Soul Calibur

Flakvin

New Member
So, Soul Calibur... Simply awesome Dreamcast game. No better beat 'em up in my opinion. Great Graphics, Great Characters... Amazing Stuff ;)

What do you guys (and girls) think?

:eek:wned
 

Des-ROW

Member
First of all, I would not consider it a "beat'em up" game, it is basically a fighting game.

It is pretty good for a 3D fighting game, but it still cannot be compared to Team Ninja's Dead or Alive 2/3 or AM2's Virtua Fighter 4.

Character design is very good, the different quest modes are enjoyable, the graphics are very good as well, but I personally find both the music and the fighting system flawed, the music does not fit fighting games in general, and the system itself is not very good, especially with collisions.
 

Curtis

Member
I dunno...I found Soul Caibur to be much more enjoyable than any other fighter that I've played. But then, I'm generally crap with fighters 2D or 3D...
 

racketboy

Member
Originally posted by Des-ROW@Oct 6, 2003 @ 09:27 PM

It is pretty good for a 3D fighting game, but it still cannot be compared to Team Ninja's Dead or Alive 2/3 or AM2's Virtua Fighter 4.
Haven't played DOA3, but 2 gets blown out of the water by Soul Calibur

I found DOA games to be **eeh** -- its has too much style over substance.

VF4 is up there however
 

Runik

Staff member
I got a lot of fun playing this one. And for a five years old game, it still have awesome graphics ...
 

Ammut

New Member
I bought my DC late in its life cycle, but I was still blown away by Soul Calibur. I just kept thinking "this was a launch title?", "why hasn't the dc done better with games like this", and "Why the **** did Namco abandon the dreamcast?"

This game still holds up well today, let alone back in '99 when it was released. It still is the best weapons based fighter to date in my opinion. Good graphics, great presentation and style and an amzing fighting system brought this game together quite nicely.

If you don't put yourself in the timeframe, however, it is quite easy just to say what is so great about this game, its nothing spctacular. It really blew every fighter up to date out of the water if you look at the competition at that time. Sure, Des-ROW, you could compare it to Dead or Alive 3 and Virtual fighter 4, but why not compare it to Dead or Alive 1 and Virtual fighter 2 They are just as close to Soul calibur timewise. Comparing games that came out many years apart on the same scale (sc&vf4) doesn't give any chance to older games. Under such a system Outrun would be a piece of shit game... have you seen Rallisport challenge or Gt3?

Soul Calibur was one of the top titles that helped push off the dreamcast here on 9/9/99 and still is a high quality title today. It was great for its time and should be on any top dreamcast games list in my opinion.

---Ammut
 

Des-ROW

Member
Originally posted by Ammut@Oct 7, 2003 @ 05:27 PM

If you don't put yourself in the timeframe, however, it is quite easy just to say what is so great about this game, its nothing spctacular. It really blew every fighter up to date out of the water if you look at the competition at that time. Sure, Des-ROW, you could compare it to Dead or Alive 3 and Virtual fighter 4, but why not compare it to Dead or Alive 1 and Virtual fighter 2 They are just as close to Soul calibur timewise. Comparing games that came out many years apart on the same scale (sc&vf4) doesn't give any chance to older games. Under such a system Outrun would be a piece of shit game... have you seen Rallisport challenge or Gt3?
I was not particulary talking about the game graphics, I was specifically referring to the system itself, and I do not think that time is really something to be considered in this case. I would prefer either playing King of Fighters 98 or Samurai Spirits: Amakusa Kourin than playing Soul Calibur, both are older than Soul Calibur, and still better. Let's not even mention that they run on 16bit hardware, 4096 colors at 320x240.
 

Pyrite

New Member
Originally posted by Des-ROW+Oct 7, 2003 @ 11:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Des-ROW @ Oct 7, 2003 @ 11:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Ammut@Oct 7, 2003 @ 05:27 PM

If you don't put yourself in the timeframe, however, it is quite easy just to say what is so great about this game, its nothing spctacular. It really blew every fighter up to date out of the water if you look at the competition at that time. Sure, Des-ROW, you could compare it to Dead or Alive 3 and Virtual fighter 4, but why not compare it to Dead or Alive 1 and Virtual fighter 2 They are just as close to Soul calibur timewise. Comparing games that came out many years apart on the same scale (sc&vf4) doesn't give any chance to older games. Under such a system Outrun would be a piece of shit game... have you seen Rallisport challenge or Gt3?
I was not particulary talking about the game graphics, I was specifically referring to the system itself, and I do not think that time is really something to be considered in this case. I would prefer either playing King of Fighters 98 or Samurai Spirits: Amakusa Kourin than playing Soul Calibur, both are older than Soul Calibur, and still better. Let's not even mention that they run on 16bit hardware, 4096 colors at 320x240.[/b][/quote]

Kof 98 is only better than Soul Calibur to you, Soul Calibur is light years ahead of any of those games that you refered technically is way better but fun factor is another thing, its a matter of taste nothing more its like comparing Super Mario World with Mario 64.
 

Myname

Member
Fantastic game even five years on, but I wish they'd done the quest mode more like the 'Edge Master' mode in Soul Edge. The quest part of SC just doesn't pull me in as much.

It says a lot about the class of the game that so long after it's release, it's still the best example of converting an arcade game to a home console game ever IMO. Namco really went the extra mile and it paid off, so it's annoying to see that most haven't followed their example.

One weird thing I do find about it is that it's the only fighter (2d or 3d) where I find the joypad more comfortable to use than an arcade stick. Maybe it's because it really gives you a sense that you're fighting in 3d, rather than an occasionally shifting 2d plane..
 

Cloud121

Member
What the hell... How about I post here?

:lol:

I finally got to play this game for the first time about a month ago at a hotel. I played the arcade version.

MUCH MUCH better than Soul Calibur II!

Soul Calibur didn't feel like that much of a button masher to me, whereas SCII felt like one the whole way.

I still have yet to play the DC version....

:(

Although it's no Virtua Fighter. ;)
 

racketboy

Member
has anyone played Soul Calibur in the arcades?

maybe it was just my imagination, but the graphical polish on the arcade version didn't seem to be as nice as the DC version.

Or maybe it was just the monitor...
 

dj898

New Member
from what I read when they ported SC to DC they did bit of polishing up so DC version ended up looking better than the arcade version. The only exception was I believe the transparent effect on arcade that was changed to solid reflective on some characters costume...

cheers
 

ExCyber

Staff member
The arcade version of SC runs on System 12, the same system as Ehrgeiz and Tekken 3. AFAIK it's basically PSX with a higher CPU clock, more VRAM and a custom Namco sound system. So I'd be shocked if the Dreamcast version didn't look better.
 

Cloud121

Member
When I saw it at the hotel I was at, from a distance, it looked just as good as the DC version.

Even up close, at some points it may have looked just as good.

But once I started playing I noticed the PSX-like graphics.
 
Top