Forums - MvC2 vs SF2: question for old schoolers Show all 25 posts from this thread on one page Forums (http://www.shoryuken.com/forums/index.php) - Strategy & Tactics (http://www.shoryuken.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=10) -- MvC2 vs SF2: question for old schoolers (http://www.shoryuken.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=28023) Posted by Geenyoon on 07:01:2001 07:48 PM: MvC2 vs SF2: question for old schoolers I remember that when the VS games were getting popular, all the old school players were complaining about how little skill it takes to play those games. Those games were ruled by infinites, and pixies running in and "dialing". However MvC2 is probably the most played fighting game out right now, and I recall Chocobo saying a while ago that MvC2 is one of the most skillful games Capcom has come out with for a long time. Yes I did play COTA, MSH, XvsSF, etc. but I always enjoyed playing what I call "real" streetfighter better: SF2 series and SFA series. I thought that these streetfighter games required more skill to play than those VS games, but now I don't know. A lot of people argue that MvC2 requires a great deal more skill than games like SF2 HF, and SF2 ST. But then again, these are the same guys that probably weren't old enough to play the old streetfighters well, and only play MvC2 religiously. The closest thing that comes to old school right now is probably CvS. So here's the question: Which game takes more skill to play, MvC2 or CvS? If not CvS, then what about MvC2 or HF/ST? And please, if you ONLY play one of the two types of games on a regular basis, do not reply. I only want to hear the opinions of those who enjoy both types of games. Oh yeah, here's another off topic question: It's often been said that ST was the best SF. But then, I also heard a lot of people saying that HF is the best one. I remember some guy arguing once that ST was nothing but tick throws, but I don't know. So: Which game more balanced, ST or HF? Posted by n817azn on 07:01:2001 08:18 PM: I'm an old school street fighter playa' and i play both cvs and also mvsc2. It different respects both games are harder than the other. cvs for me at least is much harder to pull off combos and such but other than that i would say mvc2 is the hardest out of all fighting games. I believe it takes the most skill because of all that is incorporated into the game. You have to manage three characters at once while trying to fight a battle, you just can't concentrate on one character at a time. In games such as cvs, sf, etc. where it is one on one competition you don't have all those other extras to worry about. n8 Posted by Crayfish on 07:01:2001 09:16 PM: When many ST players say skill they are refering more to strategy. In modern games if you have fast enough reflexes you can get out of any thing because of all the tech and reversal moves. You can hit someone with a well timed dragon punch counter and they can (if their quick enough with there reversal moves)land back on their feet and hit you back before you land, now in ST you dont even have an air block so you must play tacticaly to not get hit in the first place. It really turns into mind games because you must not let your opponent anticipate what your going to do, if you do your dead, you cant just reversal with quick reflexes. Try to get a responce from Jumpsuit Jessie, or look up some of his previous post on this subject, he can explain it really well. Also the game takes patience. Because the characters dont all have the same inherent abilities like parrying and they all play so differently it takes years to really master them and learn all the matchups with other characters. This is evident when you see on the ST thread that even master players who have been playing it for seven years only know a few characters each, and will often say "Ask so and so for advice on that matchup". As far as difficulty of combo's goes I diss agree. I think ST (advanced) combos are the hardest of all, because the engine is so unforgiving, you have to be more precice than any other game. Look in the Advanced ST combos thread introduction by Tiger Bones for a better explination by a combo master. At the end of the day the games are so different you can't even really compare them. I think the mindgames and strategy is why ST appeals mainly to us old men, lol, and the more high octane less thinking action appeals to younger players. Posted by Red Spiral on 07:01:2001 09:16 PM: mvc2 takes more skill than cvs cause you have more choices and a lot more different strats against each other plus more characters. Posted by shadowcharlie on 07:01:2001 09:48 PM: the more glitches the less skill a person needs Posted by thug life on 07:02:2001 03:43 AM: mvc2 is my favorite game as of now... but games like sf3 take way more skill than games in the vs series in my opinion. i totally agree with the difficulty of anticipating your opponents' moves. for example in the sf3 series, overhead attacks and parrying are vital for success... if you want to block in air, you