Saves got too big for the ps4 to use
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GamesRadar: Street Fighter V's backlash proves we value quantity over quality
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
7DollarHagane
Banned
This article gets it. "More and faster" quality be damned.
Glorified G
Member
Going by this logic, for this long Capcom has been producing fighters that had "quantity over quality" until now? It took Capcom 25 years to finally get it right? Because this is the first time Capcom has seen this kind of backlash at this magnitude from its fans.
Paracelsus
Member
In a way it's what happened with Dark Souls: people so used to hand-holding games that the first above average title is considered the holy grail of gaming. Aaaand it's allowed to nickle and dime you come entry #2 and especially #3.
This right here, set it in stone.
http://www.geek.com/games/skyrim-ps3-save-bug-renders-game-unplayable-1442017/
Maintenance
Member
Since it started happening with franchises that people like.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
On one hand, due to the quality of the multiplayer game, I don't think people who want that game specifically are being "ripped off" by $60. People who only play multiplayer, all day, all the time, are obviously going to get way more than their money's worth.
On the other... it is dishonest to pretend that a fighting game release today is just like every other purely multiplayer esports client. And only "casuals" want more content because they're too dumb to understand what the game is.
If anything it's the other way around. Fighting game releases have been getting more and more robust, with greater amounts of both single and multiplayer content and features. Even freaking Pokken Tournament has a single player mode which gives people a lot to do for a lengthy amount of time.
So taken as an overall package, no, I don't think the SFV backlash is just a sign of some shallow desire for quantity over quality. Compared to its peers within the genre and the standards of recent releases, SFV is a bare product for the price it is being sold at - bare for the full audience, not by the standards of one very specific type of player.
Also the fact that more content was promised down the road must be weighed against the fact that people buying in now don't know what the quality or value of that content will be. In this sense, the backlash against SFV may end up being a good thing - since Capcom has already started acknowledging there is an issue, and adjusting plans for what kind of features to include in updates.
On the other... it is dishonest to pretend that a fighting game release today is just like every other purely multiplayer esports client. And only "casuals" want more content because they're too dumb to understand what the game is.
If anything it's the other way around. Fighting game releases have been getting more and more robust, with greater amounts of both single and multiplayer content and features. Even freaking Pokken Tournament has a single player mode which gives people a lot to do for a lengthy amount of time.
So taken as an overall package, no, I don't think the SFV backlash is just a sign of some shallow desire for quantity over quality. Compared to its peers within the genre and the standards of recent releases, SFV is a bare product for the price it is being sold at - bare for the full audience, not by the standards of one very specific type of player.
Also the fact that more content was promised down the road must be weighed against the fact that people buying in now don't know what the quality or value of that content will be. In this sense, the backlash against SFV may end up being a good thing - since Capcom has already started acknowledging there is an issue, and adjusting plans for what kind of features to include in updates.
Stone Ocean
Member
Skyrim PS3 was straight up broken.
PlatypusDude
Member
Obviously, a mixture of quantity and quality is the best choice for a game, but quality is definitely preferred if you only one is present imo. I would much rather play something like most Platinum games rather than another Open-World collectathon with bleh design.
WrenchNinja
Member
Bethesda launched Skyrim PS3 with a game breaking bug that ballooned the save file after a lot of hours of play and caused the framerate to go to 0 fps
Reviewers did not bother to mention this, Bethesda did not bother to mention this and they did not bother to fix it for months and months. Pete Hines praised that version of the game and said it was fine.
Meanwhile the game was getting awards everywhere and reviewers were creaming their pants while ignoring all the ps3 players who bought a broken game
The FGC is a drop in the bucket compared to mainstream users. SFV's "service model" will be an unsupported abject failure if it doesn't get sales beyond the hardcore.
Let's check Steam: already out of the top 10 in the best sellers list, with 40% approval. 30th best selling video game on Amazon, with a 2/5 user rating. Stuff like Fire Emblem and games that haven't even been released yet are selling better. This is a disaster of a launch. Whoever made the decision to launch now and in this state, Capcom Pro Tour or not, is a fucking idiot.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Problem is too many people want quantity at the expense of quality. Most devs don't control their release schedules. So they have to make a choice, especially if they are being hamstrung and rushed. They need to choose whether to pack their game full of content at launch at the expense of fine polishing and general quality, requiring rapid patch support, or they can choose to only include the content they know they can have polished and working in a near flawless state for launch and then patch in the content they didn't include at launch later for free after it is finished.
