As other commenters said, there are many differences. I don't think these games should be compared like this. Saying it's straight up garbage is not something I agree with. If legion is too different for you then dynasty is the closest to sf2 style. Good thing the games are separate so we can play whatever. Perk system isn't permanent and you can change whenever before a fight, you can even mix up all styles if you feel like it. It doesn't look like it but sf3 has more weapon classes, more overall unarmed combat (though shadow had more moves compared to single specific faction) and shadow abilities opened up new possibilities. Weapon balance was not good, some weapons are just plain op, think tonfas, or kusarigama,my fav being axes though usually not regarded as op. Throws were very dangerous to attempt although very damaging.Ĭollision forced movement a lot, not allowing many opportunities to chain or prepare combos, which ironically had its good sides because everyone's jumpy and being ninja like but in the long run it can get annoying. Many weapons were unusable to the best degree unless you were positioned perfectly, the enemy won't exactly stand still. One of the things I disliked about sf2 is how inconsistent hitboxes were and how stupid collision mechanics can get. I loved the art style and how fluid the combat felt but we need to be honest, there are massive improvements in sf3.
0 kommentar(er)
