Seriously, camera issues plague every 3D-movement game, outside of a few certain genres like first-person shooters (in which you basically are a camera), rail shooters (again, half the gameplay is controlling the camera for most of them), and driving games (movement type doesn't require fancy camera work - you can't suddenly change direction like you can on foot).
This is a huge problem, and I think it is far and away the main reason old fogeys like to complain that games aren't as fun anymore. I do feel games are actually better nowadays, but gamers are expected to really work with the camera a lot, and I think that frankly sucks. I don't know any gamer who started their hobby because they wanted to mess around with a limited camera movement simulator, but so many recent games ask you to do exactly that.
For certain genres, 3D movement does work very well, and the camera isn't an issue. But platformers, non-FPS action games, and strategy games all play better with a fixed viewpoint. They did 10 years ago, and they still do now. I don't think there is really any way to bring the fixed-view playability to a fully 3D world (outside maybe some new interface that makes camera work seamless - like head-tracking VR goggles), and hopefully more developers will soon learn that and go back to making sure games are designed to play the best, not show off EXCITING BRAND NEW CUTTING-EDGE 3D WORLDS. And more players need to learn that 3D flash can still exist very easily with a fixed-camera, and stop shunning games just because they don't force you to be a handicapped cameraman...
Sorry, I have been getting really sick of camera problems in games. Sure, put camera control in it for something fun to do, to look around and admire scenary. Don't make me manage it as part of gameplay - it gets way too frustrating and monotonous. No game character should ever die because of a bad camera angle.
How about the one when they recalled the XBox over the spinning disc during ejection? They didn't expect Japanese gamers to be so finicky. Great, insult your customers. ..
They didn't insult their customers. The spinning disc issue didn't hurt the disc or the system. But a urban myth sprung up over there that it did, so many Japanese wanted their console replaced. I like Japan, and I like Japanese culture, but there is only so much you can expect MS to do when it comes to Japanese xenophobia.
EA is also still trying to get MS to relent on what they want (mainly the ability to cancel online play for a game, like when its sequel has come out). That is what this is really about. Devs are perfectly able to charge monthly for their Live games (see Phantasy Star Online), which is why EA's stated claim about not being able to make profits is BS. They just want the freedom to screw over their customers more easily, which goes completely against MS' goal of making a profitable, popular online gaming network.
I agree. Especially for the first game. For all of the huge amount of development time and money, not much actually happens in the game. Couple that with the fact that the game itself was very slow-paced, you fall far short from the hype.
I agree the second game was significantly better. I didn't even finish the first one, but Shenmue II kept me enthralled nearly nonstop until I finished it. Can't wait for Shenmue III.
The fact that anyone credits it with extending the lifespan of the SNES is beyond me...
Then maybe you should look at sales numbers sometime. It sold like gangbusters, and single-handedly brought the SNES decisively ahead of the Genesis in sales. It also ensured that the SNES would continue to sell tons of games even with the competition of newer consoles.
Or Phantasy Star Online, or Final Fantasy XI, etc. Gamers have shown they will pay to play online - just not Nintendo's main demographic, who probably never will.
Plus, it takes time for game franchises to become beloved - Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Metroid, Final Fantasy - those franchises really only cemented their place in history by having consistently good sequels.
But *all of the games mentioned were very popular in their first incarnation. And hence, all of their sequels also did very good business. Starting a popular new franchise is as 'easy' as just making an excellent game. Look at games like Devil May Cry or Super Smash Brothers - one game was enough to start a very popular and profitable franchise. Same thing looks similar with Halo and Project Gotham (which was a sequel, technically).
And franchise alone isn't enough to sell a game - look at the really low (in comparison) sales of the modern Nintendo games like Super Mario Sunshine and Metroid Prime. With very few exceptions, you are only as popular as your latest game. I don't think the 'belovedness' of a franchise sells a game as much as people expect.
* Except Metroid, kind of. Really didn't take off in Japan. I don't think any sequels have either.
I know the game Everquest is designed using similar principles to what the psychologist Skinner figured out by creating various addictions in animals like dogs. Keeps the game nice and profitable.
Imagine that - a widely derided as frivolous lawsuit, but when you actually take a hard, detailed look it becomes reasonable. Good thing the media, talk radio, etc. all encourage us to really take a good long look at these kind of things for ourselves, and not jump to quick, corporation-friendly judgements...
(Incidentally, thanks for the info. Very interesting.)
