Support NeoGAF

Coffeeling · Oct 13, 2014

Question: Why does anyone give a **** about what some random sites think is great?

Nyoro SF · Oct 13, 2014

Coffeeling said:
Question: Why does anyone give a **** about what some random sites think is great?

Beats me. Though if I had a guess, it's to make it easier to convince other people to try out their game... that's my optimistic guess.

Good press is good press.

notworksafe · Oct 13, 2014

Coffeeling said:
Question: Why does anyone give a **** about what some random sites think is great?

Because weak minded people love to have their opinions validated to prove how right they are. See every AAA game review thread for proof.

mbpm1 · Oct 13, 2014

Coffeeling said:
Question: Why does anyone give a **** about what some random sites think is great?

Cos we esports

NEO0MJ · Oct 13, 2014

Dahbomb said:
A lot of the changes I want from fighting games is just simply better stuff than before. Better netcode, better servers, better lobbies, better matchmaking etc. They don't even have the basics down, the stuff I listed is far beyond their scope right now.

None of what I am asking is unreasonable as all these are features are in other games.

I see. I don't play much online so I don't know what to ask for, but these all sound like things that will improve the online experience.

Dahbomb · Oct 13, 2014

Coffeeling said:
Question: Why does anyone give a **** about what some random sites think is great?

Believe it or not, most review sites are indicative of what the general audience wants as a whole. Of course we are not talking about some random sites, we are basically talking about all of them.

Also good reviews = more game sales = more people to play with online and at locals = healthier scene for the game. One of the ways for fighting games to grow is to have them be covered more by the press and be reviewed appropriately as well. There are a few journalists that do a good job of it but there aren't enough of them out there.

These sites also indirectly influence game design by the developers because they get pressure from the higher ups. "Oh so Game A had a ton of single player content, got a higher Metacritic score and sold more than our Game B. Let's put more single player content in our next fighting game so it reviews better and sells more".

Village · Oct 13, 2014

Coffeeling said:
Question: Why does anyone give a **** about what some random sites think is great?

Its fun knowing other peoples opinion.

To step outside of myself, I would imagine some might feel like if news outlets aren't singing the praises of the genre the wont get as much publicity as it could be. " they wont know how great my thing is "

Grakl · Oct 14, 2014

Grakl said:
Alright, I'll do this in a bit.

So I don't see any loose connection for any of my buttons on the bottom row, hm. I reseated all the wires anyway, just in case, but I really hope the issue isn't something bigger.

enzo_gt · Oct 14, 2014

Dahbomb said:
Believe it or not, most review sites are indicative of what the general audience wants as a whole. Of course we are not talking about some random sites, we are basically talking about all of them.

Also good reviews = more game sales = more people to play with online and at locals = healthier scene for the game. One of the ways for fighting games to grow is to have them be covered more by the press and be reviewed appropriately as well. There are a few journalists that do a good job of it but there aren't enough of them out there.

These sites also indirectly influence game design by the developers because they get pressure from the higher ups. "Oh so Game A had a ton of single player content, got a higher Metacritic score and sold more than our Game B. Let's put more single player content in our next fighting game so it reviews better and sells more".

On top of all this, don't forget some developers have metacritic clauses in their contracts. Don't meet expectations and the future of that franchise/developer is at risk financially and how nice publishers play with them. It's unfortunate, but it has a very real impact on the games you play and is much more than just a bunch of people arguing about this shit for the sale of arguing. I tend to try and avoid it though.

Sayah · Oct 14, 2014

Coffeeling said:
Question: Why does anyone give a **** about what some random sites think is great?

Because it has a very real impact on game sales and publicity. It's not that hard to understand.

It's fine when a game is shit and you call it shit. It's problematic when a game is ho-hum average and you call it the best thing ever. GTAIV hyperbole was a thing to behold. It's even more problematic when a game is really good and you don't really recognize it for that and, at worse, call it terrible. A review is an opinion.....is an opinion....most people get that. But you can not possibly deny that the aggregate review scores can be very important for determining game success. I would rather take the opinion of a person that knows fighting games well and can reasonably play them well.......as opposed to most journalists which button mash while playing and write up a quick review.

I wished gamers didn't follow reviews for their purchasing decisions but a lot of them do.

Village said:
From the PC mod dimension

TTT2 is under-appreciated

Maybe it'll be appreciated at some future point......I hope.

