MAT2 vs. Street Fighter Anniversary Collection. One question that poses the thought: Does Capcom care more about its fans than Midway does?

2D Kombat Klassics

Pages: 1

posted10/24/2004 08:06 PM (UTC)by

Sub_One-Niner

@Sub_One-Niner

About Me

Member Since

08/12/2004 11:39 AM (UTC)

Ok, I'm not looking for peeps to tell me which one they think is better. I just want one question answered: How come the Street Fighter Anniversary Collection is a more passable arcade to console conversion than the MAT2 MK's? Seriously, not trying to be a smartass here, but when riddict says in another thread that these emulations of the MK's on MAT2 are the best it's going to get on a console due to the lack of power of the PS2/XBOX have, I just don't get that.

Now riddict could very well know a shitload more of the technical aspect about arcade/console hardware than I do so that's why I'm asking this.

From what I read, there were a few things wrong with the Street Fighter Anniversary Collection game in regards to how fast the fighters moved and timing on combos, shit like that. I own the game. I think it's perfect. Then again, I never really played SF3TS in the arcades so I wouldn't know what a perfect port of that was. And SF2, well, its been years since I've played that in the arcades so I couldn't remember if it was arcade perfect. So I'm not saying that SFAC was a perfect port, they just seem like it to me. But SFAC didn't have some of the glaring bullshit that MAT2 had. Like we've said before:

-Music stopping during the match and at the end credits
-Music still playing during the fatalities
-Shadows flickering (But most of the time not showing unless your fighter jumps in the air)
-Names not being announced on the select screen
-Can't get to Smoke in MK2
-Almost no fatality time in MK3
-Music is muted and distant as well as some of the sound (MK3 mostly)
There are others that I'm sure I missed.

So how come SFAC comes closer to arcade perfection than MAT2? And SFAC isn't perfect due to some "off" timing and minor things. It sure as hell isn't missing sound bytes or has muted music or "LAZY" glitches that MAT2 had. It just seems to me that riddict might be right about pulling off emulations in regards to consoles and if that's correct, then I expect it to be like SFAC with minor timing tweaks: shit that you can't help when converting to console. The bullshit in MAT2 isn't like that. They are GLARING MISTAKES that just look like laziness.

On top of that, I would think that having to run the beautifully animated and much more fluid movements of SF3TS would be much harder to emulate (actually, they ported SFAC didn't they?) than digitized, choppier MK.

I don't know. It just seems to me like Capcom cares much more about its fans than MIdway does and if that's the case, I might be jumping sides pretty soon.

dreemernj

@dreemernj

About Me

TheProphet, GGs my friend. Give'em Hell.

The Ultimate Source of Kompetitive Mortal Kombat. UltimateMK.com

•10/20/2004 11:47 PM (UTC) •

First off, I appreciate the effort you made here to make a level headed, conversation starting thread. Nice job.

I think there are 2 main things that cause a difference in the quality of SFAC and MAT2.

The first is:
The most difficult game for a system to run on SFAC is SF3TS. First off, I am not sure if they even emulated it or if they ported it. I assume they ported it. I think the port of SF3TS to the Dreamcast was extremely good, which leads me to believe that they ported it to the more powerful next gen consoles as well. Porting it would give them the ability to really rework it at a code level to fit the new system. This can lead to a more optimized and better running game, but often also leads to tiny differences that tend to annoy the hardcore (as you described about SFAC)

MAT2 on the other hand took the approach of emulating, which on one end seems better because you get the actual code of the original arcade game, but at the same time it is cutting a corner because the developers do more like write a translation layer for the game to run in rather then actually rework the game to optimize it to the system. If they ported any of the 2D MK games to any of the Next Gen systems, there would be no problem, unless they did a lazy job of that as well, as in didn't make the gameplay match the arcade.

The Second is:
Capcom and subsequently Street Fighter, are products of Japan, and MK is a product of the USA, or more precisely Chicago. Fighting games are bigger in Japan, they are taken far more seriously and have a far larger following. If you are a fighting game in Japan and even a small percentage of the fighting game fans there want to buy you, you will be worthwhile to produce well. Here in the US, no matter how good a job they did on MAT2, it would not appeal to enough fighting game fans to have a big draw. It simply is not worthwhile for them to put the effort into it here. So, some programmers at Midway said "Hey, we can emulate the arcade machine in a quarter the time it takes to port the game over and sell it cheap to parents that don't know what games their kids really wanted." While in Japan, some Capcom programmers said "Hey, we can port SF3s over to any of the Next Gen systems and get it close enough to the arcade that at least some of the droves of fighting game fans here will buy it, if only to use at home to practice for the arcade."

