Do you prefer 2d fighting games or 3d fighting games.
- Thread starter tonyh900
- Start date
2D all the way. The fighting game is the most direct and bloody test of skill between two players. It should be about their skill with the characters, use of block and special moves. Two enter, one leaves.
The worst thing to happen to fighting games however wasn't 3D. I don't like the extra dimension but it doesn't ruin the game...just needlessly complicates it, adding another axis into the control scheme. The worst thing to happen was the "Super Hyper Mega Moves". Street Fighter IV was so horrid because of this one feature, with no way to disable it. As you get hit, block and attack, a super meter charges. When full it allows the use of a ridiculous ability that obliterates the opponent.
That defeats the whole beauty of the fighting game. It is no longer a game of skill, a battle of reflexes and reading your opponent. Further, a losing player's super bar charges very quickly and almost always grants a use of this power that brings the better, superior, dominant player from full health to near death. This is cheap, cheating, dirty, horrid and stupid. I hate it with a passion and wish these super moves would be removed entirely, or at least disable-able.
Super Street Fighter II Turbo was the ultimate fighting game and to this day I cannot name another better than it. A large roster of well loved fighters, each of whom had useful special abilities and unique twists (dhalsim range/teleport, sagat high/lo fireballs, chun li/vega jump off walls, zangief strength, balrog dash, etc). They were all reasonably easy to learn but difficult to master, the perfect level of challenge (WTF is up with 20+ special moves per character now?). In the hands of a good player, any character could be deadly. Also, 4 hit dragon punch ;-)
If Capcom want to make the best fighting game of the next generation, all they need to do is remaster and re-release the above.
The worst thing to happen to fighting games however wasn't 3D. I don't like the extra dimension but it doesn't ruin the game...just needlessly complicates it, adding another axis into the control scheme. The worst thing to happen was the "Super Hyper Mega Moves". Street Fighter IV was so horrid because of this one feature, with no way to disable it. As you get hit, block and attack, a super meter charges. When full it allows the use of a ridiculous ability that obliterates the opponent.
That defeats the whole beauty of the fighting game. It is no longer a game of skill, a battle of reflexes and reading your opponent. Further, a losing player's super bar charges very quickly and almost always grants a use of this power that brings the better, superior, dominant player from full health to near death. This is cheap, cheating, dirty, horrid and stupid. I hate it with a passion and wish these super moves would be removed entirely, or at least disable-able.
Super Street Fighter II Turbo was the ultimate fighting game and to this day I cannot name another better than it. A large roster of well loved fighters, each of whom had useful special abilities and unique twists (dhalsim range/teleport, sagat high/lo fireballs, chun li/vega jump off walls, zangief strength, balrog dash, etc). They were all reasonably easy to learn but difficult to master, the perfect level of challenge (WTF is up with 20+ special moves per character now?). In the hands of a good player, any character could be deadly. Also, 4 hit dragon punch ;-)
If Capcom want to make the best fighting game of the next generation, all they need to do is remaster and re-release the above.
^ The funny thing is ST invented the "Super" mechanic! Well, maybe not invented, but ST popularized it.
That aside, I agree that ST is brilliant. Like Virtua Fighter, I feel SF2 is one of the best fighting game examples for easy to learn, difficult to master.
Anyway, I like 3D fighters, but I prefer 2D fighters. It's simply a matter of taste for me. 3D fighters emphasize Yomi, [footnote]Mindgames. Things like reading your opponent and making educated guesses are a part of Yomi.[/footnote] while 2D fighters emphasize space control. I just really dig the 2D fighter neutral game because of its large emphasis on space control.
Also, the two subgenres have different pacing and game-flow, that's for sure. 2D pressure and defence feel very different from 3D pressure and defence. Pressure in 2D fighters is much safer than that in 3D fighters, and punishment is so much more prevalent in 3D fighters than it is in 2D fighters. I won't say more. Any more and I'll be writing about frame data, crushes and other whatnot.
That aside, I agree that ST is brilliant. Like Virtua Fighter, I feel SF2 is one of the best fighting game examples for easy to learn, difficult to master.
Anyway, I like 3D fighters, but I prefer 2D fighters. It's simply a matter of taste for me. 3D fighters emphasize Yomi, [footnote]Mindgames. Things like reading your opponent and making educated guesses are a part of Yomi.[/footnote] while 2D fighters emphasize space control. I just really dig the 2D fighter neutral game because of its large emphasis on space control.