Tizoc · Oct 14, 2014

BakedYams · Oct 14, 2014

notworksafe said:
Because weak minded people love to have their opinions validated to prove how right they are. See every AAA game review thread for proof.

ding ding ding, we have a winner. people can't decide what they want so they let others do the work for them, tsk tsk

Dahbomb · Oct 14, 2014

enzo_gt said:
On top of all this, don't forget some developers have metacritic clauses in their contracts. Don't meet expectations and the future of that franchise/developer is at risk financially and how nice publishers play with them. It's unfortunate, but it has a very real impact on the games you play and is much more than just a bunch of people arguing about this shit for the sale of arguing. I tend to try and avoid it though.

I actually think this is a very disgusting practice but it is what it is.

And yeah the GTA4 hyperbole was some next level shit. I am so glad now that GTAV is out that people can look back at GTA4 and see it for the mediocre entry it was.

irfaanator · Oct 14, 2014

Dahbomb said:
I actually think this is a very disgusting practice but it is what it is.

And yeah the GTA4 hyperbole was some next level shit. I am so glad now that GTAV is out that people can look back at GTA4 and see it for the mediocre entry it was.

couldn't get past gta4 on pc after the first 10 minutes. The only category I can see fg's winning is multiplayer goty. As JC said they dont fit in with the previous winners trend

ThatCrazyGuy · Oct 14, 2014

Coffeeling said:
Question: Why does anyone give a **** about what some random sites think is great?

Normal message board people? Cause people want validation of their opinions. They call reviews they agree with good, and ones they don't bad. I guess if opinions are based on erroneous facts, that is one thing. But on the internet, the thought process of if you don't like what I like, you are wrong, runs more rampant than it should. And this blind hate of what is popular. Everybody doesn't do it of course. just my opinion. Some people just don't find certain games fun.

As for review score matter. I have to look at raw data to see if the correlation is lined up that close. I mean just browsing it, Disney Infinity has a 72, and TTT2 is at 82. HTekken is higher rated. Does it matter? It's about marketing, mind share, what people want, or told what they want, trends, what are everybody's friends playing.

I don't think it super matters. if Tekken 7 is game of the year, and rated 95, I don't think it matters. Disney Infinity, Skylanders, Batman, AC, COD will sell more. And I don't begrudge it. I wish fighting games sold more of course.

Something needs to change, either by some ground swell, or some crazy marketing by capcom, or mind blowing graphics to make people want to start playing again in these huge numbers. Getting GOTY doesn't matter. For the most part.

Dahbomb · Oct 14, 2014

It's not that Tekken 7 will sell more than Skylanders if it got a 95... it's that it would've sold higher than if it got a 75 instead. Reviews are generally for people on the fence or in the case of Tekken it is likely to bring people back in if they haven't bought Tekken in a while.

Kumubou · Oct 14, 2014

ThatCrazyGuy said:
As for review score matter. I have to look at raw data to see if the correlation is lined up that close. I mean just browsing it, Disney Infinity has a 72, and TTT2 is at 82. HTekken is higher rated. Does it matter? It's about marketing, mind share, what people want, or told what they want, trends, what are everybody's friends playing.

I remember seeing a Gamasutra article on this a while back. Metacritic averages don't affect a game's sales too much unless the average is very low or very high. Disney Infinity getting a 72 and TTT2 getting a 82 isn't going to matter -- but a game scoring 50 (Aliens: Colonial Marines) or 95 (The Last of Us) is going to have a very real effect. This also needs to be in context. For example, Bayonetta 2 is getting very high scores but it's still going to sell like crap for 363464364 other reasons. The high scores just mean it'll be a bit less awful sales wise. (Frankly, the high scores probably help Platinum more in terms of keeping their reputation up than any sales boost.)

Zissou · Oct 14, 2014

Games criticism is mostly terrible and always has been. Critics have some idea of the kind of games that can get amazing review scores and the kind of games that can't, and they mostly review along those lines. Shit is ridiculously homogeneous too- think of any movie or book, and regardless of whether it had an overall positive/neutral/negative reception, you'll find criticism running the gamut from love to hate. This makes perfect sense because reviews are just the opinions of human beings (even seasoned informed critics are still just giving you opinions) and people have differing opinions. The worst part is that this is what lots of people actually WANT, even while many of these people will claim otherwise. A game gets universally good reviews and people scream "BULLSHIT! PAYOLA! NOTHING BUT HYPE!" but the minute their favorite game gets a 6/10 or something the same people are all "WTF!? THIS GAME IS FACTUALLY MAGNIFICENT! THIS MORON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND VIDEOGAMES!"

