting games. Even intense ones like Marvel vs. Capcom had the "stop/start" animation

I'm not sure which Street Fighter you're referring to, but aside from SF being a huge part of youth culture for the Gen-X's, depending on which installation you play, it's also a really tactical game when played at a competitive level, arguably much more than any other fighting game title. It's goes beyond being flashy and "cool", and is kinda like chess, with an added element of skillful execution. A lot of players still play SF games religiously.

I doubt SF4 will be as good as some other SF titles, in terms of competitive play. I hope I'm wrong, though.

You hit it right on the head man! Bravo!!

I used to go to Chinatown back in 1990-1992 just to play the best SF2 players. They hated me with a passion as did I but we all had a mutual respect and admiration for each other. It was a beautiful thing! I never played any competitive video games before SF2 as well so that was the beginning of that for me.

Nice.

I'm more of a new-school player, myself. Capcom vs SNK 2 and Street Fighter 3: Third Strike.

At first, we played casually in the arcade at college. Then we started having monthly tournaments. Eventually, this attracted players from out of town, and we travelled to each other's cities to compete and see who's better. Eventually, the community got bigger and bigger, and it wasn't so much about competing anymore, but we all got to know people whom we otherwise wouldn't have had the chance of meeting if Street Fighter wasn't so well put together and so competitive.

I think some of the reasons why SFII was/is cool have been noted, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

1) Multiplayer - In the days before the "internets" there was only two "cheap" (depending on how good your were) ways to enjoy multiplayer games: the arcade and home consoles. During the early the late 1980's and early 1990's two player simultaneous games really became the rage.

2) Maturing of the 16-bit Era - For the first time games at were really close to their arcade counterparts and SFII was the first to be so close it was hard to notice the difference. Other games were inferior on the home consoles for what ever reason. Final Fight went from being a 2-player cooperative arcade game to a single player SNES game (it wasn't until the Sega CD version that we finally got cooperative play). People could practice SFII at home and then go kick a$$ at the arcades. Or they could have people over and replicate the arcade experience at home.

So I think much of the SFII debate is depending on whether or not you grew up at this time. Everything others have been saying is true as well in terms of gameplay, but I think the gameplay combined with the social aspects of the game is what really made SFII so much fun.

SF takes more skill than Tekken. I'm sure many talented Tekken fans would disagree but it says something about a game when I (a novice at Tekken) can beat almost anyone by spamming cheap moves from Tanya(eddie), Hwoarang and Steve.

I can own most ppl by button mashing.

I thought some of the SF veterans would enjoy this link to some impressions on the upcoming arcade game, SF IV:

http://e3.gamespot.com/story.html?sid=6191980&pid=943711&tag=top_stories;story;7

I think the OP does not remember, was not around, or did not actively take part in the hypnotic sounds, sights, and feel of that beautiful but extinct dinosaur we call the arcade.

Those days may be dead and buried, but the memories of hours, days and months spent in arcades bonding with other like minded teenagers will be forever etched in the minds of millions of Americans much as the 'mom and pop soda shop' or 'drive-in theater' were for previous generations. In short, Street Fighter earned it's spot in the pantheon of American culture.

And I'll raise my glass to that. Good post.

SF takes more skill than Tekken. I'm sure many talented Tekken fans would disagree but it says something about a game when I (a novice at Tekken) can beat almost anyone by spamming cheap moves from Tanya(eddie), Hwoarang and Steve.

I can own most ppl by button mashing.

Whether you're right or wrong in saying that SF requires more skill than Tekken, the fact that a novice can beat other novices by mashing buttons isn't a very convincing argument. I'm not much of a chess player, but the fact that I can sometimes school retards with the 4-move checkmate doesn't imply that the game doesn't take skill.

-------

Here's my opinion on Street Fighter, versus the popular 3D fighting games.

I think that Street Fighter games (the good ones, anyway) are leaps and bounds better-suited for a high-level of competition than the Tekken, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive and Virtua Fighter series. That's not to say that Tekken and Soul Calibur aren't fun games. They could be even more fun than any SF game, depending on what you're into. It just seems that SF games are more likely to attract hardcore players and become competitive at a world-class level.

