Battle of the Ports

[Nu-Eclipse]

Pretty fair to say that the Alpha/Zero Anthology on PS2 has the definitive ports of all three Alpha/Zero games, imo.

[Nu-Eclipse]

I never considered Street Fighter Zero/Alpha to be a complete game, due to the small roster and shared backdrops. I always thought of Alpha-2 as the first completed game of the series.

I'm not sure if I'm the only person who feels this way, but even as a kid I remembered seeing it and thinking it felt unfinished.

Perhaps.

I think context of the time is best applied here. The CPS-2 tech was just getting into its stride and Marvel had started collaborating with Capcom, so we were starting to get amazingly technically elaborate for their time fighters like CotA and Marvel Super Heroes, not to mention the vs. Capcom games that were coming too.

So in that respect, Alpha/Zero probably did feel lacking. I personally preferred the minimalist style of it though.

Alpha/Zero 2 wasn't that complete - considerable changes and tweaks were made to the gameplay. For me, Alpha/Zero 3 is the definitive game in the trilogy as it has absoultely everything.

[Asura]

Pretty fair to say that the Alpha/Zero Anthology on PS2 has the definitive ports of all three Alpha/Zero games, imo.

I disagree, but probably not for the reasons you expect.

The PS2 version might be the best port of those two games (I assume it's an emulation of the arcade version) but the home versions had things like the "world tour" mode in the PS1 Alpha 3, as well as stuff like training modes, which are quite useful.

For this reason, though it may be sacrelige, I consider the PS1 version to be the definitive Alpha 3, but that's because it was the only one available when it was contemporary. The Dreamcast one was good, but that came much later.

Then again, unlike most, I don't consider Alpha 3 to be inherently better than 2 (except in the obvious ways, like the increased roster size). I like both of the games; they feel very different but I find both of them fun to play.

This is also going to seem controversial, but I didn't like the character backdrops of Street Fighter Alpha 3 or Street Fighter 3 Third Strike - both of them had a colouring style that I felt jarred with the character art. I much preferred the backdrops of Alpha 2 and Second Impact.

[Nu-Eclipse]

I disagree, but probably not for the reasons you expect.

The PS2 version might be the best port of those two games (I assume it's an emulation of the arcade version) but the home versions had things like the "world tour" mode in the PS1 Alpha 3, as well as stuff like training modes, which are quite useful.

For this reason, though it may be sacrelige, I consider the PS1 version to be the definitive Alpha 3, but that's because it was the only one available when it was contemporary. The Dreamcast one was good, but that came much later.

Then again, unlike most, I don't consider Alpha 3 to be inherently better than 2 (except in the obvious ways, like the increased roster size). I like both of the games; they feel very different but I find both of them fun to play.

This is also going to seem controversial, but I didn't like the character backdrops of Street Fighter Alpha 3 or Street Fighter 3 Third Strike - both of them had a colouring style that I felt jarred with the character art. I much preferred the backdrops of Alpha 2 and Second Impact.

Haven't booted my copy of Alpha/Zero Anthology up in a while, but I'm pretty sure that it has training modes for all three titles too.

Being pretty picky as well, but iirc I'm also sure that the PS1 Alpha games actually used polygons for hitboxes so combos are ever-so-slightly off. Almost of no notice to the majority.

[BigDeadFreak]

I loved Zero 3 on the Saturn, i must have put hours into it at the time. I remember drooling over screenshots of it in the UK Saturn mag (along with Radiant Silvergun, Dungeons & Dragons and Metal Slug) and saving for ages to afford a switched Saturn with some import games. It was near to the end of the Saturn's life which was pretty much perfect for me as I'd grown tired of all the soulless PS1 and wanted some good 2D gaming.

[Asura]

Being pretty picky as well, but iirc I'm also sure that the PS1 Alpha games actually used polygons for hitboxes so combos are ever-so-slightly off. Almost of no notice to the majority.

They are; it's particularly noticeable in Alpha 3 that the game has been entirely rebuilt as a 3D game using an isometric camera (i.e. removing the perspective so it doesn't look 3d). You can see it if you play it on PS2 and turn on "smoothing" in the PS2's firmware; the edges of all the polys have faint lines on them.

