Old 2D fighters are better

General and high profile video game topics.
User avatar
Retro STrife
Posts: 1919
Joined: August 3rd, 2015, 7:40 pm

Re: Old 2D fighters are better

Postby Retro STrife » December 2nd, 2020, 3:36 pm

I guess let me be the naysayer. I prefer 3D fighters by far. But I admit that I'm completely the wrong guy to ask.. I have never understood the mass appeal of 1-on-1 fighting games, and it's one of my least favorite genres. I've played a bunch, but there have never been any that hooked me. I know this is blasphemy, but I don't like Street Fighter II (any version) at all. In fact, I actively dislike it. (P.S. I know I'm the problem and not SFII, considering how highly regarded it is.) It doesn't help that I completely suck at SFII (and all fighting games) and I would never take the time to invest in learning the fight system to improve beyond being a mediocre button-masher. The only 2D fighter that really ever appealed to me was Mortal Kombat II. But even with MKII, I could only play short spurts before I'm bored with it. Even with my Neo Geo cabinet, I mostly avoid the fighting games and gravitate toward the other genres. (And it's not like I'm adverse to competitive games.. I'll gladly play FPS or sports games against people.)

I'm not a big fan of 3D fighters either, but I have a little more enjoyment there. In the early days, I played plenty of Tekken 3, Bloody Roar, and Soul Calibur. And non-traditional fighters like Smash Bros. Melee and Power Stone too. I especially appreciate that 3D fighters today add far more mode depth to the games.. there's usually a lot of bonus modes beyond the standard 1 vs. 1 arcade mode, which gets boring fast. Soul Calibur was the first fighter to really get me investing time with all the extra modes to unlock characters or extras, and Smash Bros. did that too, and now everyone does it. Old 2D fighters don't have much more than the "Arcade" and "Versus" modes. Just this past month, I've been playing Mortal Kombat X and Street Fighter V on the PS4. I have to admit, I really appreciate SFV. Even though it's not the genre for me, I still really appreciate the incredible depth of the fighting system. Unlike SFII, I can actually see the appeal of SFV and I think it's genuinely a great game, even if I don't plan to play more than a few hours of it myself. So anyway, 3D fighters get my vote.

User avatar
Retro STrife
Posts: 1919
Joined: August 3rd, 2015, 7:40 pm

Re: Old 2D fighters are better

Postby Retro STrife » December 2nd, 2020, 3:44 pm

And one more point.. other than the few classics, most 2D fighters have always struck me as cheap cash-ins. I mean, don't 2D fighters seem like the laziest games to make? Granted, I don't understand game development and I understand that some (like Mortal Kombat) took a ton of work. But mostly it's like... "ok let's slap together 8 characters, slap together 8 stages, throw in some animations, and BAM, we got an $80 cartridge." No wonder so many companies copied SFII-- it was far easier to steal and develop than a platformer, action game, sports, etc.

User avatar
MSR1701
Posts: 358
Joined: April 29th, 2019, 7:53 am

Re: Old 2D fighters are better

Postby MSR1701 » December 2nd, 2020, 4:00 pm

Retro STrife wrote:And one more point.. other than the few classics, most 2D fighters have always struck me as cheap cash-ins. I mean, don't 2D fighters seem like the laziest games to make? Granted, I don't understand game development and I understand that some (like Mortal Kombat) took a ton of work. But mostly it's like... "ok let's slap together 8 characters, slap together 8 stages, throw in some animations, and BAM, we got an $80 cartridge." No wonder so many companies copied SFII-- it was far easier to steal and develop than a platformer, action game, sports, etc.


Not all of the copy-cats were cheap cash-ins. There were successful effort/money-invested projects like Killer Instinct, then there were also high-dollar messes like Rise of the Robots (read the old Retro Gamer article on THAT mess, the PR department blew that one waaaay out of proportions).

There are also the SNK lesser-series like Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting, Samurai Showdown (I say lesser; usually King of Fighters is the flagship of SNK 2D-style), which vary in quality depending on the platform you sample them on (the Game Boy versions are decent considering, the SNES ones typically are passable, the Genesis games are usually painful).

And then you have usually hated on projects like Virtua Fighter 2 (Genesis), which is actually decent, but due to the brand is hated on for existing (BTW, there are a couple 2D Game Gear Virtua Fighter games, though the quality is questionable; other than MKII, GG fighting games are blah).

