The Complexity Argument (Or Why Street Fighter III Shouldn't Be Ignored)

With the impending release of Super Street Fighter IV, there's a number of different sort of memes popping back up all over the place, specifically in various commentaries about the Street Fighter series. The most common thing I'm seeing is derision of Street Fighter III, and how it's "too complex" of a game compared to the much more simpler Street Fighter IV, or even Street Fighter II.

As someone who took the time to understand and learn how to play Street Fighter III, I find the increasing number of complaints to be somewhat annoying, and almost ignorant to a point. Admittedly, my stance is a little biased - since I adore Street Fighter III, but at the same time, it's almost ludicrous that the game gets as much undeserved crap as it gets - since it does many things that Capcom haven't done as well since or before the release of 3rd Strike. 

Specifically, let's begin with the "too complex" part that most people seem to complain most about. In particular, people cite difficulty with the parry system - wherein to parry attacks, you need to move forward just as the attack connects, negating the attack and leaving your enemy wide open. By doing this, it effectively negates projectiles (which isn't an issue, since MOST of the characters in 3rd Strike aren't projectile users), and allows you to counter pretty much every other attack, including Super Arts (which will get to in a later paragraph). 

The most common misconception about this argument is that in order to basically play the game - you NEED to know how to parry. This can't be any further from the truth. In reality, it does help if you want to take the game seriously, but you don't need to know how to parry in order to play the game. I can't do it properly, and yet, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game. I know quite a few people who can't do it properly, and yet, they still enjoy the game. And if you want further proof that parrying doesn't ruin games - I CHALLENGE you to find someone complaining about the Just Defence system from SNK fighting games or Guard Impacting from Soul Calibur, and how it's "too complex" and ruins the game for them.

Another argument I've heard in favour of the game being "too complex, therefore it sucks" is the Super Art system. Basically, each character has three super moves, known as Super Arts. Once you pick a character, you pick one Super Art to use as your sole super move until you choose another character. 

I'm more baffled that people have found reason to even complained about this. The ability to choose Super Arts allows for different styles of gameplay, and locks you to learning only one combination - should you JUST focus on doing just that. What's so hard about locking down one super move?

I'm guessing that a lot of people deriding Street Fighter III are people who grew up and played the ever loving crap out of the various different versions of Street Fighter II. In fact, if you were to read a lot of articles and even listen to podcasts from outlets like 1UP, Gamespot, IGN etc, you'll hear a lot of praising of Street Fighter II and how the participants spent a lot of time playing the game, but stopped at III, citing that it was too complex and focused at a more hardcore audience.

Well no shit it's different. It IS a sequel after all. Were you expecting a title known as "Street Fighter III" to be as iterative as a lot of the different versions of Street Fighter II? Of course it's different. It's a sequel, a completely new entry in a long running series - you'd better damn well expect it to be different from it's predecessors. If it had been exactly the same, these would be the same people damning it.

The point of this? Go play Street Fighter III. It's one of the best fighting games ever made, and Capcom's crowning achievement as a company.

Oh Japan

There are many reasons why I love Japan, but this has got to be the most recent one. Why do I love Japan now?



Because they're the only place on earth where they'll have a TV show wherein the hosts are paid to get excited for precisely 10 seconds of gameplay footage.

Not My Game Room

So with the end of March, we saw the conclusion of Microsoft's "Block Party" promotion, as they released the not-quite arcade 'game' Game Room - effectively a launcher for a retro game service that was just launched. It's not at all like Sony's Playstation Home, as screenshots would suggest, but it's certainly more interactive and has a tonne of potential on its hands. And it's locally developed too (done by Krome Studios), so that's always nice.

And yet, I just can't get into it.

I mean, it's nothing wrong with the service itself. The emulation on the games is surprisingly good (except for the Intellivision stuff - which can't really played properly), the addition of a rewind feature is welcome, a semi-achievement system (in the form of medals) is well implemented and fun, the ability to go to other peoples arcades is a good idea - all in all, good stuff. 

Well, at least some people are enjoying Asteroids.

Sure, there is the fact that it's buggy as all hell, but that's not a shock. Stuff like not being able to purchase games initially, or even connect to the Game Room servers is annoying, but that can always be fixed over time; and if this generation has proven anything - it's not exactly a rare sight to see a patch for something be released onto a console. So you may be wondering what my problem is then? 

Well, it's the game selection itself. Rather - it's what Microsoft thinks are suitable 'nostalgic' games to go onto this service.

Initially, the games that were released comprised of stuff from the Atari 2600, Mattel Intellivision and several choice Konami & Atari arcade games. In terms of names, there was stuff like Centipede, Asteroids, Jungler, Yar's Revenge, Adventure, Combat and more. All in all, respectable stuff, yet there's just one problem.

All those games? Not nostalgic to me in the slightest.

Let me put this into perspective. I was born in 1988 - my nostalgia in terms of arcades includes things like Street Fighter II, The Simpsons, Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara, Daytona USA, Mortal Kombat - all these great games that were made during the last great years of the arcade. And yet, there doesn't seem to be any plans to release anything much more recent and actually playable onto the service.

And then there's the decision to kill the buzz on the product by not releasing anything until the end of April. Sure, it may be one way to get to the target of "1000 games in three years" that Microsoft are setting onto themselves, but a month? Really? Let's just hope that it isn't a regular thing and that the games 

You can theme your rooms - having Atari games in your Intellivision room and Intellivision games in your Atari room...

It bums me out because I WANT to support this. I think it's a great idea, and the framework surrounding it is awesome, but I can't justify spending money on stuff that is unplayable by today's standards, and isn't relevant to me. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one that thinks this way.

Of course, it's still early days for the service - so who knows? If it's just focusing on Microsoft's definition of nostalgia though, then I'll be getting rid of the app and going back to MAME. At least there I don't have to worry about not being able to access the service because of a bad internet connection.