"needing one parry to get out of a situation" For third strike this is very true. If you managed to land one good read, you can turn the situation on its head, because now your opponent is forced to decide to continue the offense or stop and wait for your counterattack and punish (if they can), all in a split second, but the parrier always has the advantage. But I think a lot of people tend to focus too much on multiple parries in succession, ala moment 37. It's impressive to look at, but rarely happens relative to the rest of the fight. I think it also ended up hurting people's perception of parries in SFV. A lot of people said that parrying is now too lenient and easy to do because moment 37 was recreated in SFV, but the parries are more difficult to use due to having recovery frames and just being more committal.
I think the underlying issue is that many people have an idea of what they think Street Fighter is and should be, and they point to their favorite game in the series to support their opinion. But the reality is that every Street Fighter plays in a different way from the others. Skills and strategies that were important in one might completely disappear in the next, and vice versa.
Something I realised throughout the years. Perhaps by sheer necessity, every other fighting game franchise has had to build a gameplay identity from the get go in order to differentiate itself from SF2. These clear codified identities get carried over from game to game. Street Fighter hasn't had the luxury or even the need to craft such a distinct identity, and so is able to change from game to game. It's the only franchise with a malleable identity, which makes me really wonder what Street Fighter's identity actually is if it's not strictly in the gameplay.
Most FG franchises I'm familiar with do change their identities (or try different identities, however you want to think about it) over time. I can name at least 8 different styles of KOF or 3 different styles of Fatal Fury/Garou or 4 different styles of Samurai Shodown without even having played the more experimental titles in those (like Max Impact). MvC changed greatly with each title from COTA to Infinite. GG or BB are more "samey" across titles, but those games have such a huge variance between characters in any given title that the player can completely change their experience by just picking a different main (which is true in pretty much any good fighter, sure, but it's far more impactful in the Arcsys games than Capcom/SNK). Related tangent: The whole "(I want to/This character doesn't/etc.) play Street Fighter" meme has always been ridiculous. Dhalsim, Guile, and Zangief were never playing the same game.
This video actually helped me be more objective when critiquing a game, thanks! The whole part about complaining about having your AA attempts parried when you can also parry theirs and their jump-ins was something I had never really thought about when lamenting the inclusion of the parry mechanic. Also, there have been numerous times where I've argued with friends about the way certain games work that this video has given me a different perspective on.
For just about everyone, losses are felt more strongly than gains. It makes it much easier to stick with what you like and much harder to objectively evaluate a game that tries to do something different. People hate losing their ability to anti air but don't think about their newfound ability to beat antiairs.
I love SF3 parries. Especially the idea of red parry which makes it nearly the only game that doesn't have absolute guard. The freedom to attack out of block stun with just frame timing is fun. I mean you can still whiff punish really well in 3S and that's all people talk about with footsies these days. 3S is goated.
i love and hate 3rd strike because of parries. i think i prefer more "normal" sf gameplay but 3rd strike is its own type of subjective fun. its cool that its so different and thats why it stands out so much
Never really played 3S a lot but the one thing about the core system I didnt like was that parries killed the fireball/uppercut game. sometimes I just wanna throw plasma :P
Parries kill projectiles like throw techs killed throw mix ups. It doesn’t and never did. The issue is in most street fighter games fire ball IS the neutral control, and not a part of it. Garou also has parries and projectiles are still great in it. No one says this for garou because snk conditions you to play with the fireball. Sf relies primarily on the fire ball to be the end all of the neutral so when you’re forced to move along with it or throw it out knowing they’re going to parry it so they’re locked in place for your offense it gets written off as bad. Basically you should be treating every projectile like it’s rose; Dudley doesn’t throw it out just to have a projectile, he throws it to stop you from just blindly auto piloting against him and even metallic sphere and kikoken do this.
@@Neogears1312 Im talking specifically about the basic fireball/uppercut gameplan not the overall use of fireballs. The way fireballs work and how you use them in 3s is different which I understand and I dont think is bad.
I mean, if you think Third Strike is fun but you hate parrying for some reason, you can always turn it off with dip switches/system direction. It's a video game, you can play it however you want. The cops won't come over to your house or anything.
For me parries are more fun to go for than anything in sf4/5/6. It opens a lot of scenarios up to complicated guessing games which are just very mindless elsewhere
I feel like parries are too non-committal, as seen in the amount of OS'es that come from them. Sure, you can mix up parry timings, and in turn mix up the timings at which you throw out buttons, but in a lot of scenarios i feel like parries dictate the game. They make meaties a lot worse, for the most part negate fullscreen zoning etc It adds a lot of depth, sure, but i feel like this cuts into a lot of fighting game staples. Garou has a similar problem, in that top level play consists mostly of low/zero risk moves, to get around the universal Guard-Cancel mechanic. I should add i'm not that familiar with 3s, i'm more of a SNK-head myself.
