Please don't quote my name and then say "you" in regards to some dumb shit like launcher button, when would I even mention something like that? It obviously has no relevance and anyone who said it does is a scrub, good players adapt. Why would you even waste your time reading that tripe? Did you read my post? I don't write novels often. I really hope you are being general here in the direction of your reply.

I'm not comparing magic series to ABC, I don't care about easy bread and butters. Their both easy, their not even worth mentioning in a thread with a title that reads competitive. I'm talking about the games complexities and what made it one of the most competitive titles for a decade.

Jacko's the one who mentioned ABC being scrubby (unquote), not Yama. Yama for the most part just said he felt the complexities of 2 were more rewarding for him while 3 is more catered towards 'Casuals'. In which I agree with the statement, but, not the undertone it can apply.

In any event, I think we all stated our 'opinions' and need not get hissy with one another. Let's just leave it where it is, ey?

Sorry I forgot I even had you quoted, it was a reply to Jacko and Ikari mostly. I just had quoted you to say I'm fed up with the game.

Complexity doesn't necessarily imply depth...

since this is the "competitive" fighters thread, I guess we can discuss execution at high level play.
When learning fighting games for the first time, you learned what the buttons did for your character. You knew that a jab was a faster but weaker attack and a fierce did a lot of damage. A sweep knocks the enemy down. Then the first hurdle was learning the special moves. With some practice you could get down moves like the Sonic Boom or shoryuken without problems; you can do them just as easily and readily as you could a fierce or sweep. Then you put them together into basic "2 in 1" combos, which with practice becomes second nature. You can probably see where I'm going with this.

The point is, that at the highest level, the complexity of, and the execution required to do a combo/string becomes irrelevant. Combos become "moves", just like fierces and jabs. At the highest level, more than anything, the game becomes a battle of mind games. You essentially start playing a game of chess with joysticks. Of course, human beings can make mistakes, and actually that's an example of where complexity can add depth (in the risk/reward sense of, "should I go for the hard combo and risk dropping it, or go for the easier one that does less damage but is more stable?") but its more of a function of human motor skills than it is game design.
Overall, something that would add depth to the game is giving the player differing optionsof a decision ("move") based on the given situation as opposed to something that makes a given move harder to do.

If anything "easy" execution (which marvel 3 may or may not have, depending on who you ask) allows more people to play the game, which is good for community: there are more people to compete with, and the game publishers will see more sales, meaning you'll likely get more of what you like.

There's a floor where "easy" execution becomes detrimental. Marvel 3 doesn't hit that floor, thankfully. But I personally think that a lower entry barrier is good, as it will encourage players to experiment with more new tactics, which will likely give way to the advanced tactics that hardcore players derive enjoyment from being able to perform. Most of that stuff in other games was found from players thinking outside the box and going beyond what was originally intended by the developers. You can look at games like Super Smash Bros Melee and probably the entire catalog of the Marvel/Capcom games (cota through MvC2).

X factor is a solid mechanic in theory. The time of use and application is up to the the player's discretion, and it has both offensive and defensive benefits. It is technically not broken because both challengers have access to it at the same time.

I think that labeling X-factor as just a comeback crutch mechanic is a misnomer.
More and more in high level play, you'll see players using level one or level two x-factor in combos to take out the opposing player's point character and/or assist in order cripple his team. After all, even a team of three characters at 40% health generally has more options than a team of two at 100%.

The issue with x-factor LEVEL THREE, as has been mentioned, is that the gains are too powerful. I'd be in favor of toning it down. Personally, I'd be in favor of giving 1 x factor per character, but each one would be slightly weaker than the current level 1.

But you can't just dismiss or ignore x-factor. It's in the game, and part of the game's strategy.

I'm not going to deny it, it's more personal preference than actuality. I understand how it allows more people to get involved, though also see how it lessens the skill gap. Most of the great games were in fact easy to get in to, but tough to master. The problem lies solely within MvC3, at least more so than the complexity is key theory. There is some complex stuff in the game, but the rewards are slightly more (if lucky) than basic thrash. That problem sits with a lot of games, but none more prevalent than MvC3 imho.

Well, I really don't wanna get too into it again. But, that's the kinda stuff that bugs me a bit. From 'my' perspective, it seems like you keep saying as others have, that 3 is 'too easy' and doesn't require as much 'skill', therefore even if you're good at it or win, it doesn't mean anything because it's a subpar game. And that 'true' skill comes in being able to do all the crazy stuff in mvc2.

Again, it comes off as basically 'Execution' > all. Sure there's tons of mind games in MvC2 and that's what's 'fun' about it to many mvc2 players including yourself. But, 3 has those mind games just as well. Which is why i keep focusing on the 'execution' part which is the main difference between the two (to me). And most I've read from on all the forums on various sites all seem to say the same thing, focusing on the fact that 2 requires 'skill' because you actually have to spend forever learning all those combos, advanced tactics, and how to execute it all flawlessly to be a 'high level' player. And they complain about 3 because it has 'simple mode' and 'ABC' combo's, a single launcher etc., and X-factor. These are the most prevalent complaints from all the 'high level' players.

You and Jacko did in fact mention all of the above too (more jacko than you though). It's basically arguing that 3 sucks in comparison because it is too 'easy' and doesn't require the hardcore execution and learning curve to 'seperate' the good from the bad. Again, that it's 'too easy' for players who may not be 'pro' in 2, to become pro's in 3.

And that's what kinda bugs me. Even if the entire game was one button per move, every single aspect of the game would still be there, all the moves, mind games, traps, zoning, rushdown, combos, etc. The only thing removed would be the execution required.

Same with 2, would you find 2 the same in terms of depth and skill if every aspect of 2 was left in tact, only difference was 'simple mode' for the moves? Every single tactic, combo, reset etc. was still available in 2, only thing gone was the crazy execution required to pull it all off. Would you still find the game as interesting and fun?

And again, that's all I've been saying. I think too many people focus more on 'execution' as a skill determent rather than the actual gameplay itself.

Someone mentioned Chess as an example of how the game is played etc. as a positive. Yet, in chess, both players have access to all the same pieces. It's 100% equal, no if and's or but's. And you don't need crazy execution to pull off any moves. Every move is 'simple', it's just how you 'use' your moves and pieces that matters.

And like I said, that's all that should matter overall. But, too many feel that not having the execution makes for a shitty, scrubby game. And that execution is the main factor in determining who is more skillful.


Either way, I don't care one way or another. It just bugs me a tiny bit everytime I keep hearing people go on about that stuff. And tons of stuff is thrown in to try and defend the position and say it's not about execution when all I keep seeing says otherwise.

But, anyway, meant no offense to anyone in particular, and if I read things wrong, feel free to correct me. Again, this is all just how 'I' have seen things from the posts given. I don't claim to be infallable though.

So hopefully we can refrain from hissy arguments from anyone. I'd appreciate it.

I just want to say that MvC3 just makes me want to play 2... and even though I suck at execution and so 3 is better for my chances of winning, things like X-factor really make me second-guess its being fun. I know that the game is more fun when I don't pick Hulk/Ryu but it just amounts to a bunch of stupid shit that I just kind of smile at an roll my eyes (even when I'm doing it).

I was never a good Marvel player and but I get responses like "Cable! AHVB*infinity!" or "You can't 80% of the characters!" and while those things are true... just look at the match quality difference at high levels. Also look at the no X-factor. I don't feel anything cool like Ruby Heart/Dhalsim Doom rocks. It's not that you can't do anything interesting with assists... it's just that it ends up feeling all the same for the more part. I think even if there was nothing else, these things stand on their own. This and the fact that the game feels incomplete as far as character selection really made me disappointed in this game.

Games are really getting on my nerves recently. It's not that they don't have any redeeming qualities or that they can't be fun... but when I get BlazBlue coming from GG Accent Core, or when I MvC3 from 2, Brawl from Melee (<-most unacceptable) and the Resident "Ass" Evil 5 when Capcom acted like it would actually return to RE roots... I don't know how much more I can take of this BS.

Since I've already stated how I feel about X-factor as a whole, I won't go into that. I don't mind the easy learning curve, but don't respect it since people now tend to view themselves as good and as "rivals/competition/etc" when they were no where near being around for the more difficult games. It's more of a personal thing, again. I do accept the fact that more people can play it and get good at it, but have some friggin' modesty. I won't respect you if you boast n' brag about being good, but gave no respect nor love for 2 (which, we all HAVE to admit, if not for we would not even have a 3). But if you're good at 3, and "know your place" so to speak, I have no problems. Simple Mode is just pathetic. That's just for babies whom you let play vs. people just to make a show or have a good laugh with the family or friends.

