I'm down for SFxT, but as long as we're pitching ideas, I'm always OK with AE
I'm down for anything in the list in the OP other than MK or Marvel.
The last time I showed up was for SFxT and it was a rather soul crushing night. I'm not sure I can get myself into a frame of mind where I want to do that again.
The month of AE just hit at the wrong time for me, and that made me kind of sad.
Alright I'm online from about now until 10p EST. Just message me on XBL if you want to play (and what game since it's up in the air), otherwise I'll be hanging out in training mode in SFxT.
What's the current version of BlazBlue? I know I have a copy of the game, but I'm unsure what version it is or if it's the current one.
is anybody interested in doing BlazBlue for some of those?
Yes!
is anybody interested in doing BlazBlue for some of those?
Sounds good to me.
There is definitely some hype for P4A, if our chat last night is anything to go by.
Been watching the Persona 4 anime in anticipation. It's pretty good. http://www.hulu.com/persona-4
I still have to pick up Blazblue Extend but I am down for any fighter.
BlazBlue this week! Just a reminder for those folks who were interested.
I'm running on a 4G internet connection until Friday. If I test it out and it works I'll be there.
Yeah my budget's running a little tight this month so I'm probably not gonna splurge on BBCS. Still mulling over P4A though. I hear great things about it, but just like KOF for all it's redeeming qualities, nobody in my local group seems quite ready to put real work into it.
...I've never been able to put my finger on what it is that causes an amazing fighter like BlazBlue to not gain the following something like SF4 does...
The short answer in terms of mass appeal, at the risk of oversimplifying the problem, is that 1) it isn't a Capcom game and 2) its anime art direction. I'm not saying either of these are bad, or even rational for that matter, but that's what I've been able to glean so far.
From personal experience, I found the game mechanics to kind of pile up all at once which really got confusing and turned me off from the game. Compared with my experience in picking up SF4, I found the mechanics to be rather straightforward and easy to understand.
Now according to Valle when he got a chance to play the game, P4A has a similar learning curve to SF4, lending itself to a variety of play styles simple and complicated. Personally if I can pick up a nice footsie based character that's not so reliant on combos, then I'm golden
I have more trouble getting into BB games than I do Capcom games too. What confuses me is when I look at the actual system breakdown, there's very little different between the games.
I think, and I can't be sure on this one, the difference is even though point for point they seem to have the same core mechanics, it has to do with how and when they're presented.
The impression I got when learning SF4 is "Mechanics? Yeah we got those, but really, you don't need those one-frame links and 20 hit combos right now. Here's a basic combo, here are some good buttons, here's your reversal, and whatever you do, don't jump. Have fun!"
Meanwhile, when I sat in tutorial / training mode for BB, it was more like "Welcome to BlazBlue, here's your textbook and dictionary. Please have them both read before the next class."
Probably not the best example, and completely anecdotal, but that roughly reflects how it felt trying to learn each game.
Are we playing again tonight?
I'm still waiting for the perfect fighting game tutorial. BB was definitely an encyclopedia approach and I haven't finished grinding through it because oh god why. SF4 (and Marvel) desperately need some sort of tutorial. I was hoping skullgirls would have a good one, but it's much like BB's, although better for total newbies. What I guess I want is something like an RTS campaign, where gameplay elements are introduced sequentially in the midst of playing the game (rather than trying to execute a combo). If I ever see something like that, I doubt it'll be from Capcom though.
Unfortunately I think the nature of the genre doesn't lend itself very well to tutorials. It's all too easy to go from Capcom-style "figure it out yourself" to BlazBlue's walls of text to something even worse.
I mean, lets pretend we're introducing the Fireball mechanic. Seems pretty simple right? You do the motion and you fire some plasma. But try explaining why you'd want to throw a fireball. Now you're entering an abstract discussion of controlling space, which can spiral pretty quickly into reversals, baiting, and how you shouldn't jump except when you should. So then you have to make a decision of teaching barely the basics so you don't get into this interconnected web of more than just mechanics all at once, or go full-on encyclopedia.
I use fireball because it's an easy example. But imagine explaining a relatively new mechanic like Focus Attack to a completely new player. Why you would use it, when you wouldn't, it's benefits, it's weaknesses. Even for just one mechanic it's a lot to take in.
The best tutorial is trial and error. It encourages critically thinking about and exploring the game engine. At the same time though, if a game's mechanics are too obtuse then it slows down the adoption rate of the game - which is especially bad for an oversaturated environment like today, or 10 years ago. Some games are simply not going to get the credit they deserve because the chaotic collective community focuses all their attention on a handful of games and leaves the rest to the die-hard players.
I'm totally with you, but I keep hoping anyway. I haven't played Smash Bros Brawl yet, but I've heard that the single-player campaign manages to achieve some of this. Smash is weird though, so it may just be an outlier in what's actually feasible.
The notice is a bit late, but I won't be on this afternoon.
Pages