PsychoFight

@PsychoFight

•10/21/2004 12:36 AM (UTC) •

Gameplay wise and quality wise, yes.

Storylinewise, MK not only has an awesome storyline, it has CONTINUITY too, and they don't remake games just to change something. SF does it all the time, and sometimes they forget stuff.

Sub_One-Niner

@Sub_One-Niner

About Me

•10/21/2004 06:21 AM (UTC) •

dreemernj Wrote:
First off, I appreciate the effort you made here to make a level headed, conversation starting thread. Nice job.

I think there are 2 main things that cause a difference in the quality of SFAC and MAT2.

The first is:
The most difficult game for a system to run on SFAC is SF3TS. First off, I am not sure if they even emulated it or if they ported it. I assume they ported it. I think the port of SF3TS to the Dreamcast was extremely good, which leads me to believe that they ported it to the more powerful next gen consoles as well. Porting it would give them the ability to really rework it at a code level to fit the new system. This can lead to a more optimized and better running game, but often also leads to tiny differences that tend to annoy the hardcore (as you described about SFAC)

MAT2 on the other hand took the approach of emulating, which on one end seems better because you get the actual code of the original arcade game, but at the same time it is cutting a corner because the developers do more like write a translation layer for the game to run in rather then actually rework the game to optimize it to the system. If they ported any of the 2D MK games to any of the Next Gen systems, there would be no problem, unless they did a lazy job of that as well, as in didn't make the gameplay match the arcade.

The Second is:
Capcom and subsequently Street Fighter, are products of Japan, and MK is a product of the USA, or more precisely Chicago. Fighting games are bigger in Japan, they are taken far more seriously and have a far larger following. If you are a fighting game in Japan and even a small percentage of the fighting game fans there want to buy you, you will be worthwhile to produce well. Here in the US, no matter how good a job they did on MAT2, it would not appeal to enough fighting game fans to have a big draw. It simply is not worthwhile for them to put the effort into it here. So, some programmers at Midway said "Hey, we can emulate the arcade machine in a quarter the time it takes to port the game over and sell it cheap to parents that don't know what games their kids really wanted." While in Japan, some Capcom programmers said "Hey, we can port SF3s over to any of the Next Gen systems and get it close enough to the arcade that at least some of the droves of fighting game fans here will buy it, if only to use at home to practice for the arcade."

Yeah, if they were going to be having problems with the emulation, they should've just ported the games. At least then the OBVIOUS glitches and bugs wouldn't be there (Unless they're lazy like you said). I would much rather have a game with slight timing variances than missing sound or graphics.

Riddict

@riddict

•10/21/2004 06:31 AM (UTC) •

to port it would have resulted in a higher price tag.

MK2KungBroken

@MK2KungBroken

About Me

The Prophet - R.I.P. 1979-2006www.kombatnetwork.com
- Your Source for UMK3 Competition -
When something better than UMK3 comes out, I'll let you all know, because it still hasn't happened yet.

•10/21/2004 08:37 AM (UTC) •

Or they could have just had better, more qualified people, who would have worked for less money, do it the original way, also known as "Mame dev crew." There is a lot more that can be done when you have properly motivated people working with hardware that is limited in the sense, what they see infront of them is the only thing that has to run what is seen. All we're talking about is software, making a system believe it is something else. Have you ever seen an MK board? Do you know the processor speed of that board? Do you know if you write a perfectly coded emulator you could run MK games on old ass Pentiums? They probably wrote one emulator for all the games or something, that would have been an easier way for them to get something out, but not the most efficient way to emulate. One emulator for MK2, and one for MK3, would have resulted in smaller, more precise emulators. You act as if you know a lot about system specs with all the talk of "the hardware just can't do it man" but that's what is so strange, it's not the hardware, it's the software. Granted it would be difficult based on the current standards in emulation in general, but it's not impossible by any means. If you can show me the actual evidence, and numbers proving why it can't happen, I'll agree with you, but I provided a lot of information in the OTHER current MAT2 thread. TMS34010 Hardware info

Matt

Sub_One-Niner

@Sub_One-Niner

About Me

•10/21/2004 10:14 PM (UTC) •

Hey MK2, what exactly is TMS34010 Hardware? It's a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo I don't understand or have any clue about its meaning.

dreemernj

@dreemernj

About Me

TheProphet, GGs my friend. Give'em Hell.

