Tekken 5 Online is now officially a better investment than

Other Games
1

…Virtua Fighter 5.

…YEAH yeah, I KNOW - if you PREFER VF5’s fighting style overall, it doesn’t matter how much more you get for your spending dollar.

But, the graphics, gameplay (modes, character customization (arguably), etc.) in Tekken 5 Online are absolutely on-par with VF5, the character and level selection in Tekken 5 Online downright dwarfs VF5, the addition of online gameplay (which is rather awesome if I do say so - pretty much just like DOA Online) is, well, it simply ISN’T there on VF5 (on the PS3 anyway) and the total price of $30 for Tekken 5 Online vs VF5’s still MORE expensive (yet reasonable in it’s own right) $40 …

…well, makes for what I consider to be a much better investment for a AAA fighting game.

2

The character “selection” in Tekken has always dwarfed Virtua Fighter, that has never meant anything before, why would you bring it up now? VF has never had ANY clones in it’s roster, Pai and Lau in the original were about as close to being clones as has even been the case, but from VF2 foreward the series has been completely unrivaled in terms of each character playing completely distinct. And as if that wasn’t remarkable enough, no series, 2D or 3D, has EVER been as well balanced as the VF games all around.

One good fanboy post deserves another… :anjou_happy:

3

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Soulcalibur_IV.jpg/255px-Soulcalibur_IV.jpg

That is all.

:anjou_love:

4

Ahahaha how could anyone claim there is a better fighter than VF5?

Too slow on yer fingers boy?!

5

[quote=“Heretic Agnostic”]The character “selection” in Tekken has always dwarfed Virtua Fighter, that has never meant anything before, why would you bring it up now? VF has never had ANY clones in it’s roster, Pai and Lau in the original were about as close to being clones as has even been the case, but from VF2 foreward the series has been completely unrivaled in terms of each character playing completely distinct. And as if that wasn’t remarkable enough, no series, 2D or 3D, has EVER been as well balanced as the VF games all around.

One good fanboy post deserves another… :anjou_happy:[/quote]

The amount of complete move-set clones in Tekken 5 isn’t as intense as it has been in the past. If we were talking about Tekken Tag, I’d be happy to acknowledge the redundencies.

However, what I’m talking about in this thread - as noted in the post title is “investment”. Getting the most BANG for one’s buck … and while I’ve always liked the Virtua Fighter series … I’m continually dissapointed by the lack of new character additions per game, not to mention the lack of options and lack of online play on the most recent series entry on the PS3.

When I first made the post I was referencing the original MSRP that VF5 dropped with - $60. However, now that it’s $40, I think that it IS a better value, but the extra options in Tekken 5 Online still edge it out as a better INVESTMENT with long-term entertainment payout.

I’m not trying to say that one game is better than the other, but if you minimize the games to genre specific 2 player 3D fighting games on the PS3, regardless of which you think has a better “fighting system” or “unique characters” it’s hard to argue that the amount of “stuff” in Tekken doesn’t make $30 (and no gas or bus fare spent driving to a store to pick it up!!) a better dollar-for-dollar purchase.

6

[quote=“Gehpnaet”]Ahahaha how could anyone claim there is a better fighter than VF5?

Too slow on yer fingers boy?![/quote]

Once again, you’re all missing the point.

I’m not saying that one “fighter” is “better” than the other (which would mean that one game has a superior fighting system / play control, and that is simply TOO RELATIVE to make a judgement on).

I’m saying that you get MORE STUFF FOR YOUR MONEY with Tekken 5 Online on the PSN.

MORE STUFF (characters, levels, online play, etc.) + LESS MONEY + DIRECT DOWNLOAD = BETTER LONG TERM INVESTMENT

So, yes, let’s all keep ignoring what I’m claiming.

7

Well the amount of “stuff” you get is also relative.A game can have more detailed scenarios than the other.A game might have more moves,combos,throws than the other.A game can have more options to customize your character than the other.A game can have more FMVs than the other.

So in the end what does it matter and how exactly can you quantify content?What is the criteria?etc

8

Gehpnaet makes a good point - it really is subjective. While some value number of characters, others value depth of gameplay. Tekken 5 is cheaper, but to some, the reduced price does not make up for the difference in the perceived quality. To each his own - both are great games!

9

[quote=“Gehpnaet”]Well the amount of “stuff” you get is also relative.A game can have more detailed scenarios than the other.A game might have more moves,combos,throws than the other.A game can have more options to customize your character than the other.A game can have more FMVs than the other.