Also, the two subgenres have different pacing and game-flow, that's for sure. 2D pressure and defence feel very different from 3D pressure and defence. Pressure in 2D fighters is much safer than that in 3D fighters, and punishment is so much more prevalent in 3D fighters than it is in 2D fighters. I won't say more. Any more and I'll be writing about frame data, crushes and other whatnot.
2D fighters.
I can't really wrap my head around the extra plane of movement in 3D fighting games.
Then again I'm really terrible when it comes to any form of fighting game.
I can't really wrap my head around the extra plane of movement in 3D fighting games.
Then again I'm really terrible when it comes to any form of fighting game.
BlazBlue, Smash, SF, all games I love. Not so much ones with a 3d movement system. I don't know why, just don't get along with them.
That said, I love the Dissidia games. But they're nothing like what OP means by 3d fighters. They're more RPG hybrids with an interesting fighting system, high focus on spacing, dodging and tactics rather than Combos and a massive variety of character builds (you select which attacks to equip).
PS4/Vita cross buy Dissidia when?
That said, I love the Dissidia games. But they're nothing like what OP means by 3d fighters. They're more RPG hybrids with an interesting fighting system, high focus on spacing, dodging and tactics rather than Combos and a massive variety of character builds (you select which attacks to equip).
PS4/Vita cross buy Dissidia when?
You mean keeping you stuck blocking on the other side of the screen or just getting thrown back by it? Ziodyne has such a ludicrous recovery period if you block it, you can run up to her and destroy her because she is the squishiest thing ever.tonyh900 said:
Stop me if this sounds familiar, you get in range of her, she Shuffle Times you back then throws a Ziodyne to lock you up from fullscreen away. It's the basic keepaway tactic that every single Elisabeth does.
The trick is, the moment you pop up from the knockback, just as the Ziodyne is coming out you perform your instakill. She is now dead. By the second round you should be able to gauge how Ziodyne happy the guy is as well. Ziodyne spam is begging to be lamped by an instakill.
I've played so many games against Elisabeth though, I could write a book on how to deal with everything she has. She's really intimidating if you don't know how to deal with her, with her Persona making her untouchable and high damage combos.
As much as I respect 2D fighters, I find them remarkably boring. With only crouching block, standing block and spacing (and I guess throw teching), having to cover everything, offensive options feel limited in comparison to 3D fighters and in turn defending feels even worse (Marvel being the exception that proves the rule as, with it's offensive focus, the most effective defense is simply to attack first).
Stepping allows for so much more variety in attacks and gives defense a bit of risk/reward... Overall, it just creates deeper and more interesting gameplay. That's just my opinion of course, though I really cannot understand why they aren't more popular, and why Tekken, which is barely 3D, is the most popular.
Can't go particularly in depth on this topic really... it's more an emotional response rather than something I've investigated in depth. All I can say is, Soulcalibur is fantastic to me.
Each person can play the same character completely differently, and each character feels very different. It doesn't take a ludicrous amount of execution to pull off a basic combo and you don't need to reaction time of a damn house fly... I hate that by the way... 4-5 frame attacks and throws are so alien to me.
Oh, and also you don't have to exploit glitches introduced in games from 17 years ago that they've decided to keep for whatever reason, yet still the game doesn't even tell you exist. And now I'm being ridiculous...
I really want to get into a couple of 2D fighters just to understand why the audience is there but, they just aggravate me, and I get very bored of the characters and ugh... :/
Stepping allows for so much more variety in attacks and gives defense a bit of risk/reward... Overall, it just creates deeper and more interesting gameplay. That's just my opinion of course, though I really cannot understand why they aren't more popular, and why Tekken, which is barely 3D, is the most popular.
Can't go particularly in depth on this topic really... it's more an emotional response rather than something I've investigated in depth. All I can say is, Soulcalibur is fantastic to me.
Each person can play the same character completely differently, and each character feels very different. It doesn't take a ludicrous amount of execution to pull off a basic combo and you don't need to reaction time of a damn house fly... I hate that by the way... 4-5 frame attacks and throws are so alien to me.
Oh, and also you don't have to exploit glitches introduced in games from 17 years ago that they've decided to keep for whatever reason, yet still the game doesn't even tell you exist. And now I'm being ridiculous...