Absolutely. Neary every problem with big corporations is that they are too afraid of being sued - if we could just make it less scary, they could finally become the moral and ethical saints they strive to be. Remove suits like this, which do MASSIVE DAMAGE to poor companies like Sony, and utopia will be ours!
With the exception of certain specific professions (doctors, for example), unnecessary suits aren't a huge deal for corporations. The corporations exist due to legal fictions that us, the citizens, allow, so they can put up with little unnecessary legal problems. Two stupid lawsuits a day on Slashdot isn't that bad - how many stupid lawsuits have corporations launched recently? Who gets to essentially write new laws whenever they want? Who can easily smash nearly any citizen with a stupid lawsuit of their own? It is isn't you or me, buddy. They can put up with a little inconvenience, to allow us the ability to at least try and punish them when they do fuck everything up. How many valid lawsuits against big corporations manage to go NOWHERE, and why do we want to make it even harder??
1. True, though honestly I can't imagine devs would be stupid not to use '3D sprites', which basically does give free rotation, etc. in hardware. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation. AFAIK, the SNES was not able to do arbitrary sprite scaling, only for background sprites. Which of course, could be put in the foreground for that purposes - still, an important distinction, because you can't have levels filled with spinning sprites.
2. The ROM advantage is certainly true. Though my understanding was that the biggest SNES cartridges were only 2 Megs, so I think it isn't as big of an advantage as you suggest. And the slow CPU is kind of my point.:) It does really hurt the system's performance, even against the Genesis, which was in other respects a much less impressive piece of hardware.
3. I don't have an exact date for arcade DoDonPachi's release, but the PSX version did come a year after the Saturn port (which was released in '97, same as the arcade version). Not a horrendous amount of time. I do think an optimized game is still an excellent display of a system's power - maybe not a good indicator for average game quality, but that isn't really the point of this discussion. The devs got it to run, and they got it to run ridiculously well. Agreed on the Saturn. Some awesome shooter games on that system.
4. Again, I completely agree about the Saturn. That soundchip was a serious piece of hardware.
5. Yep, that CD-ROM really kills too many arcade ports, though I supposed the timeframe really made it matter less. I am amazed that stuff like DoDonPachi does run so well on the PSX.
I don't think you have played enough PSX games. All three of the 2D series you mention are very poor at showing a console's true 2D capabilities, as they are generally slow-paced with very few onscreen sprites. There is NO WAY the SNES could pull off a (completely 2D) game like DoDonPachi, for example. Play the MAME version sometime if you haven't (the game is a classic), and then understand the PSX version has less slowdown. It looks better than a SNES game, it has less slowdown than similar SNES games (even though it has tons more going on), it sounds better than a SNES game, etc. Plenty of other PSX games demonstrate this as well (Darius Gaiden, several of the still-flawed Capcom fighters, later Parodius games, Salamander/Lifeforce II, Layer Section, Gradius Gaiden, Gunbird, various NeoGeo ports like Metal Slug and KOF, etc.).
Your bit claims are pretty meaningless. Ex: the Genesis was far better than the SNES at some 2D stuff (lots of sprites, less slowdown), due to its much faster processor. However, the SNES had better special effects (transparency, rotation of backgrounds, etc.). Both of them excelled at different 2D visual aspects, and both certainly qualify as 16-bit, seeing as how they literally are. Bit measurements do a really bad job at comparing real world performance.
The only area I think the SNES really beat the PSX in is maybe certain music. PSX's compressed digital and Redbook audio would beat the SNES, certainly, but I think a lot of SNES games put out better sound than the 'MIDI' the PSX generated for games like FFVII.
I would agree that for some reason most 2D PSX games did a very poor job with the graphics (poor libraries, maybe?). But several games for PSX certainly demonstrated that it can do amazing 2D, far beyond the slow SNES processor could do. And its 3D capabilities smash the SNES too, even with the SuperFX chip considered.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly love the SNES. But it just doesn't remotely compare in hardware to any of the big 32-bit gen consoles.
For reference: PSX CPU R3000A from MIPS(SGI) and LSI Logic Technologies 32 bit RISC processor Clock 33.8688MHz Operating performance 30 MIPS Instruction Cache 4 KB Data Cache 1 KB BUS 132 MB/sec. 2 Megs RAM
SNES CPU WDC 65C816 16 bit processor running at 1.79, 2.68 MHz, or 3.58 MHz (Changeable), with 128 KiB of RAM
(neither of the RAM amounts include sound/video RAM, etc.)