have to earn it by predicting each move your opponent makes. you want to block in air in the vs series, just hold back... if you try an overhead attack in mvc2, you'll get blasted away by a captain corridor or something. i'm a pretty good mvc2 player and know how to use almost anyone in the vs series... and that's because once you get the hang of one character, you pretty much have all the characters down cause they're all so similar. similar combo patterns, jumps, dashes (except for damn blackheart). traditional fighting games take way more skill, i'll admit it, but the vs series games are still more fun to play. Posted by Optiks on 07:02:2001 07:39 AM: I believe MvC2 requires more skill. First of all, just because of knowing the number of good characters and their matchups, the top tier in cvs is only 2 characters. Secondly, because of the team aspect which granted is in cvs in some way, doesn't really figure into strategy after the match starts. Assists drastically affect complexity of the game (you always have to think not only about danger from the point character but from their assists too, extreme example: Cable VC into AHVB). Thirdly, because of the complexity of movement in MvC2, in CvS you only have a few options: walk, dash, jump, high jump and roll. In MvC2, depending on your characters there are, walk, dash, airdash (directional and not, could be a wave like morrigan's), jump, superjump, double/triple jump, teleports, tag-ins (incl. variable counters/tags after deaths), etc. And lastly, just because there's so much more crap flying around the screen at all times Posted by Servebot on 07:02:2001 12:54 PM: MvC2 takes more skills, there are so many tactics in that game like keepaway, rushdown, and others. Also you have to manage three characters. CvS isn't like that, your choice of characters aren't effected as much as MvC2, and lks practically own the game Posted by JumpsuitJesse on 07:02:2001 07:27 PM: Good question, and a good response from Crayfish. I'm going to respond, despite your request of only wanting players who enjoy playing both games to post. This is coming from a person who has watched the entire fighting game genre evolve to what it is today. I am talkin about when games like Karate Champ, Double Dragon 1-2, Golden Axe, Kung Fu Master, Yie Ar Kung Fu, Street Fighter 1, and Final Fight each had their own period of owning the arcade scene. Street Fighter 2 debuted back in 91 and lit the scene on fire. Everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE you went there were people of all ages lined up to play. Local corner stores, malls, game rooms, you name it....there was always a local champ to beat and competition to play. Capcom knew they had a hit, so they stuck with the same game engine(Street Fighter 2 - Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo). With each reincarnation of Street Fighter, up to Super Turbo, they each had their own twist on gameplay...trying to keep the gamers coming back for more and slowly the players were moving on to other games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Tekken, and a few others. Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like if Capcom would have skipped Street Fighter 2 Hyper Fighting, and just went straight to Super Turbo. So you see, "old skool" gamers grew up in time when fighting games were at their infancy stage. When combos were accidents. When 2 in ones were a new concept....now almost every fighting game has these staple ingredients in them. I guess this is what old skool gamers love about these older Street Fighter games...the mind games, the strategy, finesse, and overall purity. Now when I say purity, I am referring to the simplicity and complecity of the games. If you look back at each Street Fighter game one by one you see them get stripped down to a more bare bones version. So I guess what players mean by "Old skool games require more skill" is that it requires more mind games on the players end than relying on the attributes of the fighting engine to win. Take away supers and overhead attaks in ST and what do you have?? A hyper fighting version of ST Don't get me wrong, each version of Street Fighter has its engine flaws...SF2 had its limitations, Champion Edition still had redizzies, Super Street Fighter had slow speed with massive damage, ST has massive damage and a super top tier fighters... Hyper Fighting is considered to be the most pure and balanced Street Fighter game because the tiers are more close together...the fighters have a better chance of beating eachother than in ST. Every single combo takes precision. The players have to work for their big combos. Timing the animations, linking, buffering....all these play a big role in the whole old skool Street Fighter genre. Now, I'mnot not trying to take any credit away from MvC2 or anything. I am sure there are many of you who feel that this game is Godly, and there is nothing that can top it. You have every right to feel that way because MvC2 is a game that appeals to a large audience. Look at the amount of