Personally, I think it has a lot to do with 2D-gameplay. The lack of a third-dimension allows more room for strategy and tactical play. It might seem like 3D would make the game deeper and more diverse, but I think it's quite the opposite. Not being able to side-step makes things like managing and controlling space a lot more important. Having fewer options increases the importance of mind games, fooling your opponent and not being fooled. This isn't to say that all 2D fighters are good, and 3D fighters can't be competitive.

Some people attribute to SF's popularity and it's ability to maintain a cult-like following to its popularity in the 90s, and not because it's genuinely a better game. For someone who used to be a part of the fighting game in-crowd and still keeps up to date with them, I can tell you that this is not the case. The SF community craves non-SF fighters that are genuinely good fighting games, even really obscure ones that most of the video game world has not even heard about. They aren't biased towards any Capcom-made SF games. If anything, they're biased towards non-SF games. Also, many SF games have proven to be crap and barely get any attention (Capcom Fighting Jam, Marvel vs Capcom 1, Street Fighter EX, etc...)

Street Fighter has been the pinnacle of 1 vs 1 video-gaming competition... not because of its name, but because it's just seriously that good. It's just underappreciated by most people because it lacks the flashy graphics, cool weapons, and 3D gameplay.

SF takes more skill than Tekken. I'm sure many talented Tekken fans would disagree but it says something about a game when I (a novice at Tekken) can beat almost anyone by spamming cheap moves from Tanya(eddie), Hwoarang and Steve.

I can own most ppl by button mashing.

Tell me, what does it say about a game then? Or are you just trolling this old argument? I was instantly reminded of this quote from the Eurogamer review of Soul Calibur (XBLA) :

And Soulcalibur is a very accessible game. The fighting genre has pretty much vanished up its own overly-technical arse these days, but I'm pleased to report that a little button-mashing can grant you decent headway into Soulcalibur's arcade mode. Wait, what? Button-mashing? Good? Well, yes, because that's how newcomers instinctively play games like this. By rewarding your amateur experimentations (or at least not penalising them too harshly) the game gently leads you down the path of self-improvement. The first time you win a bout, it'll probably be an accident. The second time, you've started to realise which buttons do which attacks, and which are most effective. The third, fourth, fifth times, you've discovered a few combos. Before you know it, you're actually getting good at the game. It leads with the carrot rather than the stick, and is all the more fun because of it. You'll lose as many matches as you win, if not more, but there's none of that hateful n00b punishment that the more elitist fighters use to close ranks against all but the hardcore.

And its funny because its true.

Street Fighter wasn't popular because of its deep gameplay (although it obviously can be). Its popularity was due to its evolutionary leap forward in the fighting game genre. Fighting games emerged from the primordial goop and immediately took off running on two legs. That much of a step forward.

The format stayed alive thanks to Capcom milking it for all it was worth. How many 2D variants did Capcom make anyway?! Theres the Street Fighter games, then theres the Capcom\Xmen\Marvel series, Darkstalkers, Rival Schools and prolly some more I can't remember. Not a fan of those? Then head over to SNK and get your Fatal Fury, Samurai Showdown (my fav...Galford FTW) and whatever else is out there.

An excellent game that spawned a million variations: thats why SF is popular, legendary and among the most influential games ever created. Not because of the minority of hardcore players for whom "button masher" is the ultimate blasphemy.

Exactly.

Arcade 2D fighters have LOST popularity over the years, and I would probably attribute it to (a) outdated graphics & (b) difficult for beginners to get into.

1v1 fighting games used to be HUGE in the video game industry. Nowadays, it's all about the shooters (first or third person). Ever since the 3D era, 2D fighting games were only popular with the hardcore (and the Japanese). It's been ten years since a fighting game has actually been a considered "killer app" for the most current video game console. That game was Soul Calibur for the DC.

History has proven it: People love button-mashing fighters.

This was the version I started playing whenever I played hooky from HS back in 1990....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hDPYRCMgEJ0

I believe the following version was SF2 EX which added a few more players like Sagat, Balrog, Vega, etc. When they came out with SF2 Turbo and then Super SF2, I stopped playing the game because they sped up the game and I didn't like it.