This whole thing makes me wonder, though. Like most people, it was only when the era of online fighting games came around that I realised that the manner in which I approached fighting games was, in many respects, wrong. Consequently I'm far, far better at fighting games now than I was in the 90s/early 2000s (both 2D and 3D fighters).

I wonder if I went back to the PS1 Alpha 3 that I'd notice loads of problems that back then just wouldn't have occurred to me.

[Nu-Eclipse]

This whole thing makes me wonder, though. Like most people, it was only when the era of online fighting games came around that I realised that the manner in which I approached fighting games was, in many respects, wrong. Consequently I'm far, far better at fighting games now than I was in the 90s/early 2000s (both 2D and 3D fighters).

Very interesting point.

I feel like I was better at beat-em-ups in some aspects back then (better reflexes in my teens/20s) as opposed to now (34 next month!!), but I'm well aware that I also approached beat-em-ups in the wrong way back then and wasn't actually as good as I could've been at them.

I'd like to properly invest the time in beat-em-ups to rectify this imbalance but I just don't have it spare anymore.

[Asura]

I feel like I was better at beat-em-ups in some aspects back then (better reflexes in my teens/20s) as opposed to now (34 next month!!), but I'm well aware that I also approached beat-em-ups in the wrong way back then and wasn't actually as good as I could've been at them.

Ithought I was good until I got to my very late teens. Then, whilst still in the pre-internet-fighters days, I met a guy from the far-east who was a pro-gamer of fighting games. He had his own stick (soldered together from a Dreamcast arcade stick and superior parts) and used to regularly go to tournaments in London (and previously Hong Kong, I think).

I was no beginner, and neither were my friends (who had all progressed to roughly my level, through our regular near-constant play), but playing this guy was a real eye-opener. He absolutely wrecked me. As any character in any fighter he could just take me apart. We played a fair few evenings where I never won a single round, and rarely made a dent in his health.

I also found the experience super-frustrating because he played in an extremely "efficient" way, which is similar to how I play in 2015 - i.e. he looked for weaknesses and exploited them ruthlessly. If he found you couldn't deal with one particular move, that move would come up 30-40 times in the next round. At the time I felt hard-done-by but this is just the reality of tournament play.

I realised at the time that he was just a complete paradigm shift away from any level of play I'd ever seen, and it set me off wanting to understand just how someone like that could so drastically better than a reasonably competent player. It also started off my understanding of metagaming, i.e. understanding the real game you're playing beneath all of the layers of visuals, sounds and inputs - something I'd never really appreciated before that.

Now I'm older, and you're right in what you say about reflexes etc., but I'm a far superior player of videogames in general thanks to that experience.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Ithought I was good until I got to my very late teens. Then, whilst still in the pre-internet-fighters days, I met a guy from the far-east who was a pro-gamer of fighting games. He had his own stick (soldered together from a Dreamcast arcade stick and superior parts) and used to regularly go to tournaments in London (and previously Hong Kong, I think).

I was no beginner, and neither were my friends (who had all progressed to roughly my level, through our regular near-constant play), but playing this guy was a real eye-opener. He absolutely wrecked me. As any character in any fighter he could just take me apart. We played a fair few evenings where I never won a single round, and rarely made a dent in his health.

I also found the experience super-frustrating because he played in an extremely "efficient" way, which is similar to how I play in 2015 - i.e. he looked for weaknesses and exploited them ruthlessly. If he found you couldn't deal with one particular move, that move would come up 30-40 times in the next round. At the time I felt hard-done-by but this is just the reality of tournament play.

I realised at the time that he was just a complete paradigm shift away from any level of play I'd ever seen, and it set me off wanting to understand just how someone like that could so drastically better than a reasonably competent player. It also started off my understanding of metagaming, i.e. understanding the real game you're playing beneath all of the layers of visuals, sounds and inputs - something I'd never really appreciated before that.

Now I'm older, and you're right in what you say about reflexes etc., but I'm a far superior player of videogames in general thanks to that experience.