Fighting games will never be reviewed properly because it takes a lot more time/effort to evaluate them than many other genres. You don't even know if a fighting game is any good until weeks/months/years after its release sometimes (yeah, some games are clearly broken and it's exposed quickly, but it often takes a while to figure these things out). Reviews of fighters sometimes have ridiculous statements about certain characters being broken or whatever when that's impossible to know at that stage in the game's life. I recall some reviewer complaining that Gouken's fireballs or some shit. Some more savvy fighting game devs know reviews aren't much about the quality of their game in a competitive sense, so they put fluff (more involved story stuff, extra single player modes) so they can trick somebody who doesn't understand the genre into giving them a decent score.

Kumubou · Oct 14, 2014

Zissou said:
Games criticism is mostly terrible and always has been. Critics have some idea of the kind of games that can get amazing review scores and the kind of games that can't, and they mostly review along those lines. Shit is ridiculously homogeneous too- think of any movie or book, and regardless of whether it had an overall positive/neutral/negative reception, you'll find criticism running the gamut from love to hate. This makes perfect sense because reviews are just the opinions of human beings (even seasoned informed critics are still just giving you opinions) and people have differing opinions.

I think some of the issue of game reviews being homogenized come from game reviewers being homogenized. How many of them aren't white, male and between the ages of 25-35?

Zissou · Oct 14, 2014

Kumubou said:
I think some of the issue of game reviews being homogenized come from game reviewers being homogenized. How many of them aren't white, male and between the ages of 25-35?

Even taking that into account, I'd bet these very same people have more varying opinions in other media (movies/TV/book/comics/whatever).

ThatCrazyGuy · Oct 14, 2014

Kumubou said:
I remember seeing a Gamasutra article on this a while back. Metacritic averages don't affect a game's sales too much unless the average is very low or very high. Disney Infinity getting a 72 and TTT2 getting a 82 isn't going to matter -- but a game scoring 50 (Aliens: Colonial Marines) or 95 (The Last of Us) is going to have a very real effect. This also needs to be in context. For example, Bayonetta 2 is getting very high scores but it's still going to sell like crap for 363464364 other reasons. The high scores just mean it'll be a bit less awful sales wise. (Frankly, the high scores probably help Platinum more in terms of keeping their reputation up than any sales boost.)

O yea, it's all relative. A stinker score is bad and would affect things. but in this 65/70-100 range? idk, I don't think it matters if tekken is 90, and COD is 80. or SF5 is 75 and BB is 95. These are good games for the most part with flaws. It about marketing at that point, or what is popular or hot.

Kumubou · Oct 14, 2014

An amusing data point to all this: Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast ended up with a Metacritic of 98. But even crazier on that list... MvC2 at 90?!? If MvC2 came out today, it would probably get a 9.

That's being really glib, as UMvC3 averaged an 80, which is a real drop but nothing insane.

alstein · Oct 14, 2014

Kumubou said:
I think some of the issue of game reviews being homogenized come from game reviewers being homogenized. How many of them aren't white, male and between the ages of 25-35?

Some are women. Being a VF player you should know at least one.

Sayah · Oct 14, 2014

Dahbomb said:
It's not that Tekken 7 will sell more than Skylanders if it got a 95... it's that it would've sold higher than if it got a 75 instead. Reviews are generally for people on the fence or in the case of Tekken it is likely to bring people back in if they haven't bought Tekken in a while.

This.

BakedYams · Oct 14, 2014

Any recs on fight sticks to play Xrd on for PS4? I'm really liking the USF4 fight stick for the PS4 but I want a sexy ass stick man! The one champ has is ridiculous.

ThatCrazyGuy · Oct 14, 2014

Dahbomb said:
It's not that Tekken 7 will sell more than Skylanders if it got a 95... it's that it would've sold higher than if it got a 75 instead. Reviews are generally for people on the fence or in the case of Tekken it is likely to bring people back in if they haven't bought Tekken in a while.

Maybe. I have been on games where the sales were not affected much when it was rated in the 90's or 80's. As long as it was a fundamentally good game for the genre and not an obvious POS. Lots of good games with good reviews and don't sell.