Like others have said....it was the arcade back then that made SF so popular with Gen Xer's. We didn't have Playstations and X-boxs back then and Arcades had the best games and graphics. Console games have come a long way!

Exactly.

Arcade 2D fighters have LOST popularity over the years, and I would probably attribute it to (a) outdated graphics & (b) difficult for beginners to get into.

1v1 fighting games used to be HUGE in the video game industry. Nowadays, it's all about the shooters (first or third person). Ever since the 3D era, 2D fighting games were only popular with the hardcore (and the Japanese). It's been ten years since a fighting game has actually been a considered "killer app" for the most current video game console. That game was Soul Calibur for the DC.

History has proven it: People love button-mashing fighters.

Erm Tekken Tag was a pretty big deal as the launch title for the PS2.

ahhh...i remember playing SF2 at my buds house when we were kids. there would be a group of us, whooever lost the match had to pass the controller to the next kid waiting good times.

id have to say, the only other fighting game i had that much fun with was probably powerstone on DC. man, that game ouwld be a blast on XBL

Because I grew up on it. I remember hitting up the arcades (do you young guys even know what those are? :P ) after doing my homework and playing round after round. No one defeats my Dragon Punch!

Seriously though, it was the quick, fun nature of the game, along with the fact that I could play with friends and have epic round robin matches. It was basically the equivalent of what first person shooter games are now.

Can't wait for SFIV... not too high on the SFII HD remix, but I'm eager to get my hands on IV.

Because I grew up on it. I remember hitting up the arcades (do you young guys even know what those are? :P ) after doing my homework and playing round after round. No one defeats my Dragon Punch!



exactly. I had to mow lawns like a madman to keep up with my sf2 habit back in middle school.

Though I'm not crazy about the pre-Alpha mechanics in Street Fighter II Turbo, I am huge fan of Udon's art and can't wait to see the game in HD.

SF takes more skill than Tekken. I'm sure many talented Tekken fans would disagree but it says something about a game when I (a novice at Tekken) can beat almost anyone by spamming cheap moves from Tanya (eddie), Hwoarang and Steve.

I can own most ppl by button mashing.
i hate to break it to you, but all that means is that the people you played at the game were horrible. those characters were garbage, and the only people you're going to beat with that list of characters are people that don't know the difference between blocking high and blocking low.

every major fighting game from the late 80's and 90's took a lot of skill in their own right. for the thousands of people that only threw fireballs and did uppercuts with Ken and Ryu in SF, there was always that handful of skilled players picking people apart with Zangief piledriver combos. for the thousands of people that did the same moves over and over again with Paul or Law in Tekken, there's always that handful of skilled patient players picking people apart with Ling Xioyu. for the thousands of people that did the same moves over and over again with Scorpion and Sub Zero in MKII, there was that handful of patient players picking people apart with a female ninja or Jax...

the bottom line is that all of the fighting games from the late 80's to 90's had a particular type of audience, and in the same sense took a particular type of skill too. obviously people are going to say that Tekken is a button mashing game, because it has completely different mechanics than a game like SF, but the simple solution is to block and counter. to say that the game takes less skill because the people you play can't do something simple like hold back or down-back on the joystick is rediculous...

i hate to break it to you, but all that means is that the people you played at the game were horrible. those characters were garbage, and the only people you're going to beat with that list of characters are people that don't know the difference between blocking high and blocking low.
every major fighting game from the late 80's and 90's took a lot of skill in their own right. for the thousands of people that only threw fireballs and did uppercuts with Ken and Ryu in SF, there was always that handful of skilled players picking people apart with Zangief piledriver combos. for the thousands of people that did the same moves over and over again with Paul or Law in Tekken, there's always that handful of skilled patient players picking people apart with Ling Xioyu. for the thousands of people that did the same moves over and over again with Scorpion and Sub Zero in MKII, there was that handful of patient players picking people apart with a female ninja or Jax...

the bottom line is that all of the fighting games from the late 80's to 90's had a particular type of audience, and in the same sense took a particular type of skill too. obviously people are going to say that Tekken is a button mashing game, because it has completely different mechanics than a game like SF, but the simple solution is to block and counter. to say that the game takes less skill because the people you play can't do something simple like hold back or down-back on the joystick is rediculous...