Had a similar experience years back with X-Men vs. Street Fighter. Thought I was pretty decent at it until I played an oriental guy at the old Play2Win on Oxford Street and got totally blitzed in a way I hadn't seen previous - infinites, constant air-juggling, etc.

A lot to be said for learning the nuances of meta-gaming and the intricacies that go with it, but like I said I just don't have the time these days. Other things outside of gaming are taking up my time and focus in a way they didn't when I was much younger and had whole weekends free to do nothing but play videogames.

[Asura]

Had a similar experience years back with X-Men vs. Street Fighter. Thought I was pretty decent at it until I played an oriental guy at the old Play2Win on Oxford Street and got totally blitzed in a way I hadn't seen previous - infinites, constant air-juggling, etc.

A lot to be said for learning the nuances of meta-gaming and the intricacies that go with it, but like I said I just don't have the time these days. Other things outside of gaming are taking up my time and focus in a way they didn't when I was much younger and had whole weekends free to do nothing but play videogames.

Yeah, I went from liking MvsC2 to disliking it over a single evening in Akihabara. It's incredible to watch two experts at play; you see 4 characters onscreen nearly the entire round, often 5. It's just too chaotic and imbalanced. Great fun casually, but just a blitz when played at high level.

[J0e Musashi]

This is all incorrect again. Super Street Fighter II was the first all-new title in the series after Street Fighter II, not SFZ.

There is no CPS-1 version of Street Fighter Zero. The CPS Changer version is a heavily cut down CPS-II version. It has a considerable amount of animation frames missing as well as a completely different soundtrack.

The Saturn version is not better than the PlayStation version. They both have exactly the same animation frames. SFZ was easily handled by the PS1. If anything the PS1 version is better as the Saturn version has the "coloured" shadow effects when you perform a super, which are different to the CPS-II version. The PS1 version has the Biohazard trailer and a FMV intro, and the Saturn version has the art gallery and loads two-three seconds faster. They are the only differences.

The PS2 version like Zero 2 is the definitive version, but again has been left out on this occasion.

[Yakumo]

Zero 1 is on the CPS 1 board as well as the CPS II board. It's well documented. Also it's well documented about the CPS Changer version being the same as the CPS 1 version. I also did mention about the audio differences.

Having a video trailer for Bio Hazard on the PSX Zero does not even get taken in to consideration for being better. In fact I see it as being tacky. I bought Street Fighter Zero. I don't want ads on my game for another game.

Oh Super Street Fighter II isn't a new game. It's Street Fighter II but super version Seriously, it's just Street Fighter II with more added to it. Even the games name is the same. Street Fighter Zero was the first true new game since the launch of Street Fighter 2.

So I stand by everything I said as correct.
When I cover Zero 3 I again will not be featuring the PS2 version because I don't own it nore can I emulate it due to Microsoft C++ not installing on my PC. Something the PS2 emulator needs to run. And besides it's emulation and Battle of the Ports does not feature emulation as a general rule.

[J0e Musashi]

Zero is NOT on CPS-1. It's on CPS Changer, which as I said is a HEAVILY cut down version of the CPS-II version. Why would CAPCOM make the same game on both boards? That makes absolutely ZERO (see what I did there?) sense whatsoever. Which arcade operator would purchase an inferior version of a game that they had already purchased an entire year previously? That's utter rubbish.

Super Street Fighter II runs on an entirely different board, hence it is an entirely new game. It uses an entirely different engine and has four entirely new characters. However Street Fighter: The Movie came out before Zero did, so that was actually a newer game than Zero anyway.

Nothing you have said is correct about Street Fighter Zero.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Zero 1 is on the CPS 1 board as well as the CPS II board. It's well documented. Also it's well documented about the CPS Changer version being the same as the CPS 1 version.

Documented by whom? Genuine question.

To my knowledge, Street Fighter Zero has never been available as a CPS-1 game ever.

[J0e Musashi]

besides it's emulation and Battle of the Ports does not feature emulation as a general rule.

You emulate the JAMMA versions though right? The versions all of the others are based upon? Oh, the irony.

It's a nice series and all, but sometimes it isn't 100% accurate as the case with these last two Street Fighter games has shown. Zero 3 is going to be inaccurate too. Keep up the good work though dude.