So in the end what does it matter and how exactly can you quantify content?What is the criteria?etc[/quote]

I think it’s much easier to quantify “content” as being based in value than comparing two different games with similar “game styles” yet, both within the same genre, than trying to discern which “style” is worth more to the entire general populace of “gaming consumers”.

While you may not agree, I think it’s both logical, and that there are precedents already set not just in the game world, but in all areas of retail - that when comparing two similar items, the greater quantity that you get of any given item, especially at a lower cost, constitutes the concept of “greater value”.

Two bags of apples - one containing 20 Granny Smith apples at .25 cents each, would be a greater value than the other bag of 15 Red Delicious apples at .75 cents each, regardless of the minor variances in taste. (They’re still apples the same way that Tekken and Virtua Fighter are in the same game genre … it’s not like I’m comparing Virtua Fighter to The Legend of Zelda)

Sure, that “value” is STILL subject to personal preference, and yes, my thread title is largely MY personal opinion, but, I think it’s really difficult to argue with the concept that when you have two similar products, and when the one that costs less has more content, that you’re getting “more for your money”.

If you don’t agree, then we’ll just agree to disagree.

10

You need to see the $30+ apples they sell in Japan.

/Nevermind the $80 melons…

11

As far as art is concerned (books,movies,paintings,games,music etc) I personally don’t believe in the “greater value” concept.

I mean do you think you get more value for your money if you buy a 12 track metal album (band A) or a 5 track metal album (band B)?

Depends on your likes and dislikes right?

The concept of “greater value” only works for uneducated consumers but I believe the people forcing that idea into their heads are irresponsible and evil :stuck_out_tongue:

imagines some guy at Toys R Us convincing little Lenny that FF7 has “greater value” than PDS because it’s 40 hours+ long

:anjou_sad:

12

So Frankie, (just to turn the screw a little tighter)… would that make it “official” that Final Fantasy VII is a better investment than Panzer Dragoon Saga?

It’s always fun to find out what the true limits of one’s objectivity are…

EDIT: Besides, one thing you’ve completely failed to mention, which is relevant since you’ve made price an issue, is that Tekken 5 Online is still based on Tekken 5. It’s 30 bucks because it doesn’t cost so much to update the visuals in a vs fighter and pad the roster with some clones that no one expects to be balanced.

EDIT - EDIT: And who in their right mind would buy VF5 on PS3 at this stage anyway? Assuming they had a 360, which… any gamer hard-core enough to care about VF5 in the first place, who had a PS3 but not a 360, isn’t in their right mind so… shrug

13

[quote=“Gehpnaet”]As far as art is concerned (books,movies,paintings,games,music etc) I personally don’t believe in the “greater value” concept.

I mean do you think you get more value for your money if you buy a 12 track metal album (band A) or a 5 track metal album (band B)?

Depends on your likes and dislikes right?

The concept of “greater value” only works for uneducated consumers but I believe the people forcing that idea into their heads are irresponsible and evil :stuck_out_tongue:

imagines some guy at Toys R Us convincing little Lenny that FF7 has “greater value” than PDS because it’s 40 hours+ long

:anjou_sad:[/quote]

Well, you don’t believe in the concept of “greater value” in games, etc.

There lies the impenetrable wall in our agreement to disagree.

Personally, I enjoy getting more “stuff” for my money, especially when it’s a fighting game that doesn’t have a narrative “quest” (like RPG’s or Action/Adventure games that can clock in an average hourly limit to complete).

If I’m supposed to enjoy a fighting game for any more amount of time than it takes to beat the main column of characters and main boss, then I’ll need it to have an above average amount of characters, fighting modes, time trials, and if possible - online play. While VF5 has some of those, Tekken 5 has more.

Just as I did in my very first post, I compared the two games, took stock of what you get in each, and made a financial assessment as to what I consider to be a “greater value” or “investment”.

Sorry to hear that you don’t believe in it … and that’s your prerogative, but I don’t at all think that that nullifies the concept of “getting more for ones money”, or makes my assessment of the two games any less correct.

14

[quote=“Heretic Agnostic”]So Frankie, (just to turn the screw a little tighter)… would that make it “official” that Final Fantasy VII is a better investment than Panzer Dragoon Saga?

