Short reviews of all games I have for a system: Saturn

[A Black Falcon]

There, I posted something for all of the games I own. I think some of the reviews could use some work, but it's good to have something down for all of them.

[StarMist]

Any racing game can be played over and over to master and improve lap times, this is on top of the championship mode, not instead of it.

Yes, but is it worthwhile? Replay value stems from basic play value. Most Contra veterans approach the games with a 1UP in mind; but whilst any game can be 1UPped I think we'd all have a pretty hard time trying to make a case for the value in 1UPping Hudson Hawk, Kid Kool, Taz Mania, Socket, and the like--or to keep with R&Gs, Thunder Fox (MD) or Time Slip. >>>

This is probably true, particularly for Sega Rally, but can't you see that by not having a championship mode you turn off a lot of gamers, and disincentivize them from wanting to keep going? I mean, playing a game over and over with no reward is no fun for most people... and it doesn't hurt the game in any other way to have such features, either. I really can't understand why you'd think it would. I mean, do you really think that DC Daytona is worse because it has a championship mode (all gameplay and control differences aside, just because of that), or that Sega Rally 2 is worse than the first one not because of the controls or track designs, but simply because it's got a championship season mode?

It is a large deficit. However cobbling together a championship mode isn't very difficult to do either, with track balance, track interest, AI, and even proper difficulty being very difficult things to assure. I read it as sheath's implication that very few racing games feature championship modes or a dozen courses as anything more than worthless padding; and whether I read that right I do agree with it. Besides, how long do most championship modes last, a week of casual play? Only full on sims tend to last longer and their material I think absolute garbage.

That's not really true. So basically, your entire case is that because you like Daytona and Sega Rally more than other racing games, you think that it doesn't matter that they've got nothing for features other than playing for time. But you somehow don't seem to realize, or admit at least, that that's all entirely based on subjective opinion. Objective fact is that the games have minimal featuresets to say the least. Do they have great replay value? Sure! But does that make up for the missing main game mode? Your argument "well because I think they're good, it does" is not exactly a compelling argument to say the least.

"More is better" is not an objective fact, it's at nearest a safer speculation on quality. Put simply: more is only better when the kernel is equally good to what the lesser side has; more is worse when the kernel is worse. If you could guarantee a larger featureset to be of equal quality to Sega Rally's small featureset then you'd be correct every time: Wipeout proves that. However a larger featureset is typical of racers with much poorer quality: Grand Tourismo, Ridge Racer, Midnight Club, Sega GT, Forza, etc prove that.

Willy Wombat ((...)) The game has only a few real issues, most notably controls -- this game is, of course, digital only. Controlling a character in a 3d world like this with only digital controls never works as well as analog controls do, and this game is no exception -- there were many times in this game that I was wishing that they'd programmed in 3D Controller support.

Odd I don't care for this too much considering it's a Hudson game. And your analogue fixation amuses me, I hate analogue. I hate it in Twilight Princess, I hate it in Mario Galaxy, and I hate it in the newer Tomb Raiders. Only flight games benefit from it, it makes everything else so much less precise and colludes with slow cameras to make for miserable gaming.

[A Black Falcon]

I realized that even though I said the list was complete, I'd actually missed one game, Virtua Racing. I've now added in that review -- it's a fantastic version.

[A Black Falcon]

Yes, but is it worthwhile? Replay value stems from basic play value. Most Contra veterans approach the games with a 1UP in mind; but whilst any game can be 1UPped I think we'd all have a pretty hard time trying to make a case for the value in 1UPping Hudson Hawk, Kid Kool, Taz Mania, Socket, and the like--or to keep with R&Gs, Thunder Fox (MD) or Time Slip. >>>

I would certainly hope that in a top-quality racing game it would be beneficial, yes. The Rush games, for instance, have in my opinion probably the most replay value of any racing games ever. And the home versions all have championship modes and collectables too, in addition to timetrial stuff.

It is a large deficit. However cobbling together a championship mode isn't very difficult to do either, with track balance, track interest, AI, and even proper difficulty being very difficult things to assure. I read it as sheath's implication that very few racing games feature championship modes or a dozen courses as anything more than worthless padding; and whether I read that right I do agree with it.

That statement seems pretty crazy to me...

Besides, how long do most championship modes last, a week of casual play? Only full on sims tend to last longer and their material I think absolute garbage.

I don't like sim racers, of course, so I don't play those. I do need to say though, Gran Turismo isn't really a full sim... "full sim" is like Grand Prix Legends '98 and stuff on that level. They're mostly just on the PC. Even so, I don't find GT-level games fun at all. The more realistic the racing game, the less likely I am to be interested...