The Ultimate Source of Kompetitive Mortal Kombat. UltimateMK.com

•10/22/2004 02:41 AM (UTC) •

Its a Graphics System Processor. Its a 32 bit processor designed specifically for displaying difficult, basically Video Game graphics, and tons of things have used it. Arcade games, old Amigas, some TI computers, plus who knows what else.

TheDogg

@TheDogg

About Me

Let the Kombat Kontinue

•10/22/2004 06:32 PM (UTC) •

Thing is, Street Fighter is older than Mortal Kombat. And Street Fighter had hand drawn fighters whereas Mortal Kombat used digitalized actors. So it probably wasn't that hard to make the SF Anniversary Collection arcade perfect.

Sub_One-Niner

@Sub_One-Niner

About Me

•10/22/2004 07:21 PM (UTC) •

Actually, I would assume that SF would be harder than MK. Specifically SF3TS. It has many, many more character moves and animations to translate over. The backgrounds are also much more detailed and are busier with shit going on in them.

MK has about 25 - 35 percent of the total moves of SF3 and has less frames for the few moves it does have.

I don't know which is harder to emulate/port though: hand-drawn or digitized. I would think that the media the characters are portrayed in wouldn't make a difference.

MK2KungBroken

@MK2KungBroken

About Me

The Prophet - R.I.P. 1979-2006www.kombatnetwork.com
- Your Source for UMK3 Competition -
When something better than UMK3 comes out, I'll let you all know, because it still hasn't happened yet.

•10/22/2004 09:11 PM (UTC) •

That is correct, everything was completely done for them, all they had to do was write code to make them work properly on the current gen consoles. It made no difference. They weren't willing to put forth the effort.

Had they hired starving programmers to do this, it would have come out 100% right, and they would have spent less money.

Matt

robs727

@robs727

•10/23/2004 08:07 AM (UTC) •

TheDogg Wrote:
Thing is, Street Fighter is older than Mortal Kombat. And Street Fighter had hand drawn fighters whereas Mortal Kombat used digitalized actors. So it probably wasn't that hard to make the SF Anniversary Collection arcade perfect.

i don't think that would make any difference at all, in the end they are still just still frames put together in a particular order, as Sub_One-Niner said SF3:TS would be harder to do due to the amount of animation in each of the characters.

vilmer316420

@vilmer316420

•10/23/2004 12:55 PM (UTC) •

actually, i'm really into the whole computer and console scene, and street fighter 2 is actually easier to emulate than to port, and mk games are easier to port than to emulate. though they haven't tried porting any mk games since mk trilogy, or mk gold for that matter. mk gold, ported, had even better graphics due to the overhaul midway gave it. street fighter games are hard to port, cause there is a lot of detail in the stripping down and repainting, where as to emulate it, bam there ya go. its still not as easy as it sounds, but easier than to port it. though, digitized games have more of a problem emulating, and less porting. don't know the whole story, but thats how it has been going.

Sub_One-Niner

@Sub_One-Niner

About Me

•10/24/2004 05:58 AM (UTC) •

riddict Wrote:
to port it would have resulted in a higher price tag.

OMG.......

He's gone.......

He's really gone.......

I feel like shedding a tear out of my left eye........

Nah, just fuckin around.

dreemernj

@dreemernj

About Me

TheProphet, GGs my friend. Give'em Hell.

The Ultimate Source of Kompetitive Mortal Kombat. UltimateMK.com

•10/24/2004 08:06 PM (UTC) •

Digitized images of actors versus hand drawn graphics don't make any difference. Resolution, Frame rate and color depth make a difference. SF2 had easier graphics to handle then UMK3 which had easier graphics to handle then SF3s.

The graphics are made in the arcade version and the only work they present to porters is to scale it if necessary, or edit the colors or something like that but the Next Gen systems could handle SF2, UMK3, or SF3s graphics without resizing or recoloring.

Thankfully the days are gone of Genesis style ports, with levels like Goro's Lair where the entire background is completely redrawn to handle the utter lack of colors.

Pages: 1

Reply to Thread

Site Info Privacy Policy