It’s always fun to find out what the true limits of one’s objectivity are…

EDIT: Besides, one thing you’ve completely failed to mention, which is relevant since you’ve made price an issue, is that Tekken 5 Online is still based on Tekken 5. It’s 30 bucks because it doesn’t cost so much to update the visuals in a vs fighter and pad the roster with some clones that no one expects to be balanced.

EDIT - EDIT: And who in their right mind would buy VF5 on PS3 at this stage anyway? Assuming they had a 360, which… any gamer hard-core enough to care about VF5 in the first place, who had a PS3 but not a 360, isn’t in their right mind so… shrug[/quote]

Well, I’m not really the one with the “objectivity” issue, since I never really attempted to qualify which game was “better” in anything other than cost/long term investment…and I never questioned the “state of anybody’s mental health” in making any purchase.

Let’s go over this one more time, and regardless of whether or not you “agree with the concept / believe it’s possible in art/music/games, etc.” maybe it’ll be clearer for the sake of this debate, which frankly, I was willing to just let go.

When comparing two similar products, in this case two 3D fighters on the same video game system, more content for a lower cost equals greater value for dollars spent. Why is that? Because more content (including online play with global rankings) adds to the universal longevity of the product. (ie, how long an average gamer can play it before becoming bored with everything there is to do in it.)

Okay, that’s as crystal clear as I can make my assessment of the two games.

PLEASE take note that I’m not saying that Tekken 5 has a superior fighting system than Virtua Fighter 5, I’m not saying that one is a better CRAFTED product, as that’s ALWAYS going to come down to which series you enjoy more … I’m simply trying to quantify which game is a better financial investment. And you seem to keep getting “hung up” on the fact that you find VF5 to be superior in it’s mechanics.

Even if it is, which I’m not arguing, that doesn’t make it a greater content-based-value, based on my equation, which is very much a standard model in retail. “Get more for your money” isn’t a term that I coined…it’s been around longer than video games, much less PS3.

Now. Moving forward…you’re specifically asking if Final Fantasy 7 is a greater “value” than Panzer Dragoon Saga?

I suppose you take me for some kind of game collecting slouch …

That’s really ALMOST a loaded question, as the games are on different systems, while both fall into the RPG genre - have distinctly different gameplay styles (turn based vs. realtime) and have FAR different production runs, rarity, and current used “market values”.

To look at it from a standpoint of “getting more for one’s money”, I think it’s fair to say that regardless of which you hold in high regard for aesthetics, mechanics, design, story, or any other “artistic” quality, both are considered classics, and both are well regarded amongst classic gamers. We’re not comparing a game with a fanbase of FF7 to a stinker like Beyond the Beyond.

So, putting aside “personal preference” (between the two games I have none anyway, since I don’t really play RPGs) to find the greater dollar-for-dollar “value” you simply need to look at which game will cost less and provide the most content (the same formula that I applied to Tekken and VF on the PS3) … and that’s where the decision can easily be made in your requested contest.

FF7 can be purchased used for a MUCH lower price than Panzer Dragoon Saga (FF7 seems to have an average complete used price of about $20 with some much lower than that, where Panzer Dragoon can end in auction around $150 in any condition), and if my memory serves, FF7 has a much longer total play time than Saga (this likely due to it’s reliance on random turn based battles, larger player parties, and extensive leveling up).

So, yes, dollar-for-dollar, hour-for-hour, FF7, appears to be a greater “value” than Panzer Dragoon Saga.

I ASSUME that you hold Panzer Dragoon Saga in high regards due to it’s excellent aesthetic, storytelling, graphics, and iconic Saturn swan-song performance, and that my assessment of the two games is some type of “nonsense” (or more likely “sacrilege”) … because, frankly, most people don’t mention that game if they don’t already think it’s the greatest thing since 4-Meg Ram Carts.

But before you retort with something along the lines of “What person in their right mind would say FF7 is better than Panzer Dragoon Saga?” … PLEASE keep in mind that I’m not passing judgment on EITHER game for it’s content, ONLY for it’s value, and when I’m considering value, I’m thinking about the median, average gamer, not the hard-core import-collecting, willing to drop $150 on a 30 hour Saturn game gamer.

15

You are missing the point.When I mentioned FF7 I really only had the number of hours needed to complete it in mind.

But to me a longer game doesn’t necessarily have more content.Like you said being repetitive can greatly increase the “longevity” of a game.

But my personal opinion is that since I the combat system in VF5 is something with much more depth than the one in Tekken5, THAT makes it have greater value because in the end that makes it much more “replayable” and “explorable”.

More depth = more value

16

[quote=“Gehpnaet”]You are missing the point.When I mentioned FF7 I really only had the number of hours needed to complete it in mind.

But to me a longer game doesn’t necessarily have more content.Like you said being repetitive can greatly increase the “longevity” of a game.

But my personal opinion is that since I the combat system in VF5 is something with much more depth than the one in Tekken5, THAT makes it have greater value because in the end that makes it much more “replayable” and “explorable”.

More depth = more value[/quote]

Okay, you see the depth of FV5’s fighting system having greater value, and I see the gaming content of Tekken 5 having greater value.

Both are subjective viewpoints, neither are really wrong, and both have logical merit.

We’re not going to convince each other of anything further, so, let’s leave it at that.

I’m not like, going to change my thread title or anything.

17

The main reason I personally can’t relate to the argument, is that - if I’m not mistaken - it assumes that the more time spent with the game, the better the investment.

The question is, is this necessarily a better investment of your time, than a shorter (but more polished and enjoyable) experience?

For me, this is one reason why I prefer PDS to FFVII.

It’s less clear for Virtua Fighter vs Tekken, as I prefer the Soul Calibur series over either of them, and I haven’t played any recent incarnations of these games.

18

[quote=“Solo Wing Dragon”]The main reason I personally can’t relate to the argument, is that - if I’m not mistaken - it assumes that the more time spent with the game, the better the investment.

The question is, is this necessarily a better investment of your time, than a shorter (but more polished and enjoyable) experience?

For me, this is one reason why I prefer PDS to FFVII.

It’s less clear for Virtua Fighter vs Tekken, as I prefer the Soul Calibur series over either of them, and I haven’t played any recent incarnations of these games.[/quote]

Well, if you’re spending an average to large sum of money on a game, wouldn’t you want it to be a “good investment”?

And wouldn’t a “good investment” be something that you’d be ABLE to or DESIRE to (not be REQUIRED to) spend a very large amount of time playing without it becoming boring, un-challenging, or generally un-fun?

In a fighting game like VF5 or Tekken, with the addition of more characters, game options, extras, unlock-ables, modes, and online gameplay options, it’s fair to speculate that one would spend more time playing the game - unlocking extras, completing the game with each character to see each ending, mastering different character moves, finishers, playing online for a higher rank, etc …

… of course, as it’s becoming painfully obvious, the concept of “value” is EXCEPTIONALLY subjective, and some people just don’t seem to see “more stuff” as “greater value for one’s money”.

Their prerogative.

But seriously, in this generation of game systems, if ANY fighting game doesn’t add MORE to it’s formula than what it had in the previous console generation … MORE characters, MORE options, MORE levels, MORE moves, ONLINE play, etc. is it REALLY worth continuing to invest in?

19

[quote=“FrankieViturello”]Well, if you’re spending an average to large sum of money on a game, wouldn’t you want it to be a “good investment”?

And wouldn’t a “good investment” be something that you’d be ABLE to or DESIRE to (not be REQUIRED to) spend a very large amount of time playing without it becoming boring, un-challenging, or generally un-fun?[/quote]

Absolutely - the thing is (as you mentioned yourself), the term “good investment” is quite subjective. If were talking solely about fighting games, then generally adding more gameplay modes and levels isn’t going to make the game any worse. However, if there is a significant selection of gameplay options to begin with, and gameplay is of a higher quality (again, almost completely subjective), then the replay value, and therefore the length of the game, will speak for itself.

As for the RPG comparison, I’m actually going to veer slightly away from the current discussion for a moment and argue that making a story game too long can actually make the game worse. If stretch a story out for longer than necessary, then in a way, you’re forcing the player to invest more of their time than necessary to get to the end of the game.

Rather than simply using the same formula, and adding more of the same, I’d like to see some fresh ideas rather than just incrementing what we already have.

20

[quote=“Solo Wing Dragon”]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Soulcalibur_IV.jpg/255px-Soulcalibur_IV.jpg

That is all.

:anjou_love:[/quote]

firstly… is that real =O

secondly, i prefer soul calibur 1 over its sequels, and VF and tekken 5

how would you think soul calibur compares to the latest fighting games out? even tho it was a first wave DC game i still havn’t found a fighting game to compare to it