Copy Clerk Posts: 55 Joined: 8 Apr 2008     | |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 575 Joined: 21 Jun 2008     | You know there is a 3D Guilty Gear game...it's called Guilty Gear 2: Overture (released on the 360, only in Japan so far though) and it is a direct sequel to the X games. Anyway, do I believe that Guilty Gear is the best of the best in its genre? No I do not, some of the characters are a little unbalanced (Zato-1/Eddie and Holy Order Sol anyone?), the key mechanics of the game seem to be about hurting your opponents enough to unleash an instant Death Move or a Super Combo which can amount to spamming 'Daze' moves so that you can get your bar full. Not something I would call tactical gameplay, although there is a lot of meat on the bones if you go into the Roman Cancels, Psyche Bursts and Air Combos. On the other points I agree to a degree, Guilty Gear is a fantastic game, it's really original in its presentation and whatever but its gameplay is no more complex or interesting than any other 2D fighter. That is just my opinion of course. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 55 Joined: 8 Apr 2008 | Overture was just the inevitable dabble. I suspect they felt as if they were 'ready' for 3D, if they wanted to try it. As for instant deaths and supers, it's really down to the individual player. With counters, bursts, perfect defenses, certain invulnerable animation frames, false roman cancels and attacks of varying priority, spamming anything is nigh impossible. Air combos can be recovered as can knockdowns. If that IK misses, you've lost your tension gauge which is a very big deal. If i were placing a guess, it'd be that you haven't played a good opponent, or haven't made extensive use of every mechanic. The latter is probably the case because you mention there being 'A lot of meat on the bones if you go into the Roman Cancels, Psyche Bursts and Air Combos'. I can't even imagine playing without making use of the features you mentioned, it would be like deliberatly castrating the game. Then i could certainly see why it wouldn't seem 'interesting or complex'. Deliberatly ignoring/not utilising key features is hardly grounds for condemning anything else about the game, though. Calling Guilty Gear 'no more complex' than other 2D fighters is quite an unfounded claim. Street Fighter for example doesn't have anywhere near half the features. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1266 Joined: 11 Jan 2008   | I for one cannot stand the Guilty Gear Franchise. It's gotten progressively worse since the first. The attacks are just too random and half the time I feel it's down to luck when you win when some characters can summon demons under the ground on the other side of the screen to attack you without any time for you to realise so. Excellent graphics. Pefect music. Unique presentation. Annoying gameplay. Now please don't call me a pro-3D fighter fan. I'm a big Street Fighter fan (a series that I think needs improvements to the gameplay which the latest installment on the next gen isn't going to deliver) and I have still played SFIII: 3rd Strike up until very recently. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1521 Joined: 5 Jul 2008    |
I concede it doesn't, but the nice thing with Street Fighter is that those features don't break the game. GGXX has become more broken with each iteration, which is a shame cause I liked #Reload, but now the battle engine is so jam-packed with features that you have various random bugs that interact with themselves to cause more random bugs (like random crossovers at inopportune times). And nobody IKs in a serious game. It's more like a taunt. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2621 Joined: 27 Aug 2008    | Jesus! It seems like you'd need a doctorate to play that game. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1285 Joined: 3 Sep 2008    | NO. |
Muckraker  Posts: 229 Joined: 18 Aug 2008   |
Seconded. Sounds massively obfuscated and over-complicated. I quite enjoyed Guilty Gear X on Dreamcast, but I definitely won't be looking into any others. As for it being the epitome of beat 'em ups - not a chance. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 168 Joined: 28 May 2008  |
Somebody smack that guy. I like KOF but it never was anything more than a street fighter clone. Guilty Gear is the way to go. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1285 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
It was nothing like Street Fighter. Plus KoF is just about the only fighting game with a story. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 672 Joined: 8 Nov 2007    | Oooh, and I thought I had to tread carefully in the other thread about mashing... I'm going to wuss out on this question and say there is no epitomy in fighting games. If I have to identify a list of top three of fighters I'd probably end up with an unordered list of VF5, Soul Calibur 1 (never played soul blade) and Third Strike. And that's as close as I will go to identify the best fighter ever. Purely on personal taste VF wins because of its balance (all characters represented in final 32 of SBO, no other fighter has that) and the number of options available to both players at any one time to minimize risks and/or maximize gains. Phoenix Arrow: DGenius: |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 484 Joined: 30 Jan 2008  | Guilty Gear is by far the best 2D fighter franchise out there, though when I look at its competition, I'm not surprised. SF and KoF have always been subpar at best, and rarely are they their best, to me. I have played each street fighter since the first one arrived in arcades way back when, and even then I felt the game was trash. Guilty Gear, however, hooked me instantly and felt like it did right everything that SF did wrong. As for KoF, it just feels to much like SF, however it does also feel a bit more polished. Basically SF is the bottom of the pile and KoF keeps it there, while GG does what it does best, which is to kick ass. Of course, that is all opinion, and I'm not counting any 3D fighters (I love DOA and SC), and all the SF fans will go insane now. |
Beat Writer Posts: 168 Joined: 28 May 2008 |
KOF for the most part didnt have a real story to it till 96'. The story is in itself is always the same "someone has put together another tournament with evil intentions in mind and you fight". But then again nobody plays fighting games for the story.
