A Few Things About Street Fighter 4
Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 10:24PM Street Fighter 4 is finally here, with several perfect 100/100 reviews. Here's a few things I noticed about the game.
In ranked matches, you can see the opponent's name before the match and kick them or reject the challenge. This allows you to cherry pick who you fight and negates the entire purpose of a ranked match.
In ranked matches (well, all matches) there is no double blind character select. This means the optimum strategy is often to wait until the opponent chooses first so you can counter-pick. This is a very annoying situation.
When lag inevitably happens in an online fighting game, there are different ways to handle it. Some SF4 matches I played had large input delay, maybe as high as 15 frames. This is the time between your button press and seeing the effect happen. Adding input delay is really the worst way to handle lag. GGPO's amazing netcode shows that avoiding input delay and hiding lag in other ways is the way to go. That technology has been readily available for years, so it's disappointing to feel input delay in an online match.
The button config screen is "the wrong way." The right way is for the screen to list functions, then you press the buttons you want to assign. The wrong way is to list buttons, then you scroll through lists of functions to assign. The reason that one way is right and the other way is wrong is pretty clear when you watch people try to configure buttons. I've had to watch what must be thousands of people do this over the years in all the tournaments I've helped run (not to mention local gatherings). When the config screen says "Jab" and requires you to press the button you want, you just press the upper left button on your stick (or whatever button on your gamepad). This is a one-step process. But if the screen lists "X" and then requires you to scroll through functions until you find jab, it requires a two step process. You have to know which button on your controller is labeled "X." When this screen is the right way, no one has to know if the upper left button happens to be X or A or B or whatever else.
If you think this is negligible, you have never seen people set buttons. The wrong way turns what should be a 3 second task into a fairly confusing affair. Yes I know the wrong way allows you to have lots of functions in your list, but this can be done the right way also.
On to gameplay issues. The jumps have strange acceleration to them. While that's subjective, look at Zangief's jump that seems to have the acceleration of a flea. (Incidentally, why does his splash not stay out the whole time in the air?). Also, getting hit out of the air is extremely floaty, which means it takes unusually long to get back to a state where you can actually move again. This "moving in jello" feel is reinforced by many throws that have dead time at the end when it seems like you should be able to move (see Vega's for example).
The size of the stages is extremely large relative to the size of the characters. This helps runaway tactics.
Optimizing for the 1% rather than the 99% case. There's two examples, the first is tech recover (quick get up from a knock down). 99% of the time, I want to get up fast, but this is the action that requires button presses. Why not admit that getting up fast is the intent and make it default, unless the player holds down some buttons to get up slow? That's how it works for Robo-Ky in Guilty Gear, by the way. Incidentally, don't the two kinds of get up timing only lessen the importance of knockdown by allowing you mess up the attacker's timing a bit? Like the decision to have large stages, this seems not to favor offense.
Next is the 2-button throw, a bad idea in fighting games with 2D gameplay. 3D Fighting games are different beasts, so they are excused here, but note that even Dead or Alive offers a macro to turn its 2 button throw into a 1 button throw...and maps that macro to a face button by default. Anyway, 2 button throws solve a non-problem that no one has ever actually had. That's the problem of accidentally throwing and being sad about it. Street Fighter 2, Guilty Gear series, and Street Fighter Alpha 2 all demonstrated that 1 button throws work just fine and don't actually create any problems. Adding a second button press just adds complexity where it's not necessary, and helps nothing. (Edit: it does add a throw whiff which could be a good thing, but simpler is still better...)
Other non-problems we might solve in 2D fighting games would be to make blocking 1 button and jumping 1 button (each are traditionally zero buttons). We certainly could add those button presses, but it would make more sense to reduce the button presses to as few as possible: zero to jump, zero to block, and one to throw.
It's especially unfortunate that Cammy's hooligan throw requires a 2-button throw in the middle to complete it. Why exactly is this necessary, rather than one button?