Also, so you can beat games which have championships. So? How is this a bad thing? The games usually have something to get you to come back, or at least the best ones do... like, in the first two Rush games for instance, actually WINNING a championship (that will be quite hard), or finding all of the collectables, or improving your times... and Rush 2049 has all of that plus other stuff like the stunt, battle, and obstacle course modes, too.

"More is better" is not an objective fact, it's at nearest a safer speculation on quality. Put simply: more is only better when the kernel is equally good to what the lesser side has; more is worse when the kernel is worse. If you could guarantee a larger featureset to be of equal quality to Sega Rally's small featureset then you'd be correct every time: Wipeout proves that. However a larger featureset is typical of racers with much poorer quality: Grand Tourismo, Ridge Racer, Midnight Club, Sega GT, Forza, etc prove that.

More is not always better, sure, I'll agree with that. But too little is probably worse, when other factors are equal. (I don't really like any of those games you listed all that much, but it's for the above reasons, not anything to do with that stuff you're talking about here.)

Odd I don't care for this too much considering it's a Hudson game. And your analogue fixation amuses me, I hate analogue. I hate it in Twilight Princess, I hate it in Mario Galaxy, and I hate it in the newer Tomb Raiders. Only flight games benefit from it, it makes everything else so much less precise and colludes with slow cameras to make for miserable gaming.

Attempting to play 3d platformers without analog controls isn't just unpleasant, it's awful. I should know, I played Rayman 2 (the PC version) through the first time on just a d-pad... it's so, so bad for the genre, or anything else with in 3d space with decent controls. You simply cannot control a character precisely enough with a d-pad while running around a 3d area. It's impossible, you end up constantly having to carefully back up and maneuver to get at the right angle to make a jump that you'd have been able to make no problem with an analog stick. You see this all over the place in Willy Wombat, that's for sure. Other digital-only 3d platformers like Bubsy 3D also have this problem (though I don't hate Bubsy 3D even half as much as most people, probably).

And seriously, you'd want to use a DPAD in Mario Galaxy or 3d Zelda games? That's completely insane, and would be horribly frustrating to play, just like the above games I mentioned. You can't make jumps in 3d without an analog stick unless you want to spend like twice as long trying to get things right. Having speed control right on the stick is fantastic as well; getting rid of the run button in platformers is great.

Analog controls are incredibly beneficial in racing games, too. Huge, huge difference.

[Team Andromeda]

Huh, that's interesting. I don't know if I'll get the Saturn version anytime soon though, wiht how it doesn't have the additions the PS1 version has, and that it'd cost import prices too...

There was a X-Box Mag interview with Tomonobu Itagaki; Where Itagaki-san said the Saturn was the best version of the game there was and how he and his team put their hearts in to that version and that's why he chose to perfectly emulate the Saturn version in Ultimate and not to go for the PS or Arcade versions . Those really are Saturn graphics and like I said if anything the Saturn versions looks that bit better thanks to the raw crisp display of the Saturn High res mode (where you get that lovely screen shimmer)

The gameplay's great sure, and that's what really carries those two games. Not the tracks in specific

Its is and in true SEGA classic style there's aera's of the tracks where you can gain a speed advantage . I used to race against the CS Team/AM Ghost cars in SEGA RALLY and you could see the genius ways SEGA designed the tracks and also how to take the corners . That's why SEGA Revo was such a let down - it lacked that Arcade feeling

Listen, you are wrong about Virtual On, dead flat silly wrong. It doesn't require twin sticks to play well, in fact it is at least arguably more intuitive with the gamepad on the Saturn and Dreamcast for anybody who will actually try to play it.

Its a opinion and view and someone bought the game and system they you have to respect it . I think the Saturn version is playable with the pad, the DC versions is a complete nightmare with the pad imo .

[TheSonicRetard]

Count me in as someone who feels the saturn version of Virtua On is perfectly fine with the pad, while the dreamcast version is not. I pretty much play VooT entirely differently than I play the original Virtual On as a result.

Incidentally, I always felt that the saturn version of Virtual On, with it's intense reliance on dashing and machine-gun bursts as both a means to manipulate distance and orient yourself to your enemy, made for a perfect Dragonball Z mold. That no DBZ game ever aped its mechanics always bugged me.