While AOF had the first super moves. Super Street Fighter 2 turbo had the first super combo gauges to fill so you can unleash your super, as opposed to having to be beaten to near death in order to use a super combo. And Super Street Fighter 2 had the first reversal system, and combo counters. And both were out before KOF which is the formula which is widely used today. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1285 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
I always preferred 2002 because I enjoyed the NESTs saga. You get more of the good characters like Angel, Kula and Ramon and less of the filler characters such as the American Sports team. Although the SDMs and HSDMs are ridiculous. I mean they look awesome (Psychic 9 <3) but if you activate super mode then your opponent knows whats coming and evade it. |
Games Editor  Posts: 4259 Joined: 20 Dec 2005     | XX #R is the best fighting game ever made with SF3: Third Strike taking a very close second. |
Paperboy Posts: 15 Joined: 4 Sep 2008 | Fighter, not Beat-em-up. Final Fight, Sengoku, Streets of Rage... all Beat-Em-Ups. GG is a great fighter but it has problems. Like a steep learning curve for the nooblets and a lack of noteable sequels. Each new GG game feels like the last and that doesn't sound like a step forward to me. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 484 Joined: 30 Jan 2008 |
This I agree with, but then KoF and SF have the same problem. Fighting games in general, especially with 2D ones, seem to suffer from this. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1285 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
I thought SF3 was the worst fighting game I've ever played. But to each their own. *A varied and substantial roster of fighters, which are 'very' unique - Well.. there seems to be a learning curve with KoF. You get more beginner characters like Yuri then once you get more advances you can play as say Angel and learn excellent combos. But each character does have their own traits. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 55 Joined: 8 Apr 2008 | Alright sure, i'll play the comparison game. Now, Guilty Gear; Ky Kiske - Rushdown style character, sword weilder with lightning based attacks Topping this off, every character has an EX version, which significantly alters their movesets. Compare that to most other fighters, consisting of; *Karate guy Personally, i preffer the variety. Once you've done 'Karate guy' you never need another one. Every character on the roster should play different and not just be reskinned or beefed up versions of the same character. Yes, you can have a beefed up version, but like Guilty Gear, make it an EX varient, or a shadow varient, or a gold varient instead of taking up another roster spot with what amounts to the same person. As for beginner characters, that's a matter of taste. When i first got GG i picked Sol and got on fantastic. My friend picked Potemkin, who i find far too slow and bulky, but he had a great time crushing opponents and found it easy to boot. Instant Kills - I appreciate having the option. They're not easy to land, and if you miss you lose your tension gauge which is the lifeblood of many of your options. No more super specials, no more perfect defense, no more counters, cancels, false cancels etc. The fact that you have an instant kill at all puts your opponent on edge though. If they fire up Sol's dragon install mode and fail to knock you down or finish you off, you can IK during the stun period. Risk and reward. The points i orginally brought up are by no means definitive. Guilty Gear has multiple modes, arcade, story (with multiple endings) unlockables, extensive survival mode, mission modes as well as all the usual icing for example. A main point of contention here is that many seem to find the game too complex/ difficult to learn in short time. Or try to play it without utilising the complexity. Personally i think that's what epitomises (or should epitomise) the game, is the multitiude of options. Once you've got two people rolling them all out there, it becomes so razor edged. The learning curve is also a positive thing because instead of being able to play the game immediatly great, then becoming expert, then becomming bored, you constantly add in new mechanics as you get better. Rather than using standard blocks, you start using perfects. You start making use of the counter attack and psyche bursts. The game peels back to reveal new layers of depth as you get more skilled. Most other fighters put it all on display straight off, and everything from there revolves around learning combos. In Guilty Gear you learn mechanics. It suddenly becomes apparant that Robo Ky's low LP can be false roman canceled, opening up a multitude of combo options. Which brings me neatly to the cancel system. With the ability to cancel 'any' move mid frame, the combo options become nigh infinite. Assuming you have the tension to spare. I would of imagined that people would want a fighting game to encompass as many balanced options and mechanics as possible. Some apparantly preffer less, which is sort of weird. As for you Vortigar, i can tell you with total certainty that no other fighter has as many options avaliable to the player at any one time than Guilty Gear. I also agree that Street Fighter was pretty much trash right out of the gate. Fun trash though, but you were always saying "It would be better if...". XXReload is getting a fair bit of referencing here as well. Is that the last one most of you played? Slash and A Core made some significant changes which i felt were improvements. Doesn't really matter though because as always you can opt to play the game in orginal Guilty Gear mode or GGX mode. Which is of course another great feature. Buy the new game and if you don't like the changes, revert the mode and you've got an updated GG or GGX. |