The first option you get a game like Battlefield 4 where the game is essentially unplayable for 4+ months after launch and the second option gets you a game like Star Wars Battlefront where it plays flawlessly but takes a few months to add in more free content.
I'll always prefer the second option.
Having a negative reaction to being blindsided by capcom deciding on not including a standard feature of a fighting game at launch (and not communicating that properly, plus seemingly not even having any plans to include it in the first place until all the backlash) is not "valuing quantity over quality."
LordRaptor
Member
It probably doesn't help that on PC at least for half the price of SFV you can buy USF4 with all the expected game modes, over 40 characters and hundreds of thousands of high level tournament competitive play manhours analysis worth of balance patches in a single package.
No,
Quality= Money - quantity.
The game should of have had 2 characters as having more than 2 ruins the quality.
It's a ridiculous article, I'm fine with people being satisfied with online and gameplay, but I don't get how you can say it was for FGC to exclude versus CPU mode the most basic mode in fighters or you a casual for wanting it in a 60 dollar product.
It's bullshit, does sf5 have a good fighting system? Yes it does, but so do other games out there. While we can skip the comments about the bare bone package it delivers, having a bad online with friendly lobby not working at all (at least for me) and needing interned to get the fightmoney even when you play on your own is bullshit, considering that the game randomly kicks you out of the server, yesterday I lost a 15 win steak in hard survivor, only because the game decided to kick me out.
The quality isn't only in mechanics and its stupid to even talk about it since its a fighting game, if it doesn't have the depth and good mechanics than id be just a bad game, saying "oh it has problems but it has depth so its justified" doesn't work anymore in 2016
The quality isn't only in mechanics and its stupid to even talk about it since its a fighting game, if it doesn't have the depth and good mechanics than id be just a bad game, saying "oh it has problems but it has depth so its justified" doesn't work anymore in 2016
Jawmuncher
Member
I think this sums it up pretty good.
DR2K
Banned
Buy it in 6 months then. Don't act like Capcom pulled a bait and switch when they've been transparent about the entire process in how they would be handling content prior to release.
Paracelsus
Member
Depends on the PG game. Vanquish would and should have used a multiplayer mode, as it's ultimately a bang bang game, you need competitive mode. Bayonetta is like DMC, hardcore players will spend dozens of hours trying to master each style and make combo videos. If Binary Domain could do it, as forgettable as it was, then so should have Vanquish. There's no reason not to.
Yay. More defense about a borked online after 4 betas and a story mode that looks like it was drawn by a 3 year old.
Its like you can't critique a game unless you're seen as a troll. Capcom can get the engine PERFECT, but fail ar everything else. And they SHOULD get called our for it because other developers are able to do both. Unless we've hit the point that a stable release of a product that's fully featured=crazy man magic in 2016
Its like you can't critique a game unless you're seen as a troll. Capcom can get the engine PERFECT, but fail ar everything else. And they SHOULD get called our for it because other developers are able to do both. Unless we've hit the point that a stable release of a product that's fully featured=crazy man magic in 2016
According to SteamSpy, it's at 91,565 owners, with 70k of those being Day 1 purchasers. While I'm sure PS4 has more owners of the game, it's not a good outlook with so much negative press/reactions.
WrenchNinja
Member
Really, which part included them saying that versus CPU wouldn't be in the game, or that the prologue story fights were 3 or 4 fights per character with brain dead ai
So you release a beta for the tournament crowd, bill it as a beta: the fighting engine is full-featured, but limited characters and modes, make it a cheap $20 downloadable and it comes with a coupon for $20 off the real game or something. If hitting Evo was that important, that's what they should have done instead of obfuscating.
As someone who doesn't play competitive online, the current state of the game has no interest to me.
I followed + wishlisted it on Steam, so when the story mode is added I'll know and pick it up then.