[TheSonicRetard]

And, as for the comments I saw several pages back about Virtua Fighter not being a 3D game simply because you can't sidestep... LMFAO. Virtua Fighter is much more of a 3D fighting game than Battle Arena Toshinden because, at all times in the game, you zone on 3 axis - the 2 axis you claim you fight on (the so-called 2D plane) and you also zone on the 3D plane. It sounds to me like you seriously do not sppreciate either the movesets nor the mechanics of the game, as you admit to essentially ignoring 1/3 of the entire fighting engine. There are attacks and moves which only affect the sides of players, and there are moves which can position players to their sides. There are advantages of shifting your opponent to your left or right side - again, accomplished by various moves - to put them into a different zoning strategy. This is why Virtua Fighter doesn't have auto-correction like you see in Street Fighter or Tohshinden - because, unlike those those, there are pros and cons to having an opponent at your side/being at an opponents side. Hitboxes change, ranges change. There is an incredibly intricate and complex fighting mechanics in Virtua Fighter that surround 3 dimensions which are completely absent from games you freely describe as being 3D (like toshinden, or I guess Ballz would fall under this category). You're judging the evolution of a game entirely upon a superfluous mechanic.

Later Virtua Fighter games - specifically VF2 - built heavily off of the ability to zone your opponent in 3 dimensions. Beginning with VF3, when you had the ability to freely move around your opponent, is when Sega's 3D fighting games became less about zoning in 3 dimensions, and more about frame counting, cancels, etc, which, ironically, puts them much closer to something like Street Fighter 3.

EDIT: In fact, example of 3D zoning in Virtua Fighter 1 - when down on the ground, the meta-game available is astounding. Pressing down twice while on the ground will cause you to roll into the screen, making you stand up on your opponent's side. Say this matchup is Kage vs Pai. Kage's f, f+d+F+K move actually hits to his side first, then behind, then to his other side, then finally forward, all in quick succession, making it's a great move for zoning in 360 degrees. However, when on the side of an opponent, the hit box for Pai to successfully counter a move is much wider. Thus, by moving to Kage's side, two things happened - Kage gained a move which will hit in the direction Pai is standing on frame 1, rather than on frame 4, and at the same time, Pai's window to counter Kage's attack has increased.

The virtua fighter series is full of intricacies like this. When people say the games are deep, they're not blowing smoke.

[chinitosoccer]

Argh, Can you edit the OP and put the titles of the games in bold?? there are some games listed which I don't care, so it gets a bit difficult to find the few reviews I'm interested inside that wall of text.

[A Black Falcon]

Argh, Can you edit the OP and put the titles of the games in bold?? there are some games listed which I don't care, so it gets a bit difficult to find the few reviews I'm interested inside that wall of text.

Done. But bah, more than a few of those are games worth reading about.

And, as for the comments I saw several pages back about Virtua Fighter not being a 3D game simply because you can't sidestep... LMFAO. Virtua Fighter is much more of a 3D fighting game than Battle Arena Toshinden because, at all times in the game, you zone on 3 axis - the 2 axis you claim you fight on (the so-called 2D plane) and you also zone on the 3D plane. It sounds to me like you seriously do not sppreciate either the movesets nor the mechanics of the game, as you admit to essentially ignoring 1/3 of the entire fighting engine. There are attacks and moves which only affect the sides of players, and there are moves which can position players to their sides. There are advantages of shifting your opponent to your left or right side - again, accomplished by various moves - to put them into a different zoning strategy. This is why Virtua Fighter doesn't have auto-correction like you see in Street Fighter or Tohshinden - because, unlike those those, there are pros and cons to having an opponent at your side/being at an opponents side. Hitboxes change, ranges change. There is an incredibly intricate and complex fighting mechanics in Virtua Fighter that surround 3 dimensions which are completely absent from games you freely describe as being 3D (like toshinden, or I guess Ballz would fall under this category). You're judging the evolution of a game entirely upon a superfluous mechanic.

Superfluous mechanic? Absolutely not true. Whether you can move around in 3d or not is the only reasonable way to judge if a game is truly 3d or not. What you're talking about is something different, I would say. (Oh, and yes, Ballz 3D is a 3d fighting game. I've never played it though, so I don't know if it's any good at all; I know most reviews are bad.) I mean, being able to move around in 3d is "superfluous"? Oh come on, that's not true at all! It's the central game mechanic in lots of fighting games, and it's a good one.

I mean, 2d fighting games are great, but I don't see the point of making a game that technically is in 3d space, like VF and those others, and then not allowing the player to move around it freely and having it end up as essentially 2.5d. Maybe it's for technical limitations, in the first VF? But there's no good reason for the later ones...