fighters, the combinations of teams, the easy grasp learning curve, the flashy graphics...with that kind of combination its almost a sure hit with everyone...almost When SF2 The World Warrior came out, one on one fighting games were almost unheard of. It was the hottest thing since Pac Man. I guess this is why many of the members of #Capcom joke about ST having an age limit to play seriously(over 21)because it is so old I think you just had to have been there back in the early 90's with your token lined to play. You are going to have players on both sides of the spectrum who hate the opposite game. I know old skoolers who think MvC2 is horrible, and players who love MvC2 and hate old skool...then there are your middle road players who play whatever. I'll be straight up....I have only spent a total of .50 cents on that game since it's release in the arcades. That's it. The game just didn't appeal to me, as I am sure it doesnt appeal to many people. So the answer to your question "Which takes more skill to play" is unanswerable because they have their own brand of gameplay. Like comparing drag racing to gran tour racing...they both take skills to do, but they are totally different. The objective, of course, is to win. Now, if you wanna talk about which game is more difficult to grasp as far as gameplay is concerned then yeah, Super Turbo and old skool SF are harder to learn because they have a very unforgiving fighting engine. You have to know the priorities, range, damage, footgames, throw ranges, frames...not to mention mind games, anticipation, quick reflexes, precision piled on top of knowing how the game works. I'm not saying that MvC2 takes no skill to play as I am sure it has it's own strenghts. I don't see the point in comparing MvC2 to any regular Street Fighter game. I agree that the MvC series is a "dial a combo" type of engined game but that doesnt mean that it requires no skill. I think its like that because it allows for any player to mash buttons and come up with a combo...what better way to attract would be gamers right? Once they grab the easy combo system and figure out how it works then thats where all the traps, strategies, and teams come into play. They dont have to worry about the intricate details that are associated with old skool street fighter games. Another point that old skool gamers stress is working for your win. Now for example...in ST you can wipe an opponent out with a 90% 9-10 hit super combo. This is kinda like those crazy multi AHVB combos that are done in MvC2. The difference?? ST takes more precision because you have to manually connect every hit leading up to the super with NO room for error, whereas in MvC you can connect one low short and chain it into several hits, launch them do even more dial up hits and combo into a super, call in both your other characters to tag on more supers. Some of you are like "Hey, that takes skill!" and you are right, it does...but how hard do you have to work for it?? VS games supers take one motion and a couple of buttons to press. Just cath them with a combo, and let the supers do most of the damage(AHVB x 5 anyone? ) ST, Alpha 2, Alpha 3, CvS all require a variety of multi motion joystick movements to pull off supers, not to mention also that that they have to be buffered, two-in-oned, mid-motioned, and negative edged at the precise time for it to be a successful combo. So if you look at those points, you can see where some people get the notion "this or that takes more skill to play"....it's not necessarily skills but rather how much time and dedication it takes to master an old skool game. Old skool SF games don't have anything like assists, back up fighters, snapbacks, alpha counters, Variable combos, air blocking, .....just bare bones old fashioned fighting with a few twists. Which takes more skill? Don't bother with the question. One is just more simple to learn than another. They are TOTALLY different games. They have no business being compared to eachother to begin with, but you wanted some insight on what makes up the mentality of old skool vs new skool VS games like MvC2. Don't argue over it. Don't ask which takes more skill. Instead you should ask what games do I enjoy the most and play them before they too are considered "old skool" JumpsuitJesse "You wanted the best!! You GOT THE BEST!!" Detroit Rock City Posted by Active X on 07:02:2001 10:06 PM: It depends how you define "skill". The old school SF games were 80% mental, 20% execution. You had to know traps, pysch outs, priority, strategy, zoning, and still be able to put the right moves in the right place and execute combos in the clutch to win. Generally, even if a player practiced the game for 10,000 hours and could pull of moves down to the millisecond, they would still lose if they could not outsych their opponents mental games. The "VS" style MvC2 games are 80% execution, 20% mental. You have to practice death combos and timing for high percentage ticking traps that leave next to no openings. Generally, if a player practiced this game for 10,000 hours, they would