2 button throws actually introduce the problem of kara-throws, a bug from SF3 that we now have again in SF4. This is when you cancel a forward moving attack a frame or two into it with a throw command in order to greatly extend your throw range. Do the designers want a long throw range or do they not? If they don't kara throws shouldn't be in the game. If they do, then base throw ranges should be extended for all players, not just the ones who input a difficult command.
Another similar bug is the chain combo cancel bug. As an example, consider Sakura. Low short does cancel into special moves. But if you rapid fire the low short (do it 2 or 3 times quickly each one cancels the last) then you CANNOT cancel the last hit into a special. I'm not saying this is a problem at all, necessarily. This restriction is there for good reason: to prevent the game from degenerating into low short -> big damage stuff. It would make more sense to give players a reason to start combos with bigger moves sometimes. Guilty Gear does a great job of this by reducing your entire combo's damage by 20% for each low short. (Hey Guilty Gear players, I know I'm simplifying there.)
Ok so what's the problem, sounds good that you can't do low short, low short, special move, right? But you can do it. If you make the last short a link rather than a chain (do it slowly, but not so slow that it doesn't combo) then you can cancel it into a special move. So really, you can get around this restriction if only you have high dexterity skills. Now, this is also true in ST and SF HD Remix, but that's not so much intent as what we were stuck with. For an entirely new game, I'm surprised to see this still there. I'm even more surprised to see combos that use this in the challenge mode, meaning the developers know about it and accept that low short is really this powerful. SF4 Sakura, for example, can low short, (link), low short, ex shoryken, ultra. She can do a lot more than that, but you get the idea.
This issue of rapid fire moves using a bug to cancel into specials is actually minor compared to the next topic though, a topic that will dominate much of the game: link combos in general. The game is filled with difficult 1-frame links. These are moves that just barely combo into each other with 1/60th of a second timing. In high level play, players will master these and they become common. So Sakura doing low jab, (link), low fierce, short helicopter kick, (link) low short, ex shoryuken, ultra for 50% will be common. One friend of mine already does this combo in real matches after only 2 days of playing, as well as other scarily damaging combos off low short that involve hard links.
Other examples, Ryu can now link low short, low jab, low forward. He can also link low strong, low strong, low roundhouse. Linking is the name of the game, which actually makes the game closer to CvS2 than to 3s or ST. The effect of all these links is to hide the actual game behind an impenetrable wall of execution. If you practice (ie, develop 1p skills unrelated to strategy and unrelated to interaction with the opponent) then you gain access to the real game, a game of high damage off small hits, but only for the dexterous.
Of course some level of this is inherent in just about every fighting game. It's a question of how far to turn the knob towards 1p activities and away from strategy. Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo has dexterity requirements of course, but winning tournaments while using zero or very few link combos is entirely possible. That simply isn't the main focus of the game. The existence of many, many new links in SF4 shifts the focus toward that though.
Next up, we have ultras. All I'll really say here is that in real matches I find myself having to pump qcf x 2 over and over looking for the right moment to do the ultra. When I find that moment, I have to complete the qcf x 2 command with PPP. Let's hope I don't press PP in those moments, because that command gives me a super, which is an entirely different move. I'm not sure what qcf x 2 + PPP is doing in a "casual friendly game" in the first place.
Then there's focus canceling. The idea of paying half your meter to cancel a move is taken from Guilty Gear where it was called roman canceling. It's a wonderful mechanic in Guilty Gear, by the way. The command in that game is press any three buttons--I use PPP. This is actually pretty natural because when using a joystick, your right hand's natural resting position is on those PPP buttons usually. In SF4, the roman cancel command is medium punch + medium kick, then tap forward, forward. This is really awkward and a whole lot of inputs for one decision (the decision to roman cancel). I wish I could map this command to PPP or something, rather than having to do button presses AND double taps. There's many combos involving this that you'll need to be able to do to be competitive, so I'm not sure why this ended up requiring so many extraneous inputs.