Until then, I'm generally going to be silent on it. I'm not going to buy it before it is capable of fitting my playstyle and then tanking the review. I'm not going to say the game is shit on Twitter. And for the most part, I won't post in any of the threads for the game unless they relate to me in some sense.
I followed + wishlisted it on Steam, so when the story mode is added I'll know and pick it up then.
Until then, I'm generally going to be silent on it. I'm not going to buy it before it is capable of fitting my playstyle and then tanking the review. I'm not going to say the game is shit on Twitter. And for the most part, I won't post in any of the threads for the game unless they relate to me in some sense.
Dreams-Visions
Member
It was more a rhetorical question rather than one I needed an answer to yea. It's just...it seemed so disingenuous a statement on its face I felt compelled to read the article only for him to form a conclusion different from the premise laid forth by the title. Yea, people want quality AND quantity. Yes, that's been the expectation since the NES was the most powerful gaming system on the market. The only thing that has changed is that companies are now more willing to attempt to sell us half finished games at full prices and dare the market to not buy. They are more willing to sell us locked content on disc that would have once been free unlocks.
In short, our expectations have been the same for the last 25 years: sell us complete games with a good amount of features. The only thing that has changed, therefore, is how some game makers try to get around that expectation and milk the cow.
Note: no such article like this will ever be written for The Witcher 3, Overwatch, GTA, etc. so why would anyone act brand new about this? People were also salty as fuck about how barebones games like Titanfall and Battlefront were at launch. Good core mechanics, sorely lacking in features. If the blowback was good enough for gamers to make Titanfall the butt of all jokes for more than a year, why should SF5 be spared the same rod?
entremet
Member
With video game sales being so front loaded, Capcom made a terrible business decision.
They sacrificed this game for the FGC basically.
It's admirable in some respect, but if I were a Capcom stockholder, I would be furious.
Casual gamers aren't gonna jump in en masse in six months after the terrible online impressions.
The reaction being disproportionate was what I was trying to get across in the several Street Fighter V threads I argued against.
The game isn't a 0/10 game. The game shouldn't have been delayed to accommodate a minority of the playerbase. Street Fighter V wasn't a scam perpetrated by Capcom to steal people's money.
It just launched without two modes it should have, and that's bad, but it isn't a travesty of a game by a long shot. It certainly shouldn't have inspired 10+ threads on the subject.
I think if, say, this exact game was released completely by Sony and Capcom wasn't even involved the backlash wouldn't have been this severe. Capcom has a large section of the gaming populace's ire so it's unsurprising to me what should have been a minor backlash became so massive.
The game isn't a 0/10 game. The game shouldn't have been delayed to accommodate a minority of the playerbase. Street Fighter V wasn't a scam perpetrated by Capcom to steal people's money.
It just launched without two modes it should have, and that's bad, but it isn't a travesty of a game by a long shot. It certainly shouldn't have inspired 10+ threads on the subject.
I think if, say, this exact game was released completely by Sony and Capcom wasn't even involved the backlash wouldn't have been this severe. Capcom has a large section of the gaming populace's ire so it's unsurprising to me what should have been a minor backlash became so massive.
They did pull a bait and switch by not detailing the story prologue structure, and not referring to arcade mode or vs AI at all. Plus some of the in-store demos are something that's not in the game, vs AI in best of 3 matches.
Capcom's only talked about trials/challenges and full story mode coming in later. That has nothing to do with Arcade mode and vs AI. They only talked about Arcade mode once there was all this backlash.
Jakartalado
Member
I'm still waiting for my copy, but I've played the beta a lot....
And the quality of the matches (even for me, living in Brazil and having one of the worst internet connections ever...) was outstanding.
In terms of gameplay, it's very similar to what we know, but minor twists made the game fresh. The SF 4 formula was great at launch, but at the end of the season with Ultra Edition, the revenge gauge was pretty boring, being punished because you did a lot of damage to your opponent was unfair (in my opinion). It was all about the spectacle....
SF V did a great job in terms of fair gameplay and rewarding constantly by your effort in learning and playing.
The content is low... sure, but it will be rewarding in a long term and after 6 months, the game will still be rewarding those who love the series. And there comes the quality.... it's amazing. Solid efforts in gameplay, good selection of new, old and refreshed characters, beatifull art as always, and one of the best soundtrack in the series...