be unbeatable as they would leave few openings in their death traps by sheer amount of practice alone. You didn't really have to worry about complex mental games as you can airblock everything in the air including standing moves...instead you have to worry about leaving an opening in your patterns somewhere. Generally, even if a player beat a MvC mentally it still wouldn't matter worth a shit if they didn't have fast enough reflexes and left an opening large enough for somebody to bust out some crazily timed death combo on you. Does this mean one style requires more "skill" than the other? I don't think so, it's just a different type of skill. I can play the older SF games against players that practice in the arcade all day and can still beat them (even if I can't get used to the controller to do super moves most of the times). On the other hand, I get worked at games like MvC2, where I leave an opening "somewhere" in the match and get creamed by my opponents lighting fast timing and ability to pull a death combo out of their ass. Does that kind of gameplay make MvC2 "infeiror"? Nope (at least not in my opinion), but I do recognize that a different type of skill is involved to master it. Posted by Geenyoon on 07:13:2001 10:08 PM: I see. So to sum it up, they can't be really compared, but real streetfighter takes more thinking to win, where as MvC2 simply takes more practice to win. Mind games vs manual dexterity. Thanks all. Posted by Apoc on 07:13:2001 10:50 PM: Re: MvC2 vs SF2: question for old schoolers quote: Originally posted by Geenyoon I remember that when the VS games were getting popular, all the old school players were complaining about how little skill it takes to play those games. Those games were ruled by infinites, and pixies running in and "dialing". However MvC2 is probably the most played fighting game out right now, and I recall Chocobo saying a while ago that MvC2 is one of the most skillful games Capcom has come out with for a long time. Yes I did play COTA, MSH, XvsSF, etc. but I always enjoyed playing what I call "real" streetfighter better: SF2 series and SFA series. I thought that these streetfighter games required more skill to play than those VS games, but now I don't know. A lot of people argue that MvC2 requires a great deal more skill than games like SF2 HF, and SF2 ST. But then again, these are the same guys that probably weren't old enough to play the old streetfighters well, and only play MvC2 religiously. The closest thing that comes to old school right now is probably CvS. So here's the question: Which game takes more skill to play, MvC2 or CvS? If not CvS, then what about MvC2 or HF/ST? And please, if you ONLY play one of the two types of games on a regular basis, do not reply. I only want to hear the opinions of those who enjoy both types of games. Oh yeah, here's another off topic question: It's often been said that ST was the best SF. But then, I also heard a lot of people saying that HF is the best one. I remember some guy arguing once that ST was nothing but tick throws, but I don't know. So: Which game more balanced, ST or HF? Imo CvS is not that skillful really. It requires skill. But links and such were so dumbed down in an attempt, I can only assume, to give it an old school feel. But it isn't old school, though at times w/o rolling it could feel like it. MvC2 certainly takes more skill. No doubt about it. CvS2 on the other hand will probably be a different story. The other vs. games were pretty darn stupid. They were like they were dissed. Combo games where you could win by landing one short on each character. But that's what attracted gamers. MvC1 was the first to gain some respect. And that's only because of certain players and tournaments. I could never really take that game seriously for myself either. MvC2 is a totally different fighting game. And those that dis it because of assists and prefer one on one fighting obviously prefer the scrubby vs. games. MvC2 is a real fighting game with real strategies and is lasting VERY long in the tournament scene since as I said when it came out, it would take years to know everything in that game. And that has turned out to be a good thing. Now as far as which takes more skill MvC2 or Hf/ST. That's a hard call. Timing is a factor in both games but there are more complicated joystick movements on ST for sure...then there are faster joystick sequences for rush downs on mvc2...then just try landing supers in a combo consistantly on ST. Different games different skills. Old school sfs are certainly more balanced. MvC2 certainly has more variety in the characters. Thing with old school is that EVERYthing hurts. You can't just make mistakes because you are across the screen. Jumping is an issue even. Someone can make you land on fireballs all day. Stuffing moves is a real skill and so is reversing. Very tight timings with very large consequences if you mess up. HF and ST are also faster than modern sfs. It's a matter of taste but I find HF to be more balanced and real. ST comebacks are much easier with a super