When I read about the 100/100 scores, I see again and again how "simple and elegant" the game is. Two super meters, a 3-tier focus attack system, and all the complications above seem to fly in the face of that. Even more though, I hear how "casual friendly" it is. This is deeply mysterious and I'm not sure why this so often claimed. Not every game has to be casual friendly, so it would seem more honest to just explain how casual unfriendly all these things are. Qcf x 2 +PPP all the time, extra button presses to throw, extra button presses to roman cancel, and many, many extremely difficult link combos work in concert to create that impenetrable wall of execution between you and the actual game (the interaction between you and your opponent). I wish we could get rid of all this stuff and focus more on the gameplay itself.
Edit: I forgot to mention two more things. First, the unlocks. I'm very surprised to see basic functionality of the multiplayer game--the characters--locked behind tedious 1p tasks. I had to pay a tax of fighting the computer on easiest for long time just to get the core features of the game. (I did this picture-in-picture while watching episodes of Frasier.) I'm fully aware that casual players love unlocks, and that's why non-essential content like costumes, movies, icons, and titles are all perfectly fine to give as rewards for playing 1p content. But the *characters*? This steps on the toes of those wanting to play the multiplayer game by making our first experience with the game a very boring one. I wanted to hire a MMO gold farmer to do this for me.
And the last thing I should have mentioned here is that despite all these many problems, there is fun to be had in the game...
Reader Comments (275)
what he really hates is that they shortened the title of the game
he wanted this one to be called Hyper Super Street Fighter 2 ZX Turbo The World Warrior Hyper Champion Fighting Edition Grand Master ULTIMATE CHAMPIONSHIP Challenge The Tournament League Battle
I really enjoyed your article, Sirlin. I wanted to disagree with you on small technical details but I'm sure that would be a waste of time because you know more about competitive SF than I. I definitely agree that this SF4 is not as casual or new player friendly as I was lead to believe. After playing this for the first time along with some friends who have never played SF before, I doubt they would have really enjoyed it had I not been there to explain some of the underlying mechanics of the game to them. I was also frustrated that the game begins with such a limited cast.
Great post, Sirlin. I agree with everything you wrote. I'm a long time SF2/Turbo player, and did not like 3S at all. SF4 plays more like EX2/3S than SF2, which is why I still prefer Super Turbo and Alpha 2. Execution of moves is simple, but does not sacrific or over simplify gameplay.
I find this a very poor review of SF4, filled with what seems more like spite than an actual unbaised review of the game.
1) First you complain about having to do QCF x 2, PPP. Then in the VERY next paragraph you talk about how you wish you could map the focus attack to PPP "because your fingers rest naturally on those buttons". Well if it's so easy, then why's it so hard?
2) The 2-button arrangements are for players that like to play with sticks. Many fighting games (3S) have shown that this is a viable option for a 6 button stick configuration to add more "universal moves" than just the standard 6. It's just your opinion that people shouldn't be able to press 2 vertically placed buttons to use a move. Other players like the option to tell the game when its a throw and when it's a Fierce up close.
3) Your descriptions of the mashing jabs vs link combos is correct, but what's not to say that it was the intent of the game? Anybody can sit down and mash some buttons, wiggle the stick or pad, and pay attention can have some fun. But the master players will be the ones sitting down to learn the timing of every combo and move in the game. This is what "master players" are looking for... you know, "In-depth gameplay".
Why shouldn't the system be setup where people who just mash in commands flub some kicks while expert players can time in moves just right. The argument that they get access to these all powerful combos goes against most fighting games out there. After long periods of time, players find these amazing strings into supers that ALWAYS do massive damage. Guilty Gear, Third Strike, King of Fighters (Pick your year), CvS2, MvC2...
If you personally don't like the direction of the game, that's one thing. But to bash in ideas that are coming in from another perspective and could be quite valid from a design aspect seems... well, rather childish. So with what I've seen, SF4 has achieved what the designer has wanted - easy to pick up and play, but some in depth stuff for the hardcore to master.