As for attacks and moves which hit the sides, or maneuver you around the side, no, I don't know about that stuff. I've just played the games some, I haven't tried to memorize the movesets or something, VF1/VF2/Last Bronx aren't nearly fun enough for that. I do like FV and (PS1) DoA, but I don't know if I learned much of that stuff even there... probably a few in DoA, I played that game quite a bit. Anyway though, I just can't agree that those elements make a game truly 3d. It's a 3d gameplay element, but true 3d fighting games are games where you can actually maneuver around in 3d! In contrast in these games you play most of the game on a 2d plane.

Maybe high-level matches are a little different, but still, that's not true 3d movement. I mean, yes, the games have 3d elements, you are right. I was careful to say "mostly 2.5d" and things such as that for a reason -- that was acknowledging that they have some 3d elements, unlike strictly 2.5d games like SFIV or such, but that for the most part they are indeed 2.5d.

And you know, all of that attacks-to-the-sides and such intricacy you talk about, that's all stuff that would be made even better if you could move around in 3d... I'm not saying that being 3d automatically makes a fighting game better, of course -- it certainly does not, look at Criticom and such -- but in a good game, I do think that it makes for a better design than something like these. Like, I think that DoA2 is a better game for sure than the first one, and one reason would be the 3d movement, as well as other things.

Later Virtua Fighter games - specifically VF2 - built heavily off of the ability to zone your opponent in 3 dimensions. Beginning with VF3, when you had the ability to freely move around your opponent, is when Sega's 3D fighting games became less about zoning in 3 dimensions, and more about frame counting, cancels, etc, which, ironically, puts them much closer to something like Street Fighter 3.

Has Sega done any fighting games since then other than VF3 through VF5? Oh, there was Fighting Vipers 2 I guess, though it didn't get a US release... were you counting that one there? Anything else?

EDIT: In fact, example of 3D zoning in Virtua Fighter 1 - when down on the ground, the meta-game available is astounding.

Yeah, you can roll in 3d while downed. However, that's the ONLY time that you can do so freely. That's an extremely, extremely limited 3d movement feature to say the least, and is one of the core elements of why I call all of those games "mostly 2.5d" -- excepting when you get knocked down and a few other things, the rest of the game is played on a side-vied plane. What you're really doing here is showing examples of why I said that, not disproving it...

Pressing down twice while on the ground will cause you to roll into the screen, making you stand up on your opponent's side. Say this matchup is Kage vs Pai. Kage's f, f+d+F+K move actually hits to his side first, then behind, then to his other side, then finally forward, all in quick succession, making it's a great move for zoning in 360 degrees. However, when on the side of an opponent, the hit box for Pai to successfully counter a move is much wider. Thus, by moving to Kage's side, two things happened - Kage gained a move which will hit in the direction Pai is standing on frame 1, rather than on frame 4, and at the same time, Pai's window to counter Kage's attack has increased.

Sure, I guess it's nice that it has that kind of detail. But so do some other, slightly newer fighting games that are fully 3d. I'm sure by 1997 there were some others with that kind of depth, while Sega was still releasing mostly-2.5d stuff like Last Bronx...

The virtua fighter series is full of intricacies like this. When people say the games are deep, they're not blowing smoke.

I don't find the games fun enough to want to put in the time it'd require to memorize all the combinations like that. I am most certainly not a highly skilled VF player, and that's because I just don't like it all that much. A game needs to be fun for me to want to put in time to get better at it, and a game where the only way to reliably move in 3d is to memorize long attack combinations is NOT something I would legitimately call a truly 3d fighting game. No way. More like "you can sort of push your opponent around in 3d if you're a dedicated fan who has memorized the attack list and what each one does, but for everyone else, no." Great design there.

And yes, I did spend more time learning DoA, because I enjoyed that one more. But even for a game I did like more and did learn somewhat, the same general point still applies -- the game does not have 3d movement and is mostly 2.5d. So yeah, sure, yes, the games have that depth. Does that mean that they're not mostly-2.5d, though? No, it doesn't.

Oh, the VF game I've played that's the closest to being good is VF4/VF4Evo, and those of course do have 3d movement, thankfully. That one's still a little dull, but can be fun sometimes.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Woah, those twinstick controls look pretty good. Seems like it'd be much easier to control that way. And that says that the Saturn version allows you to do a twinstick-on-gamepad method too, with four face buttons as a second stick? Why in the WORLD was that removed from the Dreamcast game? That'd make the controls so much better! That's disappointing...