bar. Supers do dumb down a match when they do 50% and are invincible. Not as bad as VCs though which do more damage and are invincible at the press of a button w/o a charge OR a joystick motion to activate. One of the all time stupidest things strategically to put into sf however it helps so many ppl to play. Slow ppl become good with vism and CCs and can now hang with ppl who are just too naturally fast thanx to button activated invincibility. HF has no super, and not EVERYone has a dp like move which makes strategies vary so much moreso than in ST. To me HF is more balanced and a better all around game as far as true fighting gameplay is concerned. Take a notice at MvC2 though. Certainly not the scrubby game of it's predecessors. Just like SFA3 isn't like scrub-city SFA1. Somehow capcom lures you in with a dumb game anyone can play and then once you're hooked they tighten up the skill. It will be the same for CvS2 though CvS didn't bring ppl in droves this time. So to answer, it's a matter of taste. While I like MvC2, to me I prefer old school sf. If you win, it's not because you did something they hadn't seen before(usually) or because you confused him into not blocking or you trapped and killed him on block damage. Sure you can trap ppl in old school but it is their frustration that leads to the major damage being sustained not blocking a million sonic booms. So to me victories on old school feel more valuable, more straight up. You both know what's up and it comes down to the mind game more often than not which is what makes fighting games so damn great for me. I don't play a game for the cool nifty candies. I STILL love winning simply because I got into someones head and out-thought them. The majority of matches I see on MvC2 have nothing to do with out-thinking. So that is why my tastes would go more towards SF than MvC2 for serious one on one. But it's hard to beat a game that does super heroes so DAMNED well!!! Capcom did superheroes better than any other company imo. And they made it work as a real fighting game. I've seen many "fun" concepts get screwed and Capcom came through with shining colors on registered characters like spiderman and wolverine. I grew up reading marvel comics for a time. That will always draw me to a vs. game since they did such a good job of keeping those fun characters fun yet playable=) Too Good. But CvS2 will slaughter MvC2 for me personally as long as it's good. Just to clarify, I did not mean that NO matches I've seen were of one player out-thinking the other. Just the large majority are not(90%). I'm sure in a year or more after the game is broken down more eventually it SHOULD come to that. At least I hope so. Apoc. Posted by DeathFromAbove on 07:13:2001 11:50 PM: Just a thought: ST is 7 years old. MvC2 is 1 year old. Give MvC2 a couple more years. The strategy part of that game is already taking off in high-level play. And while timing will never be the same as it was in ST, there are some new considerations, such as resource management, to be aware of. And, actually, comparison really doesn't seem quite so far-fetched to me. There are similar issues of spacing, attack angle, and, is jumping really a good idea at this time? DHC series of supers look a lot to me like ST's supers, where you have to build a helluva long time to be able to do that. And the 1 level supers do about the damage that some of the specials in ST do, when you consider the total amount of lifebar available. This is beginning to sound a bit one-sided. Let me say that it's quite possible that ST will always be more complex. In some aspects, I'm certain that it will. But give MvC2 a little time: it may catch up in some areas, and it has some other areas that just don't exist in ST. And for the record, I'm one of those players who is over 21, and had quarters lined up on the ST machine. I won't say that I was great at it, or even that good, but I was there, adding to your win streaks. -DFA Posted by kalok on 07:14:2001 03:19 AM: st is more balance!underdog char like vega,rog,sim improved a lot,while ken,sagat are tone down!hf is also gd but not better than st!ryu,ken,guile sagat completly dominate the game..... Posted by Apoc on 07:14:2001 03:40 AM: quote: Originally posted by kalok st is more balance!underdog char like vega,rog,sim improved a lot,while ken,sagat are tone down!hf is also gd but not better than st!ryu,ken,guile sagat completly dominate the game..... Ugh, alright Rog was damn good in HF as well. So was Vega though I'm almost positive most have never seen a real Vega on HF. In fact those "dominators" you listed lose to Rog/Vega. Guile isn't even an issue though somehow someone started a rumor that he was top tier. He's dope and all but he wasn't winning any World's Finest tourneys. Even Tomo went straight Ryu and all but dropped his famous Guile on HF. Ken didn't dominate either. Ryu/Sagat actually won tourneys however. But then so did sim and gief and blanka. How the hell do you forget how good Blanka is on HF? Seriously, you don't know what leet HF was like. You're way