The talk of execution is being stretched out farther now than it originally was intended. Not having execution doesn't mean the game is shitty, nor do I feel that way. Is it scrub-friendly? Hell yes. It definitely is. But that still doesn't make it a "bad" game. My personal feeling on the subject, is that a person should have to execute a combo at some point. There are times to play keep away and set up traps/baits, but I don't respect having to spend MY time to chase a person down. A person wants to do that in a tourney, go right ahead. Money is most likely involved so who cares what others think, but in casuals or practice sessions? Come on... Those are the times you WANT to practice landing a combo. if the runaway/keep away route doesn't work, then what else can you rely on? Combos, which require of course, execution. The complexity of the combo, with that certain character, depends on the player. It can either be difficult and rewarding, or it can be easy and safe. But at some point in a match, it HAS to be done.

Marvel vs Capcom 3 is a very fun and enjoyable game. I like the equal footing most of the cast has, (though i feel the roster is still lacking on the Capcom side), and I enjoy how gorgeous the game looks. I play it often enough and have invested in time to say I do like it. I acknowledge it's flaws and feel that it's still incomplete, but it's a fun game. Do I feel that it "sucks" in comparison to 2? Yeah, I do. But that's an opinion of mine and shouldn't be taken as fact. The question of "Is 2 the better game?" can have opinions, but there's factual proof that shows that it most certainly is. We can officially debate this in 10 years.

Read a little more closely Mike.




If somebody is in fact stringing together insane stuff and barely does more than an ABC super, there is a problem. The game doesn't reward skill.

Oh and Kix, I love you.

Well, this is exactly what I was referring to, (which i even noted Jacko had touched on far more than you Yama. The only thing i even really mentioned regarding you was in your tiny quote with the 'lucky' in mvc3 stuff sentance/paragraph). So this was more aimed at Jacko than you overall and 'many' people who have made similiar comments all over the MvC2 and 3 boards, Shoryuken, eventhubs, capcom unity, etc.




Moving past the fact he pretty much blatantly states exactly what I argued against, execution and 'difficulty' are what matter in a fighter and 'accessible' and 'easier combos' mean you're a scrub and the game is inferior.

That's the exact mindset I was saying bugged me a bit. He blatantly says, "If you're good at 3 it doesn't mean crap because you're not good at 2." They're two entirely different games. Why would someone need to be good at 2 to be good at 3? And why would someone even need to LIKE 2 to like or be good at 3? Again, 2 and 3 are DIFFERENT games that PLAY DIFFERENTLY. It's obvious some are going to like 3 over 2 or vice versa based on those factors. Someone could outright suck at 2, but, be a god at 3. If they're only playing and competing in 3, why are they a 'scrub', and 'need to be kept in their place' for saying they're good at 3 just because they're not good or don't play 2? We've already established 3 is a different game all in it's own from 2. So why try to act like being good at 2 has 'anything' to do with being good at 3? Or vice versa? Or tell someone how they 'need' to respect 2 if they like 3? Why? If I didn't enjoy 2's play style and engine, i didn't enjoy it. I can love 3 and hate 2. It's all personal preference.

That whole 'elitist' attitude is what kind of annoys me. Just like Jacko went to say "This is only my opinion and shouldn't be taken seriously. But, you "have to admit" 2 > 3 and there's facts to prove it."

As well as the comment about, "I'm here to practice my combo's and you should be too. So if you play keep away in casuals i'm not going to respect it."

It's basically pushing an opinion on everyone else and pushing it as fact. It's that kind of arrogance from a lot of 2 players that bugs me.

Also:



Er, so if they want to use Keep Away in a tournament as their primary tactic and focus that relies on money that's fine. But, in casuals they should focus on combo's? Basically, what you're saying is that if they choose to make their primary build and strategy around keep away for a tourny that's ok, but, outside of the tourney they shouldn't 'focus' on building that tactic and strategy and try to make it solid and find flaws in it through practice against others, but, should instead focus on combo's and rushdown and then jump into the tourney without any actual data or experience to back up the Keep Away to use as primary strategy? Does that make any kind of sense?

And your complaint about 'spending my time to chase you down'. That basically is saying like, "You're not making it easy for me to land my flashy combo so it's just boring and stupid that I actually have to WORK to get it off. We should both just be trying to land our combo's from the getgo so it's faster and easier." I'm not sure why I'm supposed to make things easier for you. Even if you catch me and beat my keep away, what's the big deal? You won, who cares? Again, I'm not there to entertain 'you'. I'm there to entertain myself. If I like running away, that's up to me. Doesn't matter if you find it 'boring'. I might find your 'do the same combo x15 the entire match until KO appears' boring, but, I'm not bitching and whining or telling you not to do it.