Chubbypunch parris are actually really high risk lol, almost everything a parry beats, blocking will beat more reliably. It's not like no one goes for other defensive options just because parry is there.
@@Glarfugus If you're guessing low parry in neutral, and you get hit, enjoy that extra damage you take. It's not a good decision to just do it, you have to have an understanding of what certain characters like to do at certain ranges. Your opponent keeps this in mind as well, nothing is guaranteed for either player.
I think the arguement is how parries have no real commitment to them, they do but to really explain what he means I’d have to point at an example. Look at melty bloods shield mechanic where you get something similar to 3s parrying, in the sense that if you know something is coming then you can counter and punish. The problem in 3s is that unlike how melty has actual recovery on shields and a damaging durability of guard gauge, third strike has no outright punishment for attempting a parry and your opponent not attacking.
Melty has depth in pressure situations with shield and shield bunker (guard cancel), shield bunker beats true blockstrings and shields can be used in more loose pressure with resets, staggers and such, both add depth to the game with commitment that punishes the opponent for just throwing it out and not shielding anything. in third strike if you parry and your opponent didn’t throw out a move, there’s no recovery or anything as a punishment, you simply just tapped forward or down and now your back to where you started
What's frustrating about content creation in general is that you can post a more nuanced take on your already nuanced stance and everyone will go to the comments and make surface lvl assessments, repeat mute points, or engage in an utterly pointless part of the video. Humans are great, unironically. Even this is hypocritical
I haven't played SF games, so I can't judge SF5 in terms of gameplay, but i have analyzed that SF5's sound design and visual design in comparison to SF4's make it alot less hype. Also, i think FADC is more technical than Vtrigger. Additionally, a lot of characters from 4 are not in 5, many characters had special moves and supers which they had had for a long time removed (for some of them they were re-added as a vtrigger or vskill) and this makes people feel like it's missing something and it's worse.
"needing one parry to get out of a situation"
For third strike this is very true. If you managed to land one good read, you can turn the situation on its head, because now your opponent is forced to decide to continue the offense or stop and wait for your counterattack and punish (if they can), all in a split second, but the parrier always has the advantage.
But I think a lot of people tend to focus too much on multiple parries in succession, ala moment 37. It's impressive to look at, but rarely happens relative to the rest of the fight.
I think it also ended up hurting people's perception of parries in SFV. A lot of people said that parrying is now too lenient and easy to do because moment 37 was recreated in SFV, but the parries are more difficult to use due to having recovery frames and just being more committal.
I like that we see elena deciding to chip dudley out with sa2 just as youre talking about this exact concept
I think the underlying issue is that many people have an idea of what they think Street Fighter is and should be, and they point to their favorite game in the series to support their opinion. But the reality is that every Street Fighter plays in a different way from the others. Skills and strategies that were important in one might completely disappear in the next, and vice versa.
Something I realised throughout the years. Perhaps by sheer necessity, every other fighting game franchise has had to build a gameplay identity from the get go in order to differentiate itself from SF2. These clear codified identities get carried over from game to game.
Street Fighter hasn't had the luxury or even the need to craft such a distinct identity, and so is able to change from game to game. It's the only franchise with a malleable identity, which makes me really wonder what Street Fighter's identity actually is if it's not strictly in the gameplay.
Most FG franchises I'm familiar with do change their identities (or try different identities, however you want to think about it) over time. I can name at least 8 different styles of KOF or 3 different styles of Fatal Fury/Garou or 4 different styles of Samurai Shodown without even having played the more experimental titles in those (like Max Impact). MvC changed greatly with each title from COTA to Infinite. GG or BB are more "samey" across titles, but those games have such a huge variance between characters in any given title that the player can completely change their experience by just picking a different main (which is true in pretty much any good fighter, sure, but it's far more impactful in the Arcsys games than Capcom/SNK).
Related tangent: The whole "(I want to/This character doesn't/etc.) play Street Fighter" meme has always been ridiculous. Dhalsim, Guile, and Zangief were never playing the same game.
SF2, moving on.
This video actually helped me be more objective when critiquing a game, thanks! The whole part about complaining about having your AA attempts parried when you can also parry theirs and their jump-ins was something I had never really thought about when lamenting the inclusion of the parry mechanic.
Also, there have been numerous times where I've argued with friends about the way certain games work that this video has given me a different perspective on.
For just about everyone, losses are felt more strongly than gains. It makes it much easier to stick with what you like and much harder to objectively evaluate a game that tries to do something different. People hate losing their ability to anti air but don't think about their newfound ability to beat antiairs.