Because the Saturn reads the Twin Stick as a standard controller. You set it to Twin Stick mode in options and it simply sets up a control scheme. One stick maps to the D-Pad, the other maps to the buttons. A few years ago I figured out what they all mapped to but I can't seem to find where I wrote it down.

The Dreamcast Twin Stick most likely works differently, not to mention there's not enough buttons on the Standard DC Controller for that kind of a mode to work. You're two buttons short.

And I agree with what others are saying. Virtua Fighter is most certainly a 3D Fighter. Calling it 2.5D is an insult.

[TheSonicRetard]

that response was completely baffling. I explained all the reasons 3D fighting is 3D fighting, and your response boils down to "oh well, it's not fun, it's too hard, blah blah blah." Preposterous. The reason side step moves in games like toshinden are superfluous is because the action still always takes place on ONE plane. All attacks in those kinds of game only hit in ONE direction. You don't fight in multiple planes. You fight what's ahead of you. Those side step moves are the functional equivalent to the dodge move in King of Fighters. Literally the exact same thing. Do you see anybody calling KoF a 3D fighter? Being able to dodge a move is useless when all attacks are limited to a 2D plane.

I didn't get into details, but you want to know the REAL reason VF and it's ilk are 3D fighters while Toshinden is not? Toshinden uses hit boxes - 2D collection. Virtua Fighter uses hit cubes. 3D collision.

[j_factor]

Why isn't this thread titled "Because the Saturn is great"? Shame on you.

[A Black Falcon]

Why isn't this thread titled "Because the Saturn is great"? Shame on you.

The Saturn's certainly pretty good, but I don't know about great. Maybe, maybe not. But sure, I like the Saturn. It's not my favorite console, but it's certainly a good system with a bunch of good games.

Because the Saturn reads the Twin Stick as a standard controller. You set it to Twin Stick mode in options and it simply sets up a control scheme. One stick maps to the D-Pad, the other maps to the buttons. A few years ago I figured out what they all mapped to but I can't seem to find where I wrote it down.

The Dreamcast Twin Stick most likely works differently, not to mention there's not enough buttons on the Standard DC Controller for that kind of a mode to work. You're two buttons short.

Ah, I see. So the real problem is that stupid decision to cut two buttons off of the DC controller... it was so stupid of Sega to do that.

And I agree with what others are saying. Virtua Fighter is most certainly a 3D Fighter. Calling it 2.5D is an insult.

No, it's just accurately describing almost all of the gameplay.

I do find it interesting that that's a more controversial statement than saying that I find the VF games boring and not much fun, though... is that because that's clearly an opinion, while I'm saying the "mostly 2.5d" thing as fact? I guess I could understand that, but I absolutely think that it doesn't make much sense at all to call VF and such full 3d fighting games. Not without, well, actual 3d movement.

[QUOTE=TheSonicRetard;509664]that response was completely baffling. I explained all the reasons 3D fighting is 3D fighting, and your response boils down to "oh well, it's not fun, it's too hard, blah blah blah."
[/quopte]
No, my response is "no, those things are not 3d movement, and 3d movement is what determines a 3d fighting game". It's quit simple, really. If the game actually has 3d movement, it's a 3d fighter. Otherwise it's something else. And I know at least some people here agree with me on this -- look at the first post in this thread after my OP.

That other stuff you reference there was my attempt at explaining why I think that that "roll after you get knocked down" and certain moves which might shift the enemy a bit in 3d are definitely not things that make those games 3d platformers. That stuff's something, and that's why I said "mostly 2.5d" and not just "2.5d" -- and on that note, you people seem to keep missing the fact that I did make a distinction between the two -- but it isn't nearly enough to make it a 3d fighting game. For that you need 3d movement. Remember, "2.5d" and "3d" aren't terms that refer to the graphics; in both cases the graphics are polygonal. They are terms that refer to the game worlds, 2.5d for flat games, and 3d for games where you directly move around in 3d space. And that's what matters the most, much more so than whether moves can shift the perspective a bit I would say... But also see the "mostly 2.5d" note above.

Preposterous. The reason side step moves in games like toshinden are superfluous is because the action still always takes place on ONE plane. All attacks in those kinds of game only hit in ONE direction. You don't fight in multiple planes. You fight what's ahead of you.

I don't remember if that's true in Toshinden, but it certainly isn't in many later 3d fighting games, including some from the '90s, so I'm not sure how this argument helps you.