...and its amazing that people have been trying to make the button-masher argument for almost a decade now. Its simple: if you can beat a "skilled" opponent by simply mashing buttons, then your opponent really isn't "skilled". This horse has been beaten to death and has long turned to dust.

i hate to break it to you, but all that means is that the people you played at the game were horrible. those characters were garbage, and the only people you're going to beat with that list of characters are people that don't know the difference between blocking high and blocking low.

every major fighting game from the late 80's and 90's took a lot of skill in their own right. for the thousands of people that only threw fireballs and did uppercuts with Ken and Ryu in SF, there was always that handful of skilled players picking people apart with Zangief piledriver combos. for the thousands of people that did the same moves over and over again with Paul or Law in Tekken, there's always that handful of skilled patient players picking people apart with Ling Xioyu. for the thousands of people that did the same moves over and over again with Scorpion and Sub Zero in MKII, there was that handful of patient players picking people apart with a female ninja or Jax...

the bottom line is that all of the fighting games from the late 80's to 90's had a particular type of audience, and in the same sense took a particular type of skill too. obviously people are going to say that Tekken is a button mashing game, because it has completely different mechanics than a game like SF, but the simple solution is to block and counter. to say that the game takes less skill because the people you play can't do something simple like hold back or down-back on the joystick is rediculous...

...and its amazing that people have been trying to make the button-masher argument for almost a decade now. Its simple: if you can beat a "skilled" opponent by simply mashing buttons, then your opponent really isn't "skilled". This horse has been beaten to death and has long turned to dust.

I think the button-masher argument does hold a shred of truth. I just think people just can't really explain why players who mash random buttons are generally more successful in games like Soul Calibur than they are in games like Street Fighter, without saying crap like "SC doesn't take skill to win". Thus, I present to you...

The button-masher argument redux:

What distinguishes a button-masher from other fighting games is the fact that a fairly competent person can pick up the game, give it a fair bit of practice, learn his character(s) well enough to formulate a game plan, and does the attacks/moves that he intends to do, and still often lose to a player who hasn't practiced, doesn't formulate a game plan, and presses buttons randomly while not having a clue what he's doing. This does not imply that the game does not require skill to win and DEFINITELY does not imply that the game cannot be competitive. Allow me to explain:

Suppose players were sorted into four different degrees of skill:

-Button-masher: His understanding of the relationship between his button/joystick input and his character's actions is little-to-none. He simply hits random buttons when he wishes to attack and holds back to block when his attacking hand is tired.

-Beginner: He's through with mashing and has a desire to understand the game a little bit more. He's starting to look at move lists and building a small repertoire of his favorite moves, and uses it to try to formulate a gameplan.

-Intermediate: He has his moves lists memorized, knows the most important combos, reacts quickly and appropriately to opponent's actions and is starting to understand the subtleties of the game.

-Expert: Not only does he know each of the characters inside-out, but uses every mechanic of the game to give him an edge. The game is no longer a matter of using the right moves at the right times, perfectly executing combos, and thwarting his opponent's actions. It's simply boiled down to a battle of wit.

Now, in fighting games that are notorious for button-mashers like Soul Calibur and Tekken, the gap between the button-masher and the beginner is much, much smaller than the gap between button. In fact, the button-masher might even win more games than the beginner does, despite the fact that the beginner probably has a better overall understanding of the game. In a game like Street Fighter, the button-masher may not have the same success against the beginner and will probably lose 9 out of 10 games to him.

However, this has no implications on how much skill is required to be successful in the game. In SC and Tekken, the Intermediate player might have just as much success over Beginners as in SF, and the Expert player might have just as much success over Intermediate. In fact, competition at the Intermediate and Expert level may be just as fierce in a button-masher than a non-button masher. Players who reach the "beginner" level in SC might get frustrated after losing to so many "button mashers" that he'll quit the game and tell everybody on the internet how bad SC is compred to SF.