User avatar
MSR1701
Posts: 358
Joined: April 29th, 2019, 7:53 am

Re: Old 2D fighters are better

Postby MSR1701 » December 2nd, 2020, 4:00 pm

Oh, and the Atari Jaguar's fighting games.. ;-)

matmico399
Posts: 778
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 6:11 pm

Re: Old 2D fighters are better

Postby matmico399 » December 2nd, 2020, 5:31 pm

Like it was said above before me, I also have never cared for one-on-one fighters. They got boring to me as well. Now give me a beat em up like SOR2 on the Genesis or Fighting Force on the PS1 and I am all in .

User avatar
MSR1701
Posts: 358
Joined: April 29th, 2019, 7:53 am

Re: Old 2D fighters are better

Postby MSR1701 » December 2nd, 2020, 5:39 pm

matmico399 wrote:Like it was said above before me, I also have never cared for one-on-one fighters. They got boring to me as well. Now give me a beat em up like SOR2 on the Genesis or Fighting Force on the PS1 and I am all in .


Always amused me how in ye olden days (read - 80s n early 90s), fighting game easily meant a Final Fight/Streets of Rage game AND/OR/ Street Fighter game.

Sadly, aside from Streets of Rage and a couple Capcom brawlers, the Final Fight style wore thin until extremely recently, and even now may are a bore due to repetition. Sadly, many didn't learn that having variety helps.

User avatar
Retro STrife
Posts: 1919
Joined: August 3rd, 2015, 7:40 pm

Re: Old 2D fighters are better

Postby Retro STrife » December 2nd, 2020, 7:37 pm

MSR1701 wrote:Not all of the copy-cats were cheap cash-ins. There were successful effort/money-invested projects like Killer Instinct, then there were also high-dollar messes like Rise of the Robots (read the old Retro Gamer article on THAT mess, the PR department blew that one waaaay out of proportions).

There are also the SNK lesser-series like Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting, Samurai Showdown (I say lesser; usually King of Fighters is the flagship of SNK 2D-style) ....


By “cheap cash-in” I guess I meant more cost-of-development rather than quality. Even the classic SNK games you mention- how much effort does Fatal Fury really take compared to, say, Metal Slug? 2D fighters seem so quick and cheap (and lazy) to design compared to a full length game, with levels, characters, story, etc. To me, that’s a large part of why publishers loved them so much in the early 90s- low budget and quick turnaround time meant it was a safe and low risk game with the chance for a nice profit.

matmico399 wrote:Like it was said above before me, I also have never cared for one-on-one fighters. They got boring to me as well. Now give me a beat em up like SOR2 on the Genesis or Fighting Force on the PS1 and I am all in .


With you 100% on that. My comments on 2D 1-on-1 fighters don’t apply to side-scrolling beat em ups at all for me. That’s a genre I really enjoy. For starters, it has the variety that fighters severely lack.

User avatar
MSR1701
Posts: 358
Joined: April 29th, 2019, 7:53 am

Re: Old 2D fighters are better

Postby MSR1701 » December 29th, 2020, 8:19 am

Retro STrife wrote:
MSR1701 wrote:Not all of the copy-cats were cheap cash-ins. There were successful effort/money-invested projects like Killer Instinct, then there were also high-dollar messes like Rise of the Robots (read the old Retro Gamer article on THAT mess, the PR department blew that one waaaay out of proportions).

There are also the SNK lesser-series like Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting, Samurai Showdown (I say lesser; usually King of Fighters is the flagship of SNK 2D-style) ....


By “cheap cash-in” I guess I meant more cost-of-development rather than quality. Even the classic SNK games you mention- how much effort does Fatal Fury really take compared to, say, Metal Slug? 2D fighters seem so quick and cheap (and lazy) to design compared to a full length game, with levels, characters, story, etc. To me, that’s a large part of why publishers loved them so much in the early 90s- low budget and quick turnaround time meant it was a safe and low risk game with the chance for a nice profit.


In SNKs case, they put effort in to ensure that the fighters had proper hit boxes, and as they added more fighters, the variables (different character attack animations, special move adjustments, extra elements (Fatal Fury's multi plane system (UGH), etc.) became far more complicated to producing and developing to at least the same scale as an action game.

(Side note - as much as I enjoy playing BlazBlue, the "Story" modes in those are a mix of pain and pure delight in how it makes NO SENSE)

There are SCORES of fighting games that didn't have the care and development that were cash-ins, though some of these did go on to have legitimate series (Power Instinct is a great example of this).


Return to “Video Games General”