At launch, I was expecting some problems, SF V is a pretty big game. But as soon as they pull the same quality of the beta (in large scale), it'll be pretty good.
To be very honest, I liked the Mortal Kombat X and 9 (or whatever they call the old one), but I'm not upset to get it in June for SF V if it's good.
(Better delayed than bad.....)
And the quality of the matches (even for me, living in Brazil and having one of the worst internet connections ever...) was outstanding.
In terms of gameplay, it's very similar to what we know, but minor twists made the game fresh. The SF 4 formula was great at launch, but at the end of the season with Ultra Edition, the revenge gauge was pretty boring, being punished because you did a lot of damage to your opponent was unfair (in my opinion). It was all about the spectacle....
SF V did a great job in terms of fair gameplay and rewarding constantly by your effort in learning and playing.
The content is low... sure, but it will be rewarding in a long term and after 6 months, the game will still be rewarding those who love the series. And there comes the quality.... it's amazing. Solid efforts in gameplay, good selection of new, old and refreshed characters, beatifull art as always, and one of the best soundtrack in the series...
At launch, I was expecting some problems, SF V is a pretty big game. But as soon as they pull the same quality of the beta (in large scale), it'll be pretty good.
To be very honest, I liked the Mortal Kombat X and 9 (or whatever they call the old one), but I'm not upset to get it in June for SF V if it's good.
(Better delayed than bad.....)
kunonabi
Member
Not really. The game hasn't been out nearly long enough to come to that conclusion even with the betas. I'm loving the actual game too but people need to have some perspective on these things.
The single player content is anemic but the fact that I can't actually play any of it because I keep getting booted off the server is a goddamn embarrassment.
SF sales have never been that frontloaded though. Those games always have insane legs.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Already own it, thank you very much.
This too. A lot of the lack came as a surprise to everyone. Kids out here are trying to act brand new.
Dakhanavar
Neo Member
"Staples" is the exact same word I thought of when I read the thread title. Not every fighter needs to be packed with BlazBlue or Smash Bros. levels of extras, but when you're one of the fighting game franchises, I don't think including the staples is asking too much.
It would have missed like 1 or 2 tourneys by delaying it a month. With so many events, I don't think that would have mattered much.
It was fucking stupid of Capcom to launch in this state.
gablekevin
Neo Member
You sir are a saint and i 100% agree, The gameplay is solid and yes it is light on single player content and certain other strange no shows but the meat of the game is the best in a loooooooooong time. I have never felt like everybody on the roster has a chance to win. The main course of the game is amazing and modes and everything else can be clamped on to work down the road.
ZiggyPalffyLA
Member
This game, probably more than any game in recent memory, will benefit from a "GOTY" edition, something like Super Street Fighter V Turbo. Unless you play competitively only, there's no reason not to wait for the ultimate edition later this year or early next year.
justjustin
Member
I agree. Not everyone wants just a graybox training room as the only alternative to online. Well, there is that unbalanced survival mode and lackluster story mode!
It's just ironic to me that this is being justified as some eSports-focused future of fighting games. Like more modes = casual. With no solid singleplayer modes to simulate real match conditions, people are just gonna google shit and grind out little combos in training mode so they can win online. So hardcore, lol. You're gonna have an even greater flood of tryhard players with knowledge gaps who barely like the game beyond seeing their win % number go up.
Jawmuncher
Member
I don't think the casual base would be a minority. I minority for online or sticking with the game for years to come sure.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
2? Just 1. Same Character Vs Same Character!
It could just be a nameless wireframe model or hitbox rig, because art design is a waste of resources and ultimately just a visual distraction. No menu either, just boot straight to the fight.
entremet
Member
Only because they keep releasing new iterations. Vanilla, Super, AE, Ultra.
They said they're not doing this time around, so I wonder how that works for them.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
How would competitive Vanquish actually work?
Also, if the multiplayer turned out to be as forgettable as Binary Domain's, I think that would be reason enough not to include it (Although I did like BD's Survival Co-op).
Really, all Vanquish needed was a longer campaign and additional side-missions, otherwise it was perfect.
Similar threads
- Poll