Basically, if ten players of each skill-level were to play ten games against someone of the skill-level below them:

In SC:
Beginner (6) vs Button Masher (4)
Intermediate (9) vs Beginner (1)
Expert (9) vs Intermediate (1)

In SF:
Beginner (9) vs Button Masher (1)
Intermediate (9) vs Beginner (1)
Expert (9) vs Intermediate (1)

These aren't real statistics. They're just to illustrate my take on the anatomy of a "button masher".

I think the button-masher argument does hold a shred of truth. I just think people just can't really explain why players who mash random buttons are generally more successful in games like Soul Calibur than they are in games like Street Fighter, without saying crap like "SC doesn't take skill to win". Thus, I present to you...

The button-masher argument redux:

What distinguishes a button-masher from other fighting games is the fact that a fairly competent person can pick up the game, give it a fair bit of practice, learn his character(s) well enough to formulate a game plan, and does the attacks/moves that he intends to do, and still often lose to a player who hasn't practiced, doesn't formulate a game plan, and presses buttons randomly while not having a clue what he's doing. This does not imply that the game does not require skill to win and DEFINITELY does not imply that the game cannot be competitive. Allow me to explain:

Suppose players were sorted into four different degrees of skill:

-Button-masher: His understanding of the relationship between his button/joystick input and his character's actions is little-to-none. He simply hits random buttons when he wishes to attack and holds back to block when his attacking hand is tired.

-Beginner: He's through with mashing and has a desire to understand the game a little bit more. He's starting to look at move lists and building a small repertoire of his favorite moves, and uses it to try to formulate a gameplan.

-Intermediate: He has his moves lists memorized, knows the most important combos, reacts quickly and appropriately to opponent's actions and is starting to understand the subtleties of the game.

-Expert: Not only does he know each of the characters inside-out, but uses every mechanic of the game to give him an edge. The game is no longer a matter of using the right moves at the right times, perfectly executing combos, and thwarting his opponent's actions. It's simply boiled down to a battle of wit.

Now, in fighting games that are notorious for button-mashers like Soul Calibur and Tekken, the gap between the button-masher and the beginner is much, much smaller than the gap between button. In fact, the button-masher might even win more games than the beginner does, despite the fact that the beginner probably has a better overall understanding of the game. In a game like Street Fighter, the button-masher may not have the same success against the beginner and will probably lose 9 out of 10 games to him.

However, this has no implications on how much skill is required to be successful in the game. In SC and Tekken, the Intermediate player might have just as much success over Beginners as in SF, and the Expert player might have just as much success over Intermediate. In fact, competition at the Intermediate and Expert level may be just as fierce in a button-masher than a non-button masher. Players who reach the "beginner" level in SC might get frustrated after losing to so many "button mashers" that he'll quit the game and tell everybody on the internet how bad SC is compred to SF.

Basically, if ten players of each skill-level were to play ten games against someone of the skill-level below them:

In SC:
Beginner (6) vs Button Masher (4)
Intermediate (9) vs Beginner (1)
Expert (9) vs Intermediate (1)

In SF:
Beginner (9) vs Button Masher (1)
Intermediate (9) vs Beginner (1)
Expert (9) vs Intermediate (1)

These aren't real statistics. They're just to illustrate my take on the anatomy of a "button masher".

Nice post. :)

Notice as well that in either case you get Expert(10) vs Button Master(0) which is why at it core none of the games are "Button Mashers" if the skill level of the players is sufficiently high.

What's the release date for SFII HD remix? (can't pull it up now).

Suppose players were sorted into four different degrees of skill:

-Button-masher: His understanding of the relationship between his button/joystick input and his character's actions is little-to-none. He simply hits random buttons when he wishes to attack and holds back to block when his attacking hand is tired.

-Beginner: He's through with mashing and has a desire to understand the game a little bit more. He's starting to look at move lists and building a small repertoire of his favorite moves, and uses it to try to formulate a gameplan.

-Intermediate: He has his moves lists memorized, knows the most important combos, reacts quickly and appropriately to opponent's actions and is starting to understand the subtleties of the game.