off saying those completely dominated the game. Apoc. Posted by kalok on 07:15:2001 10:25 AM: well!i also know blanka is gd in hf,but he is not top tier!plus,i think guile is STILL top tier in hf...... actually,st is more balance!people seem to play chars other than ryu,ken.....they learn more about underdog! Posted by RathThentraver on 07:15:2001 03:46 PM: I'm not sure it'd be fair to say one game takes more skill than another... maybe that each game takes a different kind of skill. I play SF3: Third Strike and MvC2 at my local 'cade and I play those two games totally differently. I usually play with Ryu or Ken in SF3:TS and I play a reserved match where I wait patiently for the right opening to do a combo or Super Art; whereas in MvC2 I usually play with Ken, Iceman, CapCom | Storm, Ken, Doom, or similar teams and I'm constantly rushing and really could care less if Ken lives or dies (long as I take a char or two with me, of course). I think the SF series takes a different kind of skill than the MvC2, but I think it'd be unfair to say one takes more skill than the other. Posted by Mummy-B on 07:15:2001 04:29 PM: Really it comes down to your personal preference. If you play MvC2 hardcore for a long time and then go play CvS, no way you'll be able to get CvS unless you play for a while. Vice versa. I hate MvC2 and the fighting system. It's not a bad game at all, I just PERSONALLY don't like it. Therefore, I would say CvS requires more skill because I think old school fighting is "real" fighting - that's personal bias. Whatever game you like. *shrug* Posted by DemiDeviMatt on 07:15:2001 05:27 PM: i play them both on a regular basis i really do...but the thing is cvs doesnt have as much as mvc2 does. yes it does take more skill to be better in that game in the long run than mvc2 but then my philosophy is why play a game that nobody plays anymore? thats why i only practice mvc2 and GGX because people play them. mvc2 has double wt cvs has which requires more strategy more thinking more countering more everything. in cvs its just guile and nak and if u dont use them ur fucked. cvs has a enormus amount of stratedgy even w/ guile and nak but mvc2 has all the helpers then 52 or 56 characters, so that is y most people play mvc2 and feel it has more stratedgy despite the japanese feel that all the sf games r more stratedgy...same w/ the europeans...--;; Posted by flesh~n~bone on 07:15:2001 06:56 PM: sf2 didn't really take much skill because there were only so many moves in the game and i'm sure every good player had mastered them all.....the key to the old sf was patience...waiting for your opponent to mess up and then capitalizing...mvc2 takes alot more skill....with so many moves and strategies involved it takes alot of time and effort to become good....ppl may say that all mvc2 player do is trap and chip..however i remember that old sf3 trap with ken and ryu where you jump in with a kick ..your opponent blocks and then you throw them and then repeat. Posted by kalok on 07:16:2001 02:58 AM: yes,sf2 is more simple. Posted by Apoc on 07:16:2001 03:05 AM: quote: Originally posted by flesh~n~bone sf2 didn't really take much skill because there were only so many moves in the game and i'm sure every good player had mastered them all.....the key to the old sf was patience...waiting for your opponent to mess up and then capitalizing...mvc2 takes alot more skill....with so many moves and strategies involved it takes alot of time and effort to become good....ppl may say that all mvc2 player do is trap and chip..however i remember that old sf3 trap with ken and ryu where you jump in with a kick ..your opponent blocks and then you throw them and then repeat. The key to the old sf was patience? And then that last jump in throw shit? Do you realize you haven't a clue about sf? Just sayin'. That sf3 example really takes the cake though. Apoc. Posted by kalok on 07:16:2001 10:45 AM: turtle win sf2 Posted by Advent on 07:16:2001 04:05 PM: i actually found myself playing hyper fighting this weekend on a jacked machine at binghamton, ny... i was too young to play those games seriously so i had to rely on the strategies i use in CvS now and there is a total difference between even those games. everything moves so much slower back then that you had to outthink your opponent to get any real damage. in mvc2 you can punch in a trap and chip or just be ferocious on the rushdown. but hyper fighting, you cant jump in constantly because dp kills ya, no rolling in. i think those old style games are actually closer to tekken games than CvS even. on another more amusing note, i heard shit talked that i had not heard in forever: "oh fuck you, throws are cheap" "fireballing is cheap" "chip damage is cheap" "keepaway is cheap" HAHAHA memories... Posted by kalok on 07:17:2001 04:06 AM: fb-sweep is the cheapest one! All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 PM. Show all 25 posts from this thread on one page Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.4 Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000, 2001.