rugal2000:
Posted by wasabi:Are you fucking kidding? Graphically SSIII has better sprites than SSI or SSII. Moreover, color depth was visibly improved from SSII to SSIII, and comparing SSIII to SSI is like comparing SSFIIX to SFIIWW - COME ON! If you think it looks like shit compared to SSI and SSII, then I think you have a screw loose.
I just cant in clear conscience say that samurai shodown 3 looks like anything other than shit.And that would be on a stand alone basis let alone comparing it to sam 1 and 2.
I do not see a single stage in sam 3 that compares with the majesty and sheer freakin awesomeness of charlottes stage in sam 2, or for that matter haomarus or Siegers.......and I could go on.
Plus the battles are more balanced and the story lines superior in sam 1, 2 and 4.
Its just my opinion, and I certainly respect yours. But I do recall most game mags and my mates who had the neo back in the mid 90's thinking much the same thing.
But I guess I am wrong since a lot more people here like it
You are wrong. the only balanced SS game was 1. SS II - Ukyo, Gen-An (an infinite AND air priority?!) vs. the weakest Nakoruru ever.
SS III - Shizumaru, Rimururu vs. Amakusa
SS IV - Bust Galford, Slash Sogetsu vs. slow defenseless Gaira.
Moreover, Charlotte's stage from SS1 looks dated now. There is no majesty left in it. The stages I listed above have surpassed all the previous works. Of the previous stages, I'd only commend Gen-An's, Mizuki's, Seiger's, Hanzo's, and Nicotine's. But I wouldn't say they are more interesting than those in SSIII. Why? Color depth, action on the screen, layout of breakable items, matched with the music. Very few stages in the videogame world can even approach the complexities of Basara's stage in SSIII, where sometimes, the best strategy involves not breaking the screens.
And the truth is, game mags almost always review games that are new. And new games that stray from the origin are most often bashed. But retrospect is what matters. I love SSI~III. Initially I also loved SSIV - now it's just tough love, like what you have for a retarded child. Honest and deep retrospect have given me a POV that I guess I can't just offer to others to inherit. Only a few of you are willing to grasp it.
Here's something to try out:
Play SSIII, use Hanzo, throw a bakuenryu, dash forward, desperation.
Play SSIV and do the same thing.
What about Genjuro's Inoshikachou? Why is it missing 2 parts in IV that were added in 3?
Which feels better? Which game actually allows more flexibility for combos without the CD dail-a-combo initiator?
Mind you - SSI combos were very short. Jump in attack, low weak attack, special. That's the extent of Dan Hibiki's combo ability.
In SSII, combos didn't improve much. But re-dizzies made it interesting. Using Ukyo, a jump in AB, Close AB, QCF+CD, would allow you to do the same combo twice.
In SSIII, you could perform mad combos. Just using Haohmaru, jump in deep C, close B, QCF+D, UC+D, UC+C. You just linked 3 special moves - from the front even!
THEN in SSIV, the concept of combos was replaced by the CD system and a few "set combos", like Bust Kazuki's and I guess Bust Jubei's (although his relies on the opponent being brain dead). It's like they took the control sceme and made it stupid enough for the novice gamers of 1993 again. Capcom would never get away with that for Street Fighter. I guess SNK fans are just reflex challenged.
What I'm getting at is that the play system in SSIII was the pinnacle. The high point. And then suddenly, it's like, I don't know, Ted McGinley signed on to the cast to play the part of Kazuki and as fate would have it, the series went down, not to really get cool again until Asura Zanmaden.
I don't care if someone thinks SSIII isn't the best game on the system, but to say that SSIV is better than III - I just can't see an ounce of intelligence in that statement. You can't back it up.