Chippy
Response by Sirlin: You completely misunderstand many points that have been asked and answered before. This is not a "review," it does not claim to be a review, nor does the word "review" appear anywhere in it. It's a list of things. It is not intended to tell you whether to buy the game, or what all the good and bad in the entire game is. And spite, ad hominem attack, you know the drill on that by now I hope. That is not any kind of response to why button config is screwy, why focus attack cancel is too many buttons, etc.
Already asked and answered is about ultras being PPP and me mentioning that focus attack cancel (roman cancel) could be PPP. That is not a contradiction, just a lack of understanding on your part. When you do qcf x 2 + PP then hit the third P a split second later accidentally, do you get the ultra? No, you get a super. It's because those commands overlap. In guilty gear, where the roman cancel command can be done with PPP, if press one of the P a few frames off, do you get roman cancel? Yes. For all the difficult things in guilty gear--and there are many--executing a roman cancel is not one. I never, ever miss those yet I have missed ultras over and over because of the very similar overlapping command.
As for the rest, making so many combos artificially difficult with strict link timing is not depth, and I don't see how you confuse it for depth. Also, even if that WERE depth rather than the 1p training exercise that it is, it still flies in the face of being "casual friendly." I hate to mention ST for the millionth time, but you don't have to low short, low low jab, low forward link to play Ryu in that game, but you do here. You don't have to low strong, low roundhouse link, but you do here. When you look at the road ahead of you in SF4, the road to improve and become a good player, it's filled with execution challenges unrelated to strategy (that other SF games had no need of, by the way), and that is not exactly a casual friendly approach. That is what I was pointing out. If multiple reviews had said "this game is actually really, really hard to play because of all the overlapping commands, extra button pushes, and strict timing on link combos that are necessary to play many characters well" that would be a different matter. I was pointing out the difference between "it's so easy and casual friendly" and the reality of the situation.
It's sad that posters like you are not able to participate in a discussion of game mechanics without claiming "spite" and other nefarious personal motives that are neither here nor there to the points at hand.
Capcom needs your help for a SF4 patch, Sirlin. They just might not know it yet. :)
If you want a game that is purely strategy/tactics then play chess. This is a VIDEO GAME it's meant to require physical skill, not just mental skill. Physical skill is a HUGE part of the enjoyment / reward. The best games (in any genre) reward both without having to sacrifice one for the other. It's that physical element that allows a video game to bridge the gap between a game like chess and a sport, without losing any of the tactical or strategic depth.
You talk about high physical skill as this impenetrable wall that blocks most people from the real game. But maybe the real game is just as much about climbing that wall as it is about what's on the other side? Maybe not everyone wants to compete in tournaments and go to LAN's and stuff as their end goal? Think of martial arts. Do most people really study them purely for self-defence / to actually fight/compete? Or playing an instrument. Does everyone who plays only do it because they want to be a professional musician or to write their own compositions? So what if it takes someone 2 years of playing to be able to land those difficult link moves consistently. They will be all the better for it, and feel a sense of improvement / accomplishment. That dexterity and timing skill can be used in other areas of their life too. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_fu_(term)#Translation_and_usage
In your playing to win you talk about mental constructs preventing scrubs from playing the real game, but instead playing their own agreed upon 'non-cheap' version of the game. Matchmaking if done correctly matches players at similar points of climbing that wall to the real game, so they're still playing the same game as each other. So what's the harm? Why sacrifice the physical skill at the top level of the game by making it purely tactical / strategic, just for the sake of those who probably wouldn't play "the real game" anyways if it was laid out simply for them?
Watch any classic Kung Fu movie...the young buck who has mastered the most advanced physical moves and techniques is always defeated effortlessly by the old master who also understands the inner principles. And that's how it will be in SF IV too with people who are talented button mashers and pull off those tricky link moves, but just get out-thought and out-played.
How can you have fighting games that don't feature dexterity / physical skill as a key component? Really what you are proposing is the limiting of fighting games as a truely competitive platform, in the same way that FPS gaming regressed as a competitive platform since realism-based tactical shooters shot up in popularity by flattening the physical skill curve and making it purely about tactics / strategy.