Maybe it would be better for Tekken cause of the stagnated genre it is in and to get people to jump on board and get on the hype train.

Though, I think a high meta critic score doesn't carry that much weight on a speeding fighting game hype train. I don't think TTT2 would had sold more if it was rated 95.

CPS2 · Oct 14, 2014

Zissou said:
Games criticism is mostly terrible and always has been. Critics have some idea of the kind of games that can get amazing review scores and the kind of games that can't, and they mostly review along those lines. Shit is ridiculously homogeneous too- think of any movie or book, and regardless of whether it had an overall positive/neutral/negative reception, you'll find criticism running the gamut from love to hate. This makes perfect sense because reviews are just the opinions of human beings (even seasoned informed critics are still just giving you opinions) and people have differing opinions. The worst part is that this is what lots of people actually WANT, even while many of these people will claim otherwise. A game gets universally good reviews and people scream "BULLSHIT! PAYOLA! NOTHING BUT HYPE!" but the minute their favorite game gets a 6/10 or something the same people are all "WTF!? THIS GAME IS FACTUALLY MAGNIFICENT! THIS MORON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND VIDEOGAMES!"

Fighting games will never be reviewed properly because it takes a lot more time/effort to evaluate them than many other genres. You don't even know if a fighting game is any good until weeks/months/years after its release sometimes (yeah, some games are clearly broken and it's exposed quickly, but it often takes a while to figure these things out). Reviews of fighters sometimes have ridiculous statements about certain characters being broken or whatever when that's impossible to know at that stage in the game's life. I recall some reviewer complaining that Gouken's fireballs or some shit. Some more savvy fighting game devs know reviews aren't much about the quality of their game in a competitive sense, so they put fluff (more involved story stuff, extra single player modes) so they can trick somebody who doesn't understand the genre into giving them a decent score.

I agree with this. When I do read reviews I get the sense that a well known franchise gets bonus points just for brand recognition, and a lot of features and modes are just included as something for reviewers to mention. Like all those modes won't do you any good if the general controls and gameplay sucks, vs should be the focus of the game and reviewers should know that, and have some idea of how to assess it. It'd be good if they had several years experience with the genre. They could even begin the review with catchy phrases like "as an expert who can count frames..."

Karsticles · Oct 14, 2014

Zissou said:
Games criticism is mostly terrible and always has been. Critics have some idea of the kind of games that can get amazing review scores and the kind of games that can't, and they mostly review along those lines. Shit is ridiculously homogeneous too- think of any movie or book, and regardless of whether it had an overall positive/neutral/negative reception, you'll find criticism running the gamut from love to hate. This makes perfect sense because reviews are just the opinions of human beings (even seasoned informed critics are still just giving you opinions) and people have differing opinions. The worst part is that this is what lots of people actually WANT, even while many of these people will claim otherwise. A game gets universally good reviews and people scream "BULLSHIT! PAYOLA! NOTHING BUT HYPE!" but the minute their favorite game gets a 6/10 or something the same people are all "WTF!? THIS GAME IS FACTUALLY MAGNIFICENT! THIS MORON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND VIDEOGAMES!"

Fighting games will never be reviewed properly because it takes a lot more time/effort to evaluate them than many other genres. You don't even know if a fighting game is any good until weeks/months/years after its release sometimes (yeah, some games are clearly broken and it's exposed quickly, but it often takes a while to figure these things out). Reviews of fighters sometimes have ridiculous statements about certain characters being broken or whatever when that's impossible to know at that stage in the game's life. I recall some reviewer complaining that Gouken's fireballs or some shit. Some more savvy fighting game devs know reviews aren't much about the quality of their game in a competitive sense, so they put fluff (more involved story stuff, extra single player modes) so they can trick somebody who doesn't understand the genre into giving them a decent score.

My favorite review was Joystiq's MvC3 one. They said Arthur was unstoppable and needed to be nerfed. They even uploaded a video of them playing, and it was basically a She-Hulk player running into daggers over and over again.

enzo_gt · Oct 14, 2014

Zissou said:
Games criticism is mostly terrible and always has been. Critics have some idea of the kind of games that can get amazing review scores and the kind of games that can't, and they mostly review along those lines. Shit is ridiculously homogeneous too- think of any movie or book, and regardless of whether it had an overall positive/neutral/negative reception, you'll find criticism running the gamut from love to hate. This makes perfect sense because reviews are just the opinions of human beings (even seasoned informed critics are still just giving you opinions) and people have differing opinions. The worst part is that this is what lots of people actually WANT, even while many of these people will claim otherwise. A game gets universally good reviews and people scream "BULLSHIT! PAYOLA! NOTHING BUT HYPE!" but the minute their favorite game gets a 6/10 or something the same people are all "WTF!? THIS GAME IS FACTUALLY MAGNIFICENT! THIS MORON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND VIDEOGAMES!"