BANNED  Posts: 253 Joined: 4 Sep 2008   | Honestly I'll take most any 2d fighter over a 3d one (aside from MK, that game has always been trash). Guilty Gear was like a breath of fresh air for 2D fighters when it first came out. Sadly everyone wants millions of polygons these days and it doesn't get the appreciation it deserves, even though the animation quality is top notch. I hope they make another on the next gen systems but keep it 2d. User was banned for: Why aren't girls into gaming?. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1521 Joined: 5 Jul 2008 |
These sorts of comments would be so much more interesting if you gave a reason why you think so. Especially since we do have fighting games like the Mortal Kombats (especially its 3D versions) out there. As for GG's character variety, I'd rather go with how they function than their aesthetics: Sol and Ky are your shotos wih their projectiles and srk clones, Potemkin is your basic command throw guy, Jam and Chipp are variations of the same pressure heavy archetypes and so on. They do some variations for the archetypes, though, which is nice. Stories, though, are a non-issue in fighting games: they all suck. And this is coming from a person who loves the genre. There's no such thing as a fighting game with a good story. Or even a half-decent one. And as someone who has played all of them, while the new versions of GGXX have come up with new features, the features have also made the darn engine crack from its seams. Shit like random crossups, a bug that turns Bridget's yoyo into an infinite-o-machine and other such nice things. And the fact that the balance is off-whack and Eddie is basically god tier. EDIT: I can understand not liking Third Strike, but I still would like people to explain their stance instead of just going "it's the worst fighting game I've ever played" and leaving it at that. To me that just sounds like they've only played one or two fighting games in their life.
That's because they aren't really selling it as a "new game" than as an update. |
BANNED Posts: 253 Joined: 4 Sep 2008 | I can understand not liking SF3. However, condemning the SF series as a whole is kind of ignorant. It's like saying Super Mario Bros was the worst platformer ever but Adventure Island was amazing. SF laid the ground work that all other 2d fighters followed. If you say otherwise you're just trying to go against the grain. User was banned for: Why aren't girls into gaming?. (Permanent) |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 886 Joined: 24 Nov 2007     | I love the GG series. I mean, honestly, how many games have a character which uses their hair as a weapon?
That's an in-game sprite, by the way. The attack is usually much faster, though. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 558 Joined: 5 Feb 2008  | Guilty Gear has polished 2D fighting mechanics to near perfection with GGXX, Slash,and #Reload. I have yet to pick up Accent Core, though, seeing as how it's not on the Xbox 360. :( |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2770 Joined: 13 Feb 2008    |
Close enough. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1180 Joined: 25 Jan 2008   | Guilty Gear is a fantastic fighting game series, but to be honest the overwhelming amount of options is too much within a fighting game, imo. I think that Street Fighter, particularly Third Strike, is the best 2D fighting game available because it takes a simple concept and peppers it with complexities to produce a near-perfectly balanced, accessible and enjoyable fighting game. Guilty Gear's problem is that you have far too much to think about at any one time. This is a personal preference, obviously, but one of my favourite things about fighting games is their immediacy. It's hard for a game to be immediate when you've got to be thinking about 20 different possible courses of action in your head whilst playing. It's also ludicrously difficult if you don't know what you're doing. If it had a training mode like Virtua Fighter 4's then this would be fine. But it doesn't. You have to discover how to do things completely by yourself, and with the huge amount of techniques and variations on offer it becomes too much to process. Street Fighter combines the immediacy with the subtlety, and that's what makes it a great game. Virtua Fighter 5 is my personal favourite, though I can't understand why they ditched the training mode from 4. Seriously, I wouldn't appreciate 5 anywhere near as much if 4 hadn't explained all of the game's techniques and concepts to me so well. Virtua Fighter is elegant, complex and far, far easier to learn than something like Guilty Gear. This makes it a far better game, in my opinion. |
Infamous Scribbler Posts: 575 Joined: 21 Jun 2008 |
Overture is a direct sequel to the X games. Arc System Works is done with Guilty Gear for now and is focusing on its spiritual successsor, BlazBlue. Which basically looks and looks like it plays like the GG series anyway, so it may very well just replace it. Strafe Mcgee said it best, Guilty Gear buckles under it's own options. I don't hate the game, #Reload is my second favourite fighter of all time, but it's not perfect. I personally like the close quarters style of the the King of Fighters games, especially XI. The fact that you rely on combos, blocking and overturns more than you do special fireballs and the like is something I really dig about the series. Also I love the characters, sure they may not be rock gods incarnate, but they have a charm and subtlety to them that doesn't make them pretentious or showey. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 55 Joined: 8 Apr 2008 | What i was getting at was just that sooner or later they were going to try 3D, after working with 2D so long there's only so much you can do. I never meant to imply it would be some inconcequential spinoff. Incidentally for all those mentioning the crippling bugs that became present with recent incarnations, these were actually fixed in the American versions which is likly what the users of this board played. Did you actually play it, or just watch/hear about it? I personally have yet to find anything significantly broken in XX A Core. For Strafe, GG has a practice mode. All techniques are avaliable in the manual, all moves are avaliable from the move list in practice mode, and mission mode is a sort of challenge/training mode. Would it really be prefferable to have the game spoon feed you things it already tells you anyway? I may be some sort of mutant, but i never have many problems thinking about the multitude of options avaliable to me when playing. Is a fighter defined by reflexes and combo memorisation, or by those two along with the ability to think quickly? Sure the simpler fighters you have to think.....somewhat. Not to be insulting, but those of you that find it too complex strike me as having a slow thought process, or a bad memory. Maybe both. It's either that, or Guilty Gear is too complex for the average person, but find it unlikly those of us that enjoy and are good at it have above average thought processing speed. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 886 Joined: 24 Nov 2007 | I actually have an arcade machine of Guilty Gear X2 #Reload at my university. It's not exactly in prime working order, though. The Heavy Slash button for P2 doesn't work and P1's joystick doesn't register movements to the left. I can still get pretty far into the game with Sol though. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 586 Joined: 1 Jun 2008    | I remember this game series. I bought GGX when the PS2 first came out, and enjoyed it. Then X2 came out, friends told me it was better, so I folded and checked in on it. My poor thumbs remember quite well how blisteringly painful it was to attempt the near to impossible insta-death moves. I tried repeatedly and had to eventually put the game down when I literally had to go to the hospital to get medication for my left thumb - where severe blisters broke open the skin terribly. Maybe it was the game, maybe it was the design of the PS2 controller. I do not know. I am all for 2d fighting games, especially those that try something different or fit their own niche. However when they over-complicate the game to the point that playing hurts (literally), it is no longer fun. After my incident with X2, I gave up playing the series. My friends have similar feelings. Though don't get me wrong, X was fine and fun. edit - small edits. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1180 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
Whilst it does describe the techniques in the manual, within fighting games it's often very hard to interpret what that really means whilst fighting. I'd just prefer a slightly more in-depth training mode, like Virtua Fighter 4's, to help me adapt to what's an immensely complicated fighting system. It's not spoon feeding to have something helping you to cope with something that's extremly complex, it's just assistance. You wouldn't play Total War or Civilisation without playing the tutorial first, would you? Different genre, I know, but the point remains. When something's extremely complex it's nice to have someone explain things to you so that you can begin in earnest. |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
While every other fighter franchise unanimously decided that 3D was the only way to go, Guilty Gear said "No". While Mortal Kombat and Soul Calibur deteriorated heavily, Guilty Gear has only gotten better. Admittedly yes, they release a lot of rehashes, bringing into question whether or not new releases can actually be called 'New games', but isn't this exactly the quality a lot of us cry out for when Soul Calibur 50 is released with less moves than ever before? Don't we want to know why they didn't just stick to the same formula, balance out broken moves, add a few new characters and levels? For me personally, Guilty Gear is the most fun and balanced beat em up i've ever played.
The virtues of Guilty Gear for those of you who've never played it include;
*A varied and substantial roster of fighters, which are 'very' unique
*Instant Kills
*'Super special' moves
*Normal defense, perfect defenses, counters, one shot 'knockback' defenses and more
*A complex combo system
*Punishment for 'turtling' (going too long without attacking)
*A somewhat decent story
*Some gravity mechanics (Heavier characters fall quicker, making juggling harder)
*Excellent soundtrack
*Challenging gameplay (You won't make it to survival level 999 by spamming anything. Ever.)
*Beautiful graphics
When you get right down to it, i personally think that sticking to the 2/2.5D formula and polishing it up was a far better choice than experimenting with 3D. Not to say 3D couldn't be good, but surely you should be able to make consistant good 2D games before you even attempt it?
I apologise for this following youtube link. I feel it's a nessecary aid though. It demonstrates another virtue of Guilty Gear (as well as some gameplay). Moves of realative strength cancel each other out. People bang on about Soul Caliburs' guard impacts, but watch this video and make up your own mind on what you think is better. This is actually Guilty Gear XX Reload, released 2003. The latest rehash, Accent Core Plus is significantly better looking (amongst other things).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV8HhQwtD_0
The question of this whole topic is of course, is the Guilty Gear franchise the epitome of the beat em up genre?