CHV Lives On

You haven't educated yourself on the subject too much Spokker.
A modern 2-D fighter requires precise timing and accurate geomotry unlike the button mashing maddness of 3-D fighters.
To me, the best game is a game that keeps you coming back for more. MGS, and FFX are are going to be great games without a doubt, but they will be up on the shelf in about a month or so.
Street Fighter was once reknowned as the greatest game ever made because not everyone could play it. Perhaps you fit in the same category.
The competetion in the arcades is still fierce, and while it may take a few minutes to learn the moves, it may take a long while to master them. Aside from all the depth that the game already has, you can choose from up to six fighting styles in CvS2. Each style very different from the other. I don't know how you don't see any depth in that.

Ok, just so everyone knows next time, 2D fighters get way less dust than any other kind of game (eve RPGs). Certainly the genre most everyone and their grandma plays, it has the appeal of completely humiliating your friends, family, pets, imaginary friends, etc, with a few well-timed combos or a super move. Definately agree with chopmaster in that those types of games are the ones with the most replay value. It takes a long time to master effectively those games (just like it takes time to master Tekken, don't get me wrong). No matter what, my copies of SFA 3 and PJ get in the DC everyday. It's like a ritual. And that happens more often when people are around...people whom I want to play against. You just can't do that in FFX or MGS 2, and that's the great appeal of them 2D fighters, more so than any other genre that pits you against a friend. So, in conclusion, 2D fighters rule!
587495...

2D fighters are exactly on the same par with 3d fighters in complications.
One of the best fighters i've ever played with alot of depth is SF3 thirdstrike.. that game is daaaamn awesome. The whole parry system amazes me, once going to the arcade i played a pretty hardcore jap guy... shit. i didnt hit him once (im not that shit ) he just parried ALL my moves... it was horrible . but it just shows how god damn awesome you can get if you master this near impossible parry system. they dont even have the machines there anymore because i suspect poeople were turned off by the extra depth it had compared to the stereotypical snk or cap machines.
3d games are the same, you still have counters, dodges etc whatever. (back to off topic) Justice league seems to be a pretty cheapo game though because you can smack them up so high and when you hit them whilst in air, they will float up somewhat, so i've seen some infinite juggles doing that.. (back to on topic) 3d games def does not contain less depth than 2d, not because of the added dimensions but 3d has a whole different system
1) no supers
2) no long range moves (unless you count sf EX series which is utter shit anyway and practically 2d)
and besides timing is still a damn issue in 3d as much as 2d if you think about it
You can't think you're good at any game until you play that anonymous jap guy in the corner near the pinball machines. and when you get your ass kicked so much it actually hurts, then you will realise how much you need to practise that game so you can eventually give that guy a good ass kicking back. 3d isnt as easy as you think give it ago at the arcades, you will find alot of hardcore specialised players there. http://geekfood.dknx.net

You can argue that 3D fighting is nothing more than button mashing, and prolly to the majority of players it is, but there's a big difference between playing a 3D fighter and playing a 3D fighter well. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for 2D fighter, especially Street Fighter because it was really fun when I was a kid (it prolly still is, I just don't have a copy of any of the games!) but I think 3D offer just as much challenge in relation to skill, if you're willing to take time to learn more than how to mash the controller. katyjag, a young revolutionary...

Why do you want long-range moves? DOA2 had a couple of flying moves that propelled you halfway across the screen, but there was always a LIMIT in distance to take into account. The only exception was Tengu's Whirlwind, which was cheap as hell but luckily very slow to charge."...ghoulies and ghosties and long leggety beasties and things that go bump in the night..."

"You haven't educated yourself on the subject too much Spokker.
A modern 2-D fighter requires precise timing and accurate geomotry unlike the button mashing maddness of 3-D fighters. "

No, that was not my point. I was simply saying they've been done before, and done damn well, and they're awesome games, but do we really need the same thing with new animation every two weeks? Sorry, but im on a budget, I'll stick with Street Fighter 2 Turbo.
-Spok-

"Why do you want long-range moves?"
I'm just pointing out the differences in these fighting genres, never stated i wanted long range, as obviously they have bad affects on 3d games
this thread is getting somewhat confusing. how many conversations are there acually in here?http://geekfood.dknx.net

Spokker, Chopmaster, Katyjag, and especially Wadoko ( LMAO!!! Imaginary Friends?!lol )You all have excellent points, but the fact is, that the Future of the PS2 doesn't solely depend on one genre, it depends on the games in general. Take the Dreamcast for example:It was the capital of "2Dsville" for a long while. It had all the greats. MVC2, SFA3, CVS1 and PRO, and lots more...but I think we all know what happened to poor mr. Sega-san that time. It simply didn't have enough mass market appeal. Sure there were those that thrived on 2D fighters and then there were all those Rap Superstars that seemed to ONLY play the sports games, but other than that, what? Because when you come down to it, it all depends on $$$. If the mainstream ( and yes folks, I'm sorry to inform you all that everything comes down to what the mainstream thinks )doesn't like it, then, well all us true gamers are straight outta luck. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because one game is coming out, that doesn't mean succes or failure for Mr. PS2-san. It simply means more cash to make the mainstream happy.

I still say Sega's fault was their marketing.
I mean, they killed off Segata during the Sega Saturn days, and they should've seriously brought him back.
I mean, come on, Segata is one of the few good memories I have about the Saturn.

I don't think it was Sega's marketing that killed the Saturn or Dreamcast, I think it was Sony hyping up the Playstation and the PS2 that killed those grat systems. Sega has always had a history of being first.
Sega could not compete against the SNES because of Nintendo's first and third party domination. On top of that, Sega tried to come back with stupid add-ons.
The Saturn could not compete against the PSX because the PSX was already being overhyped when the Saturn was released, and the fact that the gaming quality lacked in the U.S. And even in Japan, where was the next generation Sonic?
The Dreamcast(Arguablly the best of the 3) had the challenge of a waaaaaaaaaay overhyped PS2 and the the Pokemon craze still going on with kids still flocking to buy the 64. Sonic just wasn't cool enough for kids anymore, and everyone else wanted a PS2 because everyone thought it was going to be better than the Dreamcast. PS2 owners with the same preferences as me are going to have to wait till fall to get something decent, nearly a year after the release of the PS2. Oh well, at least I get watch DVD movies.
The fact is that Sega had great system with great games, they were just released at the wrong time. Mabey they will get it right this time with software, or I could be wrong.
2-D LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!