Response by Sirlin: I disagree with you completely, on a fundamental level, of course. I have also never claimed a fighting game should "not feature dexterity at all," but that there is no point in adding more dexterity requirements than the genre would naturally need. It's perfectly valid to make a fighting game without 1-frame links as part of bread-and-butter combos. That does not limit the strategy to get rid of those. Instead, it makes the game more strategic to get rid of them. I think what YOU are proposing is limiting the fighting game genre to a dexterity test, rather than a game focused on 2-player interaction. A game that's about 2-player interaction is a competition. A game that's about comparing your own 1p skills to someone else's is a contest. Fighting games include both concepts, and turning the dial TOWARD 1p skills and away from 2p interaction is a very boring proposition, indeed.
Thanks for the reply Sirlin i do understand the difference between the design and playing of the game.
Cheers!
SF4 is in no way casual. Hell, none of the Street Fighter games have been, right? ST was the closest, but it was still pretty complicated...
The input for focus attacks is really wonky... I can't personally think of a better place to put them, but I personally haven't been using FADC at all as Abel / Balrog. Going through the challenge modes, you can tell that the creators are fully aware of the fact that they want you to consistently pull off 1 frame links in order to deal with most confirmable, safe, and high damage combos the game has to offer.
I'd also like to add: After playing SF4, if I hop on Third Strike for a few games, my timing for crossups and jump ins are terrible. In SF4, every character rises and drops like a rock, yet when they're hit out of the air they're extremely floaty. It's awkward overall, although if you look past these parts the game can be pretty fun. I play a defensive boxer, and it's alot of fun for me. All I really have to do is confirm cr. jabs and shorts into headbutt > ultra, which is easy when all the competition wants to do is spam lariat / fierce uppercuts...
I'm not new to fighting games ,but I'm a SF beginner. Sounds strange, but I'm more familiar with Tekken and VF. I'm really impressed with SF4, and I' confused why many of these posts are claiming its not a friendly fighting game.
First off the defense is extremely accessible and effective in SF4. To me that's a key measure of a fighting game, and it doesn't get much easier than pushing the direction pad away, or down and away. There are many times, that if you slow down and watch your opponent you can block and retaliate easily.
Second is the thrill of jumping a fireball and kicking your opponent in the face. This move is so cool! I'm sure to SF players it doesn't matter, but to me its a big part of the game and simple to understand.
Third is making the other player jump and catching them defenseless in the air. This takes a little technique, but not much. Again, the satisfaction is high, and the technique is low.
What I'm trying to say is that links and cancels are beyond the base mechanics that make SF cool. I admit I never gave SF a chance because of the fireballs, but now I see that are an integral part of the fighting system.
I agree with Sirlin and the more I play SF4 the more i think it does need a patch. It's still pretty sad that Guilty Gear is still the most balanced fighting game out there(2d at least) The thing is I think Capcom went wrong with trying to recreate" SSF2 for the new age" Shoryukens take wayy to much damage on counter(and the priority is way too good),gief is way too powerful Vega and Gen is way too weak, the grab system is annoying,no airblocking,and Focus attack is way too impractile to ever be mastered and I also think SF4 won't last long in the tournament scene.
We'll see though only time can tell I mean look what time did for 3rd Strike.
Sirlin's comments are definitely true. Capcom, however, will most likely update these issues eventually.
What is rather striking though is that the game feels more like an EX Street Fighter for many players. The game should have been called Street Fighter EX 4 imo. However, since many players disliked the EX series, it may have damaged Capcom's marketing plans.
The game is more user friendly. It allows new players to get into the scene of Street Fighter. This was one of the obvious reasons for some of the game's mechanics. For example, reversals are easier to pull off. This makes harassing opponents less useful.
I agree with the whole grabbing aspects you present in your analysis.