Those side step moves are the functional equivalent to the dodge move in King of Fighters. Literally the exact same thing. Do you see anybody calling KoF a 3D fighter? Being able to dodge a move is useless when all attacks are limited to a 2D plane.

You're not making any sense here at all. Um, no, 3d movement isn't just like rolling! That's absurd... 3d movement is much more useful and varied than rolling. I don't think that comparison makes much sense.

And anyway, why are you just comparing it to only Toshinden? VF1 isn't the only one of those mostly-2.5d fighters, after all. Last Bronx and DoA are 1997 releases, and 1997 brought us better 3d fighting games than the first Toshinden game...

I didn't get into details, but you want to know the REAL reason VF and it's ilk are 3D fighters while Toshinden is not? Toshinden uses hit boxes - 2D collection. Virtua Fighter uses hit cubes. 3D collision.

... No, you don't determine if a game is 2.5d or 3d based on the shape of the hitboxes. That's ridiculous. I'm sure many 2.5d platformers for instance have 3d hitboxes, that does not make them 3d platformers!

[j_factor]

The Saturn's certainly pretty good, but I don't know about great. Maybe, maybe not. But sure, I like the Saturn. It's not my favorite console, but it's certainly a good system with a bunch of good games.

You are sorely mistaken, sir. The Saturn is the greatest thing to happen in gaming history -- nay, in human history. It's high time you accept this fact and pay your respects.

I absolutely think that it doesn't make much sense at all to call VF and such full 3d fighting games. Not without, well, actual 3d movement.

Virtua Fighter does have actual 3D movement. Just because you can't press up to move sideways doesn't mean the game doesn't feature actual 3D movement. Watch a video of VF and you'll see the characters moving in all three dimensions.

Everything about Virtua Fighter is 3D. The characters are 3D. The environments are 3D. The collision detection is 3D. The movement is 3D. You are merely quibbling about the controls.

[TheSonicRetard]

I'm comparing VF and Toshinden because those are the only games which even remotely fit your bullshit claim. VF2, DOA, FV all have tons more moves which position your enemy around you in 3D. Not surprisingly, someone who doesn't know any moves seems completely oblivious about them. They have entire moves dedicated to swinging your opponent beside you. Or behind you. Or in front of you. They have moves which push you around your opponent and back off of them. These moves originated in VF1, which, surprise surprise, you are clueless about because the game is "not fun" and "too hard." The reason these statements aren't controversial is because no one takes your opinion on these games even remotely seriously because it's obvious that you're completely clueless about them.

You seem to think that the sidestep moves in Toshinden don't function just like the dodge attacks from KoF or Fatal Fury. Then, I ask, what do they do? What tacticle advantage do you have by doing these moves. How does the fighting even remotely change? The only use for this move is to step out of the way of an attack, which only travels on a 2D path and only collides in 2D space. There are no moves which hit into or out of the screen in toshinden because the collision type is that of a box - no z axis. Again, what does side stepping do? Tell me your strategy with a side step that makes it some non-superfluous move. Remember, you can't attack from the side in these games - as soon as you side step and the opponent's move is finished performing, they automatically rotate and orient themselves with you.

You keep claiming that other fighting games let you eventually move around in 3D and that they were major components of their gameplay - gameplay that stems from VF. The only reason moving around into and out of the screen in games like Soul Calibur or Tekken is worth a damn is because their moves use hit cubes and attack in all directions - exactly what Virtua Fighter did first, and precisely why the game was so ground breaking. Virtua Fighter eventually DID adopt these features, but only when the fundamental gametype changed - they stopped using small rings, ring-outs stopped appearing. Why? because A) They didn't need side stepping to position characters in 3D, B) because the ability to side-step lead to cheap victories by tricking your opponent out of the ring, and C) because VF already has an incredibly deep and complex counter and parry system that it doesn't need to resort to simply side-stepping as a means to counter.

Again, you're so clueless about these games that it's baffling that you hold onto your weak opinion. You know NOTHING about them, yet you feel compelled to lecture those of us who obviously understand the inticacies of these games as to why or why not they're not 3D? Do you even understand the stances within the game? The way they play into 3D space? The direction your character is facing - back to the screen with one foot forward, or chest to the screen with the other foot forward - plays heavily into the 3D zoning I described above. Again, because the attacks don't hit in 2D, but rather in all directions, these small, subtle zoning differences make a world of difference.

The collision type absolutely defines what sort of game it is. And I call incredible bullshit on any 2D platformer using a collision cube instead of a box. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's incredibly obvious to anybody reading this.