Announcements‎ > ‎

Sven addresses talk that SF3 Online Edition isn't arcade perfect

posted Jun 26, 2011, 1:11 PM by sf III forever   [ updated Dec 27, 2013, 10:08 AM by sf3forever ]

Sven addresses talk that SF3 Online Edition isn't arcade perfect

Posted by Catalyst on June 24, 2011 at 3:54 p.m.
Sven addresses talk that SF3 Online Edition isn't arcade perfect Some fans noticed a few differences between the arcade version of Street Fighter 3 Third Strike and the rerelease of Online Edition, and posted about them on the Unity Boards. Capcom's Christian Svensson jumped in to address them and also talk more about the title.

In the arcade version, when player 1 selects Urien, his Aegis Reflector is always purple, and for player 2 it's blue regardless of who the other player has chosen. Having two different colors prevents any confusion during Urien vs Urien matches, which are quite common since he's a fan favorite and Aegis is his best super art. The Dreamcast and PS2 ports (and presumably Xbox) have it as purple for both sides (erroneously so for player 2). Based on this video from E3, Urien selected on the player 2 side has purple Aegis. — Guyjin

Svensson: I spoke with Derek about this and you are correct. This is a deviation from the arcade version where we followed the more recent iteration path. I don't believe there's plans to make that cosmetic change but we'll see. Maybe if there's the need of a patch for something we'll look into altering this (I'm not sure how difficult that would be to change).

This is worrying the 3rd Strike players I know. A lot of them now fear that by Arcade Perfect, the team is simply trying to copy the bugs/glitches/properties of arcade ver. 990512 instead of actually using the code. — D3v

Svensson: Thousands of people played it at E3. Some of those guys literally camped in front of the game for a couple days straight. Thousands more will play it at Comic-Con and EVO. I've yet to hear anyone detect anything different from the version they love aside from the cosmetic issue you just pointed out. Ultimately, the proof must be in the pudding when you play it and you guys will have your chance soon.

Is there any chance that Third Strike might get delayed? — Temitayo

Svensson: I suppose, but that chance always exists. We're not expecting that to happen, obviously.

Can we play people in Japan with no lag? — Alexander

Svensson: With no lag? Course not... but less perceptible lag than probably any other fighting game? Most likely, yes.

Will there be any Capcom sponsored tournaments in game? — Temitayo

Svensson: We generally leave the organization and running of tournaments to the fans. They're better at it than we could ever be, however we do support them where we can. For example, we support EVO from a business development, promotional and financial standpoint because they do great work for the whole fighting game community.

Would Capcom ever consider making a Marvel vs. DC game? — Ray

Svensson: I understand the desire from fans to see something like this happen, but from the standpoint of actually getting a "deal done with all parties and an approved product shipped" I don't think it could ever happen. The complexities of such a deal and the nature of product approvals would be overwhelming.

Capcom doesn't listen to fans because you haven't made [insert game here].

Svensson: [...] The non-existence of two or three games that have been requested, doesn't mean we aren't listening.

It took us 10 years to make another Marvel vs. Capcom after MvC2. It took us 10 years to make another Street Fighter after III. It took us 20 years to make a new Bionic Commando.

When there's something new we can bring to the table, we'll do it. But we're not JUST all about remakes and ports. I get that there's folks who want those things and we do our best to accommodate.

But unfortunately, not every suggestion makes sense (either from a business or strategic standpoint).

For example, when there's brand conflicts or other projects in the works that are meant to scratch a lot of the same itch then those things don't happen on any immediate time frame. For example, Raccoon City does scratch a lot of the same itch for a lot of people that Outbreak does... perhaps not for RE purists, but for many potential customers of an Outbreak product it's a multiplayer-focused RE title (at the same time, it will appeal to many more people than just an Outbreak title).

I am not saying that the existence of RE:ORC is a gating factor in a new Outbreak. I am saying that it's a factor that I would and have brought up in such a decision. We'd also have to look at what other RE projects we have in the works... Mercenaries and Revelations on 3DS, RE4 and Code Veronica's HDification are in the works and coming soon. RE:ORC and maybe some other things you don't yet know about. That's a HELL of alot of RE in a relatively short period of time. Adding more titles on top of that is definitely too much, too soon IMO.

I've mentioned in the past that all companies run the risk of "brand fatigue". We need to be careful about that too.

Lastly, games take a LONG time to make. Even smaller digital games and rereleases are 18 - 24 months from project inception to launch. So if you're asking today for something that we don't have in development, at the earliest you could hope to expect something to play would be in late 2013 (if we green lit it today). That's the reality.

I appreciate the passion but please keep things civil or this thread will cease to be constructive and will be locked. I do personally take offense at the accusation that we don't listen when I feel we're probably the most in-touch/accessible publisher in the world with our user base. As an example, please show me another executive anywhere else in the industry who interacts with fans and takes their feedback to the very highest levels of the organization the way I/we do?

source:  http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2011/jun/24/sven-addresses-talk-sf3-online-edition-isnt-arcade-perfect/

 
Comments