The Ultra/Revenge System was unecessary. IMO, I find it extremely more useful than the regular super. The fact that you can also acquire about two ultra bars per match is somewhat ridiculous. More importantly, why should the losing player be rewarded by enabling some form of instant comeback? As mentioned earlier, harassing opponents (especially turtlers) becomes useless. Furthermore, ultras ruin the aspect of great comebacks that were displayed by famous players such as Valle and Umehara in ST and 3S. Players should have to work for their comebacks.
The balance of characters seems really off as well. Many of the famous shotos, for example, got priority. Look at Sagat as reference.
Focus attacks/absorbs seems relatively inefficient. When you focus block an attack, it takes awhile for your health to recover. It is easy for opponents to land a hit after a focus block; hence, the health you're supposed to recover is lost along with an additional chunk of health. The whole focus concept seems like a poor design of a modern version of 3S' parry system. In 3S, it made the game more competitive. If you parried, you could easily counter your opponent. However, if you didn't parry at the right time, you would be punished. SF4's focus seems to be of similar concept. But it punishes players who successfully focus block with the slow health recover or easy counters opponents make. The whole guard break addition was good though.
Capcom could have made effort by describing the conditions in which various icons and titles are achieved. They could have showed the icon or title in grey (meaning not unlocked) and they would fill in (the colors would take over the icon or title) once players completed the conditions to earn them. Instead, players are just given a chart of empty SF4 icon boxes or tags awaiting to be filled. No conditions are specified as well.
All in all, SF4 seems like a game that was rushed by its developers. Why? To fulfill its obvious 20th anniversary celebration and earn profit. Personally, the game should have been made with two dimensional sprites like previous games. HD Remix proved that it was possible to remake a successful classic into a bigger success. This game, however, did the opposite for some fans. I am not afraid to admit it. Street Fighter should have stayed with its sprites. The game's 3D characters feel clunky which can trouble timing issues for combos. Personally, I feel at times that I am using giant Gundam Robots to conquer my opponent. Moreover, King of Fighters XII and Blazblue show the value of HD sprites and their capacity for excellent two dimensional gameplay. This is a route Capcom should have followed.
In summary, SF4 is a good game; however, it is not great. If I had to classify the greatest SF titles from best to worst, it would most likely be the following:
ST/HDR - 3S - SF 4 - SF Alpha Series - EX - SF: The Movie
It is still too early to determine whether or not SF 4 is simply living of hype. As Juiceman noted, 3S almost died but it was eventually saved from a specific evo2k match. The game has potential; however, that remains to be seen.
I think Sirlin needs to develop his own 2d fighting game, ....now that would be interesting.
Interesting post, thanks for posting this ;)
"2 button throws solve a non-problem that no one has ever actually had. That's the problem of accidentally throwing and being sad about it."
or maybe it solves the problem of accidentally getting thrown because your opponent mashed and won because of option select.
i'm sure i don''t need to tell you this, but st in particular has a few situations where option select can shut down an opponent regardless of how they guess. doesn't this defeat the purpose of yomi? if i'm screwed whether i choose to beat a tick throw with a reversal or go for a counter throw because the game favors my opponent who utilizes option select to shut both of my choices down without comitting to anything, does it reward me for guessing right? can i even guess right in this situation?
two button, commit based throw systems > one button option select. it prevents stupid situations where one player is put at a huge advantage (often unintentionally) and it punishes dumb players for making bad choices.
other than that, i can't disagree with anything else you said in the article.
Your list of complaints are valid, yet are from the perspective of someone who has damn near mastered what was a somewhat glitched game. Most of these cancels and such are products of a limited technology and are under the radar of most players (even the experts, which I'll gladly admit I am not). As someone who has played the series since the sequel, I'm quite humbled and astonished by the dedication you and other more serious practitioners have viewed this series, but your analysis of SF4 is somewhat flawed by your obsession with ten to twenty-year-old mechanics.
It's a good appraisal of the games "flaws" though. Maybe if I get better, I'll understand your viewpoint more, but so far, SF4 is one percent from perfect.
Response by Sirlin: Ah so "obsession with twenty year old mechanics" is your apology for ranked matches letting you pick opponents, inputs overlapping, clunky and inelegant focus system, strange jump physics, large playfield that enables runaway tactics.
i kind of like the throws. It's a good way to use the verttical button presses, in addition to focusing and taunts. Mostly it seems to be a matter of opinion. A second button press is hardly breaking the complexity bank, especially since you'll want to learn about the other two anyway.
And unless I'm missing something, the cancel out of the focus is a pair of decisions, not a single one. The first is to focus, and the second is to realise that your focus isn't going to work and cancel out of it.
Nonetheless, a truly fascinating read.
Response by Sirlin: The number of times I have wanted to cancel a special into a focus attack is exactly zero. The number of times I have wanted to cancel a special into a focus attack that is then immediately canceled again so that I can do another attack (or ultra...) is very many indeed.
Good Points. The unlocks are ridiculous and the ultras are not very casual friendly. Also no awesome social lobbies like HD Remix is a huge step back.
Other than that I love it. I like the slower more forgiving pace. The 2 button grabs are great and I like the focus system way more than the parry system in 3s.
The 8/10 reviews are probably more accurate and HD Remix is definitely more polished.
I wanna open up the floor about blazblue again, since 2 button throws are pretty important in that game. I am surprised no one has mentioned this.
In Blazblue, you can throw your opponent at almost any time, including when they are in hit or blockstun. Throws are fairly easy to tech (closer to a 3d fighter) when done out of blockstun. When you do a throw while they are in blockstun or hitstun, throws are very easy to tech - such that they can be escaped on reaction virtually every time. This forces you to be alert all the time - there are many more critical points in a match, since you can be thrown at any moment. This mechanic also means that you can't really have 1-button throws, since towards + C could be done in a block string but if it was a throw command, you'd throw everytime even if they're in hit or blockstun.
Also, jabs in Blazblue are around 5 frames, so having a non-instant throw is not quite as bad.
Honestly I think you should take a look at Blazblue, it's a very good game with a lot of tactical diversity. Shrugging it off due to a 2-button throw command seems sort of bad to me.
Also, there's no Eddie character.
Response by Sirlin: I don't see why this system would be good. If throw escape is so easy from blockstun or hitstun, it sounds like throwing at those times is a non-viable option, one we can safely cut from the game design. Non-instant throws in 2D fighting games are also kind of bad. It seems that every game with instant throws benefited from that decision. So I still don't get it. Extra button press, ability to throw people at new times they will always escape from, and watered down throw in general because it's not instant. Disappointing, especially from the makers of ggxx.
I gave up on SF4 after about a week. And I gave up because of the annoying linking combo system with it’s irritating focus/dash cancels just like Sirlin described. I bought SF4 to have fun playing with other people, not so I could spend an hour a day on the couch practicing focus/dash cancel combos.
Many of the criticisms in this review seem to ammount to, "Depth of gameplay is bad."
This is most evident in the comment that if something is possible, then it should be easy for everyone to do, not just those who know a complicated series of input commands.
That's ridiculous.
Street Fighter 4 is extremely accessible to novices as it is. However, if you remove any complex aspects from the game, then it becomes a button masher, which will only appeal to novices.
Response by Sirlin: Sigh. First of all, this is not a "review," I never claimed it was a review, and the word "review" appears no where in it. Next, your idea of depth needs some examination. Depth comes from interesting interaction with the opponent. If you are counting execution barriers that don't involve decisions as "depth" then a 2player contest of guitar hero with virtual no 2p interaction other than to compare scores would be "deep," and that's clearly a bad use of that word.
It seems that SF4 is actually less deep than some other games with fewer execution requirements. This is mostly because defense is good, small hit into big combo is good, stages are huge, positioning matters less, and things like that. Execution doesn't lead to (or remove) depth. It's just a barrier that stands between you and depth.