Street Fighter fans, do you acknowledge or ignore SF4 and SF5?

[NPham2005]

SF (for Street Fighter) (has an "original era" and a "revival era". The original era was from 1987 to 1997 (or 1999, if you count updates), which spanned the release of SF1 to SF3. The revival era (2008-present) began with the release of SF4. You can choose to acknowledge or ignore the "revival era" SF games.

Think of SF like Looney Tunes. For Looney Tunes, the original era (1930-1969) was when LT (for Looney Tunes) cartoons were originally made. The revival era (1987-present) is when LT cartoons started being made again.

So anyway,

"Original Era" SF:
1. SF1
2. SF2 series
3. SFA series
4. SF3 series

"Revival Era" SF (as of 8/5/2016):
1. SF4 series
2. SF5

So, I'm curious: Do you acknowledge or ignore the "revival era" SF games, SF4 and SF5?

[celerystalker]

This is the first time I've ever heard this terminology used. I guess there was a short gap of a few years between III and IV, but there were still crossover games in there, so I never really considered there to be a separation.

That said, I can't quantify games by eras, but rather individual taste in specific entries. I don't care for the original. I prefer SFII Turbo to Super or The World Warrior, Champion Edition, etc., but they're all solid games. I like the Alphas, but Alpha 2 is my go to of the series. The various iterations of SF III are okay, but I'm not a huge fan of any of them. SFIV was so ridiculously easy that I didn't find it fun to play, and I prefer the sprites of older games for a fighting game.

I guess I don't ignore any, but some are better than others. I own most console versions of the franchise, and played the arcade games a bunch, but really preferred to branch into other series for my fighting fix over time. Each game is judged on its own merits to me, as I just don't feel a significant time separation to think of it as separate eras.

[Tanooki]

I find it hard to ignore, but I wish I could with SF4 as it's just plain bad. Speaking as a 1P player the AI routines against difficulty levels are straight up broken. Training mode or story, you can go up against lv4 or lv8 difficulty and get smeared by some physic mind reading shit the computer will do, or it's a fair fight straight up along the difficulty level which never sat well with me. Coupled with all the added stupid bs added for counters and counter to counters making it more complicated than necessary outside of a character addition (like Crimson) or two I dislike it a lot. SF5 I can't speak for, not bothered with it so far, but my understanding is they went more back to the SF2/SF3 style of ramped up difficulty and non mind reading shitty AI plus they took the convoluted crap down a step. I saw some pros were happy and others were bitching it was made too easy being less complex so I think there are factions within factions on those who like or hate this new generation set of 4 and 5.

I never was huge on SF1, it's rough and touchy to pull off basic special attack motions which was a shame as it's decent otherwise. SF2, SFAlpha2, and SF3 Third Strike I enjoyed most. I do in a way see them as their own franchise within a franchise since they handle similar mechanics and AI subroutine behaviors based on challenge level and I respect that. But does that make me ignore the newer entries...nah. I just won't pay for the 4th one ever again as it is just has some poorly made parts for the single player gamers like myself and it's overly complex it can scare off many with all the added fluff too. I can appreciate it for the new characters and story it added, just not from a gameplay loner perspective.

[kupomogli]

Back in the day I was never a fan of Street Fighter and when I did play it, it was probably the same way as most people casually played it. Nothing but high super moves and jump kicks. Fast forward to the PS2 when having to actually really get into games other than platformers, action/adventure games, and RPGs, I've since become way better in fighting games and I actually think Street Fighter is one of the worst in the genre. On a technical level the series is one of the best, but it's just too limited, even the latest ones.

The only Street Fighter games I've played though is 2/Turbo/Super/Hyper, Apha 3, and Street Fighter 4/Super/AE. When going back to them, I actually think the classic Street Fighter 2 franchise which is the most limited is the worst, with Street Fighter Alpha 3 being the one I've enjoyed the most, even when going back to. Street Fighter 4 is the best game with the quick steps, cancelling, and power attacks adding a bit more variety to the game, it just doesn't have that awesome world tour mode.

Street Fighter doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, Bloody Roar, or Ehrgeiz imo. Those are 3D fighters though, so it's a bit unfair to compare right? I also prefer Playstation All Stars, Mortal Kombat, Garou Mark of the Wolves, and all the Arc System Works games. Not Super Smash Bros though, after getting good, at fighters on an intermediate level, that game is just far to limited and repetitive with around half of most characters movesets, already limited, being practically unusable because of how unsafe they are or other reasons.

If you ask me, Street Fighter 5 didn't bomb because it was unfinished, but the same reason that everyone got burnt out on Street Fighter almost 20 years ago where they limited their releases. Everyone got burnt out on Capcom releasing the same game over and over again with almost no differences other than a new set of characters they wouldn't use, except with Street Fighter 5 there were even fewer characters at launch than vanilla Street Fighter 4. I think Street Fighter 5 still has less characters.