Not yet four years has passed, but check out how the latest SoulCalibur compares to SoulCalibur IV. Can you spot the difference? Hint: it's not just the graphics.
Assassin's Creed's Ezio and The Witcher's Geralt have been excellent guest characters in the Soul Calibur series.
Soul Calibur IV launched worldwide 15 years ago, bringing with it the best performance of the series to date.
Hell no. It was the start of the downfall (SCV) of the series. Huge downstep from the giant SCIII
Used to love this series, probably my favorite 3D fighter, perhaps together with the now also dead Dead or Alive (2-3-4), but as with so many games in the fighting genre, their short-term greed (season passes) has made me lose all interest, sadly …
Loved Number 2 and 3( loved all the solo modes like chronicle of the sword ) so was super hyped when 4 came out but the lack of single player content was disappointing. Still love soul calibur to this day though
2 was definitely the golden era of Soul Calibur for me. I was a bit conflicted about it at times because there were 3 different versions (I liked the PS2 version for controls, I liked playing as Spawn the most, and I thought the addition of Link was really awesome). Even so, the single player content was outstanding. Easily the most fun I've had with a fighting game, followed closely by Tekken 5's single player modes
Soulcalibur official Twitter: "Valiant Warriors - Soul Calibur V is taking its final curtain call on the stage of history and will be sunset on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 on June 19, 2023. The base game and all associated DLC will no longer be available for purchase. Thank you for your continued support."
This is why guest characters shouldn't be on the base roster. Im sure Ezio and the whole Assassin's Creed stuff license expired and that is why it is being removed. The same thing is probably going to happen to Soul Calibur 6 in 10 years.
I doubt a lot of people still played the worst SC game over 10 years after its release on dead consoles.
Right whoever wanted the game would've had it by now. Also physical is usually the better option
I've been mainly gaming on PC for 12 years now. I don't think there was ever a game that was actually taken away from me.
Even the multiplayer-focused games, with their servers typically being taken down, you can still host your own.
Not sure why People are so against digital. You still need online infrastructure just to update your games or to patch them. You're stuck to online/digital one way or another.
Most games play just fine without an internet connection. There are also other reason aside from preservation, digital games are often more expensive (at least the one I'm buying) than what you can find through deals in stores. But most of all I just like to be able to actually own the games as physical objects, being able to lend them out etc. And be assured that I can still play them in the future. Sure you can probably emulate them, but I prefer to play on console and I'd rather play an actual copy than an emulation anyway.
I'm not against digital in itself, I just don't want to be forced to go digital because the physical option is taken away. Just give people the option to either get it physically or digitally, that way everyone is happy and it's also the best way to preserve games for the future.