Fighting games will never be reviewed properly because it takes a lot more time/effort to evaluate them than many other genres. You don't even know if a fighting game is any good until weeks/months/years after its release sometimes (yeah, some games are clearly broken and it's exposed quickly, but it often takes a while to figure these things out). Reviews of fighters sometimes have ridiculous statements about certain characters being broken or whatever when that's impossible to know at that stage in the game's life. I recall some reviewer complaining that Gouken's fireballs or some shit. Some more savvy fighting game devs know reviews aren't much about the quality of their game in a competitive sense, so they put fluff (more involved story stuff, extra single player modes) so they can trick somebody who doesn't understand the genre into giving them a decent score.

Well put, especially the bolded. This is kind of what drew me to stuff like 1up Yours and Giant Bomb. It's just people expressing their opinions and qualifying what feels instinctive and what they constructed from a closer look.

Fighting games are just hard to review because you have to assess it for two audiences that don't really want to hear the same thing all the time. I don't either getting a hardcore FG player or someone who is completely looking from the outside of the genre in is appropriate.

Coda · Oct 14, 2014

BakedYams said:
Any recs on fight sticks to play Xrd on for PS4? I'm really liking the USF4 fight stick for the PS4 but I want a sexy ass stick man! The one champ has is ridiculous.

http://www.amiami.com/top/detail/detail?scode=GAME-0012102

I picked this up personally for the PS4 saturn like pad and the great box art. I probably won't pick up a stick for this next-gen unless I absolutely have to. Hoping this pad delivers.

sixteen-bit · Oct 14, 2014

LUCKY n WILD said:
http://www.amiami.com/top/detail/detail?scode=GAME-0012102

I picked this up personally for the PS4 saturn like pad and the great box art. I probably won't pick up a stick for this next-gen unless I absolutely have to. Hoping this pad delivers.

Hori has a pad out as well called the Fighting Commander 4 that works great. PS3/ and PS4 compatible too.

zero shift · Oct 14, 2014

I didn't know that Third Strike is still so popular. Nor did I except Skullgirls to be so high on the list.

CurlyW · Oct 14, 2014

Zissou said:
Games criticism is mostly terrible and always has been. Critics have some idea of the kind of games that can get amazing review scores and the kind of games that can't, and they mostly review along those lines. Shit is ridiculously homogeneous too- think of any movie or book, and regardless of whether it had an overall positive/neutral/negative reception, you'll find criticism running the gamut from love to hate. This makes perfect sense because reviews are just the opinions of human beings (even seasoned informed critics are still just giving you opinions) and people have differing opinions. The worst part is that this is what lots of people actually WANT, even while many of these people will claim otherwise. A game gets universally good reviews and people scream "BULLSHIT! PAYOLA! NOTHING BUT HYPE!" but the minute their favorite game gets a 6/10 or something the same people are all "WTF!? THIS GAME IS FACTUALLY MAGNIFICENT! THIS MORON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND VIDEOGAMES!"

Fighting games will never be reviewed properly because it takes a lot more time/effort to evaluate them than many other genres. You don't even know if a fighting game is any good until weeks/months/years after its release sometimes (yeah, some games are clearly broken and it's exposed quickly, but it often takes a while to figure these things out). Reviews of fighters sometimes have ridiculous statements about certain characters being broken or whatever when that's impossible to know at that stage in the game's life. I recall some reviewer complaining that Gouken's fireballs or some shit. Some more savvy fighting game devs know reviews aren't much about the quality of their game in a competitive sense, so they put fluff (more involved story stuff, extra single player modes) so they can trick somebody who doesn't understand the genre into giving them a decent score.

Yeah, that's TOTALLY what single-player content is for...

Just write the words "Mortal Kombat 9" next time.

Shouta · Oct 14, 2014

Anything interesting going on this week?

Zissou · Oct 14, 2014

CurlyW said:
Yeah, that's TOTALLY what single-player content is for...