I really want to get into a couple of 2D fighters just to understand why the audience is there but, they just aggravate me, and I get very bored of the characters and ugh... :/
Wow a fighting game thread where Wykydtron doesn't mention Blazblu and Hazama?
OT: i prefer 2d fighters. There's something about 3D fighting games that just confuses the hell out of me. That and they tend to be slower paced. I love UMVC3 so much because of how fast paced it is . And the speed of the match varies depending on the characters/strategy being used .
I'm guessing the book would be called " Things Krazykidd taught me about fighting Elizabeth". I will agree that Lizzy is flawed , but she's so much fun.The Wykydtron said:
OT: i prefer 2d fighters. There's something about 3D fighting games that just confuses the hell out of me. That and they tend to be slower paced. I love UMVC3 so much because of how fast paced it is . And the speed of the match varies depending on the characters/strategy being used .
2D. I never got into the flow of how 3D fighters work, and even when I'm being coached by some of the best players in Norway, I can't get the timing of when to push buttons to punish or pressure properly, and I struggle to understand which moves to use at what point because I'm so used to "punishable move" meaning "you just got comboed to hell" rather than "you get jabbed for 10% of your health". The fact that TTT2 was my attempt to get into 3D games didn't help much either. I swear, that game is one of the most complex and demanding competitive games out there.
On the other hand, 2D fighters are something that I'm at the very least competent at, and something I play almost daily. If there was a bigger local community for King of Fighters XIII, I'd definitely be playing that as my main game, as that game actually makes sense to me. It flows so well, and the game is leagues easier to play than some people claim. Far more so than Street Fighter IV, which is deceptively complicated and doesn't have any characters I really like, but I still play it as it's still fun and has a lot of local competition.
Honorable mention to Soul Calibur 2 for being the best 3D fighter ever, though, and to this day one of my favorite fighters .Oh, and Divekick. And (obviously) Smash Bros. <3
On the other hand, 2D fighters are something that I'm at the very least competent at, and something I play almost daily. If there was a bigger local community for King of Fighters XIII, I'd definitely be playing that as my main game, as that game actually makes sense to me. It flows so well, and the game is leagues easier to play than some people claim. Far more so than Street Fighter IV, which is deceptively complicated and doesn't have any characters I really like, but I still play it as it's still fun and has a lot of local competition.
Honorable mention to Soul Calibur 2 for being the best 3D fighter ever, though, and to this day one of my favorite fighters .Oh, and Divekick. And (obviously) Smash Bros. <3
The biggest problem with 3D fighters is that they pretty much don't exist. Tekken and DoA are pretty much 2D fighters with a bit of the z axis thrown in for funsies. Soulcalibur is the only true 3D fighter I can think of, and I love the current iteration. It's one of the few games where the entire cast is viable for tournament play. Even Dampierre can get you into top 8, although you would still have an uphill battle against a pro who's using Patroklos or Mitsurugi.
The thing that draws me to 3D fighters is the heightened complexity. For one, you can dodge moves with side stepping. Ring outs and wall combos, which are more deadly than corner combos, make it so you need spatial awareness of the stage. The severe lack of block strings makes it so you need to think out most of your attacks, instead of just spamming while your opponent holds down and back. The biggest part, by far, though, is that the moves are slower. That means that man of them are reactable, with the fastest moves being 10 frames out of 60, instead of the completely unreactable 2 or 4 frame moves most 2D's have. This actually makes the game faster, as you're thinking out every move instead waiting out a half second long block string or shrugging off those unreactable moves where even if they're punishable, they're so stupid fast you can't get the punish in.
The thing that draws me to 3D fighters is the heightened complexity. For one, you can dodge moves with side stepping. Ring outs and wall combos, which are more deadly than corner combos, make it so you need spatial awareness of the stage. The severe lack of block strings makes it so you need to think out most of your attacks, instead of just spamming while your opponent holds down and back. The biggest part, by far, though, is that the moves are slower. That means that man of them are reactable, with the fastest moves being 10 frames out of 60, instead of the completely unreactable 2 or 4 frame moves most 2D's have. This actually makes the game faster, as you're thinking out every move instead waiting out a half second long block string or shrugging off those unreactable moves where even if they're punishable, they're so stupid fast you can't get the punish in.
Those are pretty good points. I think you changed my mind. 3D fighters definitely have some neat qualities.The Apple BOOM said:
Are we talking about 2D vs. 3D in GENERAL or a specific 2D vs. 3D game? Because depending upon that, it's a completely different answer.
philosophically, they're kind of apples to oranges for me. The big difference between 2D and 3D games that I see, beyond the extra dimension, really lies in the specific system implementations. The major difference that comes from that extra dimension really is a matter of areas of control. In a 2D game, generally you're looking to control area in a 2D space, and so when it comes to generating moves, it's actually slightly easier to manage the knowledge uptake, where as philosophically 3D games will require you to manage spatial control in an additional realm.
Now, here's the strange thing though, in games like say, Tekken or Soul Caliber, often times what ends up happening is that you DON'T actually end up having to manage spatial control in all 3 dimensions, but end up managing still just the X and Z axis, where as the height dimension is basically subsumed into the whole "low, mid, hi" implementation, which is ALSO present in 2D fighting games. So in the end, there are really not all THAT different.
In fact, most 2D fighting games I played tend to be HARDER for me because the execution requirements are higher, what with their being a lot more emphasis on hit box learning and far more button options to manage. 3D games like Tekken, on the other hand, tend to have a HUGE knowledge curve you must overcome. The execution requirements (especially as of Tekken Revolution) has actually really dropped off (though it is by no means negligible), but the knowledge you need in the form of knowing frame data, and match ups has become MASSIVE. Want to play Jin effective in TR? Go learn ALL of the combos that his standing 2,4 will beat first, and then learn all of the staple moves of each character so you know how to defend against each one, then you start to really play. It's a massive under taking.
philosophically, they're kind of apples to oranges for me. The big difference between 2D and 3D games that I see, beyond the extra dimension, really lies in the specific system implementations. The major difference that comes from that extra dimension really is a matter of areas of control. In a 2D game, generally you're looking to control area in a 2D space, and so when it comes to generating moves, it's actually slightly easier to manage the knowledge uptake, where as philosophically 3D games will require you to manage spatial control in an additional realm.
Now, here's the strange thing though, in games like say, Tekken or Soul Caliber, often times what ends up happening is that you DON'T actually end up having to manage spatial control in all 3 dimensions, but end up managing still just the X and Z axis, where as the height dimension is basically subsumed into the whole "low, mid, hi" implementation, which is ALSO present in 2D fighting games. So in the end, there are really not all THAT different.
In fact, most 2D fighting games I played tend to be HARDER for me because the execution requirements are higher, what with their being a lot more emphasis on hit box learning and far more button options to manage. 3D games like Tekken, on the other hand, tend to have a HUGE knowledge curve you must overcome. The execution requirements (especially as of Tekken Revolution) has actually really dropped off (though it is by no means negligible), but the knowledge you need in the form of knowing frame data, and match ups has become MASSIVE. Want to play Jin effective in TR? Go learn ALL of the combos that his standing 2,4 will beat first, and then learn all of the staple moves of each character so you know how to defend against each one, then you start to really play. It's a massive under taking.
garjian said:
2D offence and defense are not as simple as you guys make it sound.The Apple BOOM said:
If the attacker catches an blocking opponent, he/she can go for high/low mixups, tick-throws, frametraps or pressure resets (such as, but not limited to, dash-ins, instant air-dashes, and super-slow-start-up-but-advantageous-on-block moves). If we're talking about Okizeme, then the attacker gains options like meaties, cross-ups/feints, safe-jumps and more. And if we're talking about mix-ups after landing a hit, then the attacker gains the option to reset, and in some games *cough* Skullgirls *cough*, resets are incredibly dirty/effective. The point is, you have many more options than going for the safe block-string and returning to neutral.
3D fighters have a lot of these tactics as well, but you have to keep in mind that 2D pressure can go on for quite a long time, which means the defender has plenty of work to do to escape pressure.
Momentum in 3D fighters is more easily stopped because moves tend to be disadvantageous on block and moves are slow to start up. Often times, blocking an attack in a 3D fighter diffuses an offense, while blocking an attack in a 2D fighter starts the attacker's offense.
I love playing Tekken and Soul Calibur, but I definitely prefer 2D fighters like Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, Mortal Kombat 9, Super Smash Bros and Marvel vs. Capcom 2.
That's not true at all! More options for defense allows for attacks to give advantage on block, their weakness being to stepping for example, but the act of doing so opens you up to different forms of attacks, horizontals.Razentsu said:
But besides any of that, have you never heard of Viola... from SCV? The goddess of pressure I tells ya.
Pressure is almost my entire game in Soulcalibur. Across all fighters, I'm much weaker at defending than attacking, and it shows in the characters that I use and way in which I fight (and the games that I play). I'm attacking far, far more often than I'm not, and I'm able to do that very successfully.
I know first hand that momentum is not easy to stop in 3D fighters, certainly not in Soulcalibur, and I barely see it in 2D fighters myself beyond doing a few jabs and wakeup mixups.
When I first read the title I thought that the author was referring to games bound either to the 2D plane, or being able to fight in all directions. And I'd rather share my opinion on that. The only games I know that did free roaming combat right were the Budokai Tenkaichi/Raging Blast games and also the Naruto Ninja Storm series.
Even in SF4, a 2D fighter with very limited defensive options, has plenty of moves that give the attacker frame advantage. Just because you have more defensive options does not necessarily mean you will have more frame advantage on your moves.garjian said:
And anyway, because you have many options in 3D fighters, you have more options to escape pressure. I'm not saying it's easy, but in 3D fighters, momentum is more easily stopped.
I know of Viola and I have seen some Viola play. I do not doubt she is a great offensive character, but as formidable as her offense is, I doubt it's as oppressive as something like this:
5:06 - 6:23
There's definitely more to 2D pressure than a few jabs and okizeme. If you watch with a keen eye you'll see many offensive tactics from Sakura. Before she even lands her first proper hit, she put Rufus in plenty of (I see at least four) frametrap/throw mixup situations.
If you compare this match to 3D fighter match, you'll see a difference in how long momentum can be carried. Blocking is not as strong in 2D fighters as it is in 3D fighters. When you block, you're not really escaping pressure; you're just buying time to find an escape opportunity. You have to do something at some point.
If you want some seriously oppressive offense, here's Melty Blood, a game where pretty much every character is a pressure monster.
19:55 - 23:50
Look at how long Akiha's pressure lasts in the final round. Even after years of blocking, White Len is unable to escape. White Len has had to defend against so many (mainly frametrap/throw and high/low) mixups in that time. There were a few opportunities to escape, but Akiha kept her pressure so varied and unpredictable that White Len was too scared to seize those opportunities. Again, blocking only buys you time; blocking by itself is usually not enough to escape pressure.
1:00 - 3:06
In a 3D fighter, blocking a move/string is usually enough to get you back into the neutral game. Actually, defense in 3D fighters in general is quite strong. And because 3D defense is strong, momentum is stopped more easily, resulting in more "turn" exchanges between you and your opponent. Sorry for using a Tekken example; I'm much more familiar with Tekken than I am with SoulCalibur, but Look at the first match and you'll see what I mean. Offense comes in spurts. When an attack is defended, the attacker's momentum is often dispelled. And because of that, you can't go for mix-up after mix-up after mix-up after a blocked attack like you can in 2D fighters. The attacker loses his turn, and the defender gets some breathing room to make his play.
This almost "turn-based" play is definitely not a bad thing, though. In fact, this almost "turn-based" nature makes 3D fighters really interesting. A well known US Virtua Fighter player, LA Akira, once described VF as something of a turn-based game where you try to steal turns, through options like blocking, side-stepping, ducking and more, from your opponent. As someone who's played plenty of Tekken, and a little bit of SoulCalibur I feel that description fits those two games quite well, and I'm sure DoA is the same way. The 3D experience really is very different from 2D.
I dont know really I enjoy both 2D and 3D fighters a lot I suppose I tend to play more 3D though or rather Soul Calibur (any version preferably one or V) and DOA5U simply because my friends seem to enjoy them more and ofc the combos are quite short in those two games which they like as most of them dont really play fighters.
I did like Dissidia Duodecim a lot though even though I disliked Dissidia which makes zero sense which was a great 3D fighter in the non traditional sense and allowed full 3D movement.
I did like Dissidia Duodecim a lot though even though I disliked Dissidia which makes zero sense which was a great 3D fighter in the non traditional sense and allowed full 3D movement.
2d fighting plane but 3d models. Tekken 3 will likely always be my favourite fighter ever, I'm not sure why but even more recent Tekkens have just failed to grab me.