-Expert: Not only does he know each of the characters inside-out, but uses every mechanic of the game to give him an edge. The game is no longer a matter of using the right moves at the right times, perfectly executing combos, and thwarting his opponent's actions. It's simply boiled down to a battle of wit.
i'm just curious, if you went to a tournament and saw someone using the same character over and over again because they couldn't use any other character and win, would you consider him an expert? i'm only asking because there's usually 2 types of players, one is the type that likes to play every character and have fun in the process of learning the game, and the other is the type that only likes to play the best or second best character all of the time because they know that character is usually unbalanced and much easier to master and win with...

i'm just curious, if you went to a tournament and saw someone using the same character over and over again because they couldn't use any other character and win, would you consider him an expert?

At the highest levels of fighting game competition it's not necessarily as much about knowing how to use every character as it is about knowing how to fight against every character with your character(s).

Being "expert" at very many characters in a fighting game is very difficult.

I think SF2 got it's major following from how easy it was to play to how hard it was to play. Each character was fairly well balanced far more than many other fighters in my book. It took a long time before the other big fighters got to that level (albeit some were present, none had the pick ANY character and do well thing).

Besides the characters for the time were really cool. Who didn't want to be Vega? or Ryu? :D

I've never been terribly into fighting games and kind of dropped the whole genre when they all started going 3D.

When I was 10 or so I'd spend hours playing Mortal Kombat II with my friends. I didn't really like Street Fighter for some strange reason and still don't.

I think the button-masher argument does hold a shred of truth. I just think people just can't really explain why players who mash random buttons are generally more successful in games like Soul Calibur than they are in games like Street Fighter, without saying crap like "SC doesn't take skill to win". Thus, I present to you...

The button-masher argument redux:
Nooooooooooo!!!! :D

I know, man. My thing is this: AFAIK theres no data to back it up. I need to see some tests done in an controlled environment.

I'm going to run an experiment with my neighbor's kids, ages 11 and 3. Both like videogames, and the 11 year old is very competitive. I've got a couple of fighting games and we'll see how the results break down. ;)

i agree with dahlsim....

i remember my buddy using akira on VF for sega saturn.... he couldnt really play with anyone else, but no matter what you did he could block or counter any move... he was untouchable to anyone we knew... i'd say he was expert level IMO, but like i said, he couldnt really play with anyone else.

I'm 28 and I loved it.

I also like this game but my friends said that this game sucks. I don't know that why did they said this but I have an example. My friend said that it works slow because of PC! I can't believe!! This never happend to me. It is making me:mad:

I don't know that why did they said this but I have an example.

This sentence almost literally killed me. My brain just refuses to process it. I try and try to read it all the way through without stopping, but every time I do, I wake up 10 minutes later lying on the floor.

Though I'm not crazy about the pre-Alpha mechanics in Street Fighter II Turbo, I am huge fan of Udon's art and can't wait to see the game in HD.
Ah, necroposting! Funny thing, here I said I'm a big fan of Udon, and then I got two of their artists to do my book covers!

this sentence almost literally killed me. My brain just refuses to process it. I try and try to read it all the way through without stopping, but every time i do, i wake up 10 minutes later lying on the floor.

:d

Cool game, to bad you need a seperate controller to play it. Especially the "normal" Xbox360 controller.

OP's title and his question seem like two different entities or simply doesn't seem to go together. However, I will tell you this:

D, DF, F + P = EPIC!

This sentence almost literally killed me. My brain just refuses to process it. I try and try to read it all the way through without stopping, but every time I do, I wake up 10 minutes later lying on the floor.

Same here. i don't know that why did i wrote it:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I am not a street fighter fan, I even have it on x box arcade..not even sure why I bought it because I knew I didnt like it:confused:

did you all ever knew that SF II is in facebook too

I still remember walking to food-lion down the street to play street fighter with my buddy when I was in middle school. Sonic boom!

street fighter is always going to be a original classic I remember when I was a lil kid playing the first street fighter "aduget" that was I loved to be ryu all the other capcom vs games where fun to they where like tekken tag but streetfighter character in it as the new graphic games of street fighter are still good to me You should look at the new ones.