Just write the words "Mortal Kombat 9" next time.

I think you are reading that as a malicious statement when it was not intended that way. Regardless of whether the game is good from a competitive standpoint, it's beneficial for the game's critical reception/sales to casual players to put in single-player content. NRS are doing the smart thing and putting plenty of that sort of thing into their games.

Rice-Eater · Oct 14, 2014

Shouta said:
Anything interesting going on this week?

NFL Power Rankings should come out tomorrow with the Seahawks not at #1

mbpm1 · Oct 14, 2014

Shouta said:
Anything interesting going on this week?

Hm..

Dahbomb · Oct 14, 2014

Awwww shhhiiieeeett

Captain America 3 to be based off of the Civil War story line. RDJ to star in it as well.

WHO WILL YOU STAND WITH???

It's going to be kinda awkward watching this without actual mutants though.

RockTurtle · Oct 14, 2014

Ironman was Right

still, that's a bold move marvel. a BOLD move

as in, it has potential to move the genre beyond the usual summer release condensed throwaway storyline, or to marvelously blow up in their faces

mbpm1 · Oct 14, 2014

Dahbomb said:
It's going to be kinda awkward watching this without actual mutants though.

LOl

I forgot about that with the MCU.

Put_X-Men_in_Marvel

Horseress · Oct 14, 2014

Dahbomb said:
Awwww shhhiiieeeett

Captain America 3 to be based off of the Civil War story line. RDJ to star in it as well.

WHO WILL YOU STAND WITH???

It's going to be kinda awkward watching this without actual mutants though.

waaaaaaaaat

it would just catch the concept of it, but it just can't be THE Civil War without Spidy and the mutants

Another weird thing is that they threw this on the web earlier today

No idea the fuck they are planing, but I'm hype

oh yeah and fighting games huh

Dahbomb · Oct 14, 2014

Even though Civil War was poorly written and made a bunch of characters look like complete asshats... if it's done well it could launch Marvel even further into being a box office juggernaut. The idea is actually quite interesting and would resonate well with the general public.

I mean when you really think about it... this is basically their answer to Batman vs Superman as according to the article it's basically pitting Captain America against Iron Man (the villain as described here).

Oh and Captain America vs Iron Man is like 6-4 in Cap's favor in UMVC3. Cap can blow through all of Iron Man's options and has no trouble chasing him down. Just to keep this fighting game relevant.

Laconic · Oct 14, 2014

RockTurtle said:
Ironman was Right

still, that's a bold move marvel. a BOLD move

as in, it has potential to move the genre beyond the usual summer release condensed throwaway storyline, or to marvelously blow up in their faces

Really, RT. Really?

#CaptWasRight

Marvel really needs to get their mutants all under one studio.

RockTurtle · Oct 14, 2014

Laconic said:
Really, RT. Really?

#CaptWasRight

Marvel really needs to get their mutants all under one studio.

yes

mbpm1 · Oct 14, 2014

Dahbomb said:
Oh and Captain America vs Iron Man is like 6-4 in Cap's favor in UMVC3. Cap can blow through all of Iron Man's options and has no trouble chasing him down. Just to keep this fighting game relevant.

It's pretty in Iron Man's favor in the MCU though.

Dahbomb · Oct 14, 2014

Also #teamIronMan checking in even though he is clearly going to be portrayed as the person who is in the wrong for the movie because "America", "freedom", "constitution" and what not.

And this will out hype Batman vs Superman (for me) if Marvel manages to get Spider Man in this.

AAK · Oct 14, 2014

LeMaximilian said:
Won several GOTY's back in 1999.

Speaking of SC1, recently some Japanese tournament videos have surfaced of this game:

http://www.avoidingthepuddle.com/ne...nese-soul-calibur-3on3-tournament-videos.html

That was indeed a fun watch haha.

Horseress · Oct 14, 2014

I guess I'll have to finish reading the CV arc...I don't remember why I stopped reading it tbh

Riposte · Oct 14, 2014

The Dreamcast was a more innocent time.

RockTurtle · Oct 14, 2014

the clocktower in the dreamcast version of mvc2 kept track of real time right?

Support NeoGAF

Fighting Games Weekly | Oct 13-19 | The World Ends Ryu

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

tagged by Blackace

Member

Member

Slayer of Combofiends

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Slayer of Combofiends

Member

Member

Member

tagged by Blackace

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads