Videogamer: Street Fighter 4 Review

Videogamer writes: "It's been just under 12 years since the last proper Street Fighter sequel. That game was 1997's Street Fighter III: New Generation. Now, that long wait is over. Now, Street Fighter IV is upon us.

To look back at Street Fighter III and ask what's new seem pointless, not only because it came out so long ago, but because there have been so many iterations of the series since: 2nd Impact: Giant Attack, 3rd Strike: Fight for the Future, Marvel vs. Capcom, Marvel vs. Capcom 2, Capcom vs. SNK, Capcom vs. SNK 2... For those oblivious to the passionate tournament scene it's all a bit... confusing. Indeed, comparisons with a single Street Fighter game are equally pointless. Instead, Street Fighter IV is best compared with all of them."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
DelbertGrady3534d ago (Edited 3534d ago )

What's new except for the celshaded graphics? I sense that most reviewers feel obligated to give Street Fighter games a high score no matter what. They have to in order not to upset the huge SF fanbase. You see them criticising games like Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2 for not being original and whatnot, then in turn they praise Street Fighter IV for it's 10 year old gameplay mechanics. I'm sure SF IV is great if you're a fan of SF, but the reviewers continually lack consistency and integrity in their reviews.

Note that this is not aimed at videogamer in particualar, but reviewers in general.

syphenlimit3534d ago

I disagree with the point you made, because Capcom, with Street Fighter IV, (it was clear from the announcement onwards and when frst media was available), did not set out to make a new game. They had already tried that with SFIII, and they lost some of the original SFII players in the process, who found that too technical and complicated - that's a bit of what originality got them. But, they knew that SFII worked.

So, while Capcom has brought in a lot of elements from the whole series, they've also successfully (judging by commercial response, at least) gotten back to that bedrock of play that everyone can get into and enjoy, still they've retained a level of depth for those that want it to be on that level.

That's an incredible balancing act to pull off. Especially where the core formula for success of gameplay flow is measured by some, to individual frames and precise hitboxes. It supports and resonates well with players of then and now. The mis-steps mentioned by videogamer, aren't really technical shortcomings, but more personal preference - so not everyone will encounter those.
So, from all I have read, the level of praise that is being received is warranted, (I mean, even to get the online game right deserves credit for them), I think the vg review is sound and conveys the opinion with an appropriate score.
I'm really looking forward to this thing when it's out.

Sitdown3534d ago

that reviewers understand that there is only so much you can do with a fighting game....versus a fps. I mean you knock Fight Night for not being original? Madden? Fifa? NBA? MLB? But before all that...I think I would need to play SF IV before trying to say a reviewer is off.

PureGamer3534d ago

Reviews have been in the drain for years now mate.

Still ill be picking this up big SF fan.

AndyA3534d ago

Try this review:

This guy knows his Street Fighter.

exnor3534d ago

This reviewer knows his Street Fighter better than you know your own nose mate.