I love SF3 parries. Especially the idea of red parry which makes it nearly the only game that doesn't have absolute guard. The freedom to attack out of block stun with just frame timing is fun. I mean you can still whiff punish really well in 3S and that's all people talk about with footsies these days. 3S is goated.
Man I miss Yatagarasu. The devs recently got the publishing rights back so maybe something will happen.
Parrying tendencies definitely translates to other fighting games. For example, Guilty Gear has Instant Blocks and Slashback.
Garou has Just Defend
i love and hate 3rd strike because of parries. i think i prefer more "normal" sf gameplay but 3rd strike is its own type of subjective fun. its cool that its so different and thats why it stands out so much
jumping in 3rd strike is more like a big mixup than a more 50/50 thing
Never really played 3S a lot but the one thing about the core system I didnt like was that parries killed the fireball/uppercut game. sometimes I just wanna throw plasma :P
Parries kill projectiles like throw techs killed throw mix ups. It doesn’t and never did. The issue is in most street fighter games fire ball IS the neutral control, and not a part of it. Garou also has parries and projectiles are still great in it. No one says this for garou because snk conditions you to play with the fireball. Sf relies primarily on the fire ball to be the end all of the neutral so when you’re forced to move along with it or throw it out knowing they’re going to parry it so they’re locked in place for your offense it gets written off as bad. Basically you should be treating every projectile like it’s rose; Dudley doesn’t throw it out just to have a projectile, he throws it to stop you from just blindly auto piloting against him and even metallic sphere and kikoken do this.
@@Neogears1312 Im talking specifically about the basic fireball/uppercut gameplan not the overall use of fireballs. The way fireballs work and how you use them in 3s is different which I understand and I dont think is bad.
I mean, if you think Third Strike is fun but you hate parrying for some reason, you can always turn it off with dip switches/system direction.
It's a video game, you can play it however you want. The cops won't come over to your house or anything.
just play KOF instead then.
TLDR don't hate parries because you can also parry.
???
For me parries are more fun to go for than anything in sf4/5/6. It opens a lot of scenarios up to complicated guessing games which are just very mindless elsewhere
I feel like parries are too non-committal, as seen in the amount of OS'es that come from them.
Sure, you can mix up parry timings, and in turn mix up the timings at which you throw out buttons, but in a lot of scenarios i feel like parries dictate the game.
They make meaties a lot worse, for the most part negate fullscreen zoning etc
It adds a lot of depth, sure, but i feel like this cuts into a lot of fighting game staples.
Garou has a similar problem, in that top level play consists mostly of low/zero risk moves, to get around the universal Guard-Cancel mechanic.
I should add i'm not that familiar with 3s, i'm more of a SNK-head myself.
Chubbypunch parris are actually really high risk lol, almost everything a parry beats, blocking will beat more reliably. It's not like no one goes for other defensive options just because parry is there.
@@Glarfugus If you're guessing low parry in neutral, and you get hit, enjoy that extra damage you take. It's not a good decision to just do it, you have to have an understanding of what certain characters like to do at certain ranges. Your opponent keeps this in mind as well, nothing is guaranteed for either player.
I think the arguement is how parries have no real commitment to them, they do but to really explain what he means I’d have to point at an example. Look at melty bloods shield mechanic where you get something similar to 3s parrying, in the sense that if you know something is coming then you can counter and punish. The problem in 3s is that unlike how melty has actual recovery on shields and a damaging durability of guard gauge, third strike has no outright punishment for attempting a parry and your opponent not attacking.
Melty has depth in pressure situations with shield and shield bunker (guard cancel), shield bunker beats true blockstrings and shields can be used in more loose pressure with resets, staggers and such, both add depth to the game with commitment that punishes the opponent for just throwing it out and not shielding anything. in third strike if you parry and your opponent didn’t throw out a move, there’s no recovery or anything as a punishment, you simply just tapped forward or down and now your back to where you started
What's frustrating about content creation in general is that you can post a more nuanced take on your already nuanced stance and everyone will go to the comments and make surface lvl assessments, repeat mute points, or engage in an utterly pointless part of the video. Humans are great, unironically. Even this is hypocritical
Viscant is a scrub
I haven't played SF games, so I can't judge SF5 in terms of gameplay, but i have analyzed that SF5's sound design and visual design in comparison to SF4's make it alot less hype. Also, i think FADC is more technical than Vtrigger. Additionally, a lot of characters from 4 are not in 5, many characters had special moves and supers which they had had for a long time removed (for some of them they were re-added as a vtrigger or vskill) and this makes people feel like it's missing something and it's worse.