I'm sure you both remember how I used to bitch and whine about 'cheap' stuff back in 2 and whatnot, complained about over powered characters etc. And what did everyone tell me? Stop crying, learn to play the game, let people play however they wish and don't bitch about it.

I did just that, I don't complain about 'cheap' stuff or chars anymore. I let everyone play how they wish. I fought both Yama and Jacko after the fact even when they were using their high tier teams and I didn't complain. I even did decent against Yama and beat Jacko at least half the times he beat me. All after I stopped the scrubby mindset and took the time to learn the game and how to deal with stuff and not worry about what someone was doing. I actively ask for help and strategies. And I take the time to try and learn the best I can even if the best I can doesn't make me a pro.

But, now that 3 is out, all I'm hearing is complaints and whinings from the 2 players. It's like a complete 360. Whining about how someone plays after telling others to just let people play how they want and not cry about it. Telling people they need to 'learn their place' and 'can't say crap if they're not good in 2'. So when playing 2, if you 'lost' to a pro, you're not allowed to cry about it. But since 3 levels the playing field and allows many players to be 'pro' at the game that wouldn't be 'pro' in 2, that's not acceptable because now all these 'scrubs' are poking into the 'secret, elite, and exclusive' club of the 'pros'.

It's just ridiculously elitist thinking. It'd be like me telling a DOA or Tekken player they're scrubs and need to 'know their place' because DOA and Tekken both derived their engines from Virtua Fighter and if they don't play and master VF they aren't shit and can't say shit and I'm universally better than them because I play VF. Or that a SC4 player 'sucks' because they don't play or haven't mastered 2. Any SC player knows 4 and 2 are two entirely different games as well. Why the hell would skill in 2 mean anything in 4 or vice versa to make such a silly comment?

It's just really, really, arrogant. To honestly see someone play a game and think to yourself "*scoffs* Friggin' scrubs playing a baby game and thinking they're hot shit. I'm so much better than them. They need to STFU. I'd destroy them easily."

I just don't get it. Why do you care so much that you feel the need to constantly remind everyone how much they suck and how much better you are than them? And to think that the 'ONLY' way to play the game is how 'you' like to play it. That anything else, even if it wins, isn't respectable because it's not what 'you' like. For someone who calls people 'scrubs' constantly like it's a blanket statement for anyone they don't like, you're basically being the definition of a scrub. Being 'good' at a game doesn't mean you're not a scrub. A scrub doesn't mean they suck at the game. It just means they whine and bitch about anything and everything that doesn't meet their own personal mindset of 'How the game should be played according to me.' Making up your own rules and standards rather than letting the game dictate them as is.

Honestly, I don't want to get into these arguments, it's really stupid and pointless. It's just really annoying to constantly see these comments with people being so damn arrogant. I get it, you like to play competitively. But, not everyone does. If some 'casual' player beats you with spamming, it's really 'scrubby' by definition, to say they suck and had to resort to stuff like that to win, rather than just admit you're the one to blame for not countering it and punishing them. And if you win against it, to still look down on them for not being 'elite' like you, like everyone 'has' to be pro to be 'allowed' to play the game.

When people spam at me or zone constantly and I lose to it, I don't blame them or think they're 'scrubs' for doing it. I just look at myself and say "Why did you let yourself lose to that?" and then hope that I get matched with them again so I can overcome it and prove to myself that I'm not that bad to lose to that stuff repeatedly.

Complaining about keep away etc. and not respecting it is no different than all the scrubs who complained about repeated throws in SF2 and not respecting it. That's exactly what a scrub is. And the exact kinda stuff I got bitched out for doing in the past. And now there's a huge hypocriticism going on. So, yeah, it's just really annoying to constantly keep seeing.

To make this clearer, I don't LIKE when people rely on Dark Phoenix to win a match for them. It's annoying to fight against and I don't 'enjoy' it personally. But, I don't complain about them, I don't think less of them, I don't lose respect for them, and I don't avoid playing against them for it. If that's what they wanna do, that's what they do and I just need to deal with it even if I may not 'personally' have the most fun playing against them. And I certainly don't go around tell those players they need to 'learn their place' if they win with that.

Like I said, just seriously don't get the need to act so high and mighty all the time. It's just pointless arrogance. Stop being so judgemental -_-