I won't bother putting stats for the graphics coprocessors, but the PSX whips the SNES one in capabilities. No sprite limit, functionally unlimited sprite size, no sprites-per-line limit (the SNES can only have 32 sprites per resolution line), and plenty of impressive special '3D' effects (ex: rotate any sprite, not just backgrounds like SNES can).
Really, Google theirspecs sometime. (Warning though - that PSX specs author is ignorant of the Saturn's actual hardware. It has more RAM than the PSX, for example. Their numbers are solid, though.) I think you will be surprised.
It looks like they took the best of FFX and combined it with the best of DoA Volleyball.
So this is a Final Fantasy where the characters actually respond to you radically differently depending on how you treat them, instead of doing the same linear dialogue they do every time you play (relationship sim)? It is an easy-going 'chill game', where there is no danger and no real ending? Westerns get the original Japanese dub, complete with very famous voice talent? It will include a kickass trailer for Ninja Gaiden?:P
DOAXBV didn't invent sex appeal in gaming, and it does have some very good game qualities besides the obvious.:)
Yes, but plenty of PS2s and Xboxes are also sold at Walmart. (In many areas that is literally the only reasonably close place you can get a gaming system. Bleh.) I imagine publisher's reasoning is that since there isn't actual hard evidence of a massive sales differential at Walmart, the data is pretty accurate overall. Plenty of the kiddies ask for a PS2 or Xbox for Christmas, etc. nowadays.
I do have high hopes that DOA being the first semi-major online 3D fighter will maybe bring it more prominence. And AFAIK, DOA3 did outsell Tekken 4 world-wide, so it does have a better foundation for fame than I think many of the hardcore fighters believe.
It is too bad that fighting games have lost so much of their importance, in that new series just really can't get the kind of credit stuff like Street Fighter II did. Of course, neither did Street Fighter III. Maybe the genre's time really has passed, soon to be consigned to the videogame alleys like my beloved shmups...
(Though it is possible that the 'death' of the arcade has been the main problem with fighters, so maybe online play will bring the genre back more? I do hope so.)
I am not really sure why you are having problems with the controls - everyone else I know that has played it usually finds it the easiest to play out of any fighters. Do you maybe have analog buttons turned on? (forget if it defaults to that or not) They are EVIL, turn them off ASAP. They do make the game nearly impossible to play high-level, in most players' opinions.
But feel free to check out Gamefaqs. Some hardcore DOA players recently posted some very indepth FAQs for DOA3. Likewise, at least until recently there were some great indepth discussions about how DOA3 is different than the other fighters. It is probably archived somewhere here, which is another great place to go to learn about the game (though their interface could use some work).
I really don't feel like going too much into yet another Slashdot discussion on why DOA3 is a great fighter (seems like I do that every week), especially with an anonymous coward (no offense - I just think there is little chance of a response, among other problems). Briefly, though, why I prefer DOA3 as my premiere fighter:
1: Poking doesn't dominate the game. See Tekken for an example of a game where it does. I don't like that at all - high priority attacks are important to learn, but they shouldn't dominate like that! 2: Memorization, especially in the form of canned combos, isn't as useful as in most other fighters. 3: The environment, especially for game #3, adds a ridiculous amount of strategy to the game. No other fighter comes even close. 3.5: To add to the above, no ringouts. Though they add some suspense, I nearly always feel cheated in other games when they are used - even if I win with them. Too high penalty for what is usually a pretty balanced game otherwise. 4: Counters are a vital part of play. This has all sorts of benefits, especially once you realize how to deal with people who counter too much (usually a throw works best, since that will do more damage than any other attack in the game). It encourages more mixing up of attacks, as well as more mind games. Note: it was too powerful in DOA2. That has since been fixed. 5: Very complex system of 'states'. There are all sorts of modifiers on attacks, counters, and throws depending on what is happening when the move is performed. Adds some nice complexity. VF4 is at least close to DOA3 in this area, but nothing else compares.
Other things certainly help: beautiful graphics, great sound (love all of the famous professional voice actors), appealing character designs, plenty of varied martial arts styles, lots of different moves, nicest animation out of the current fighters (though the next DOA is certainly topping it), the best and deepest tag-team play out of any fighting game, tons of different arenas, an interesting (if obtuse) and sad storyline, online play very very soon now, etc.
And people who claim it is a button-masher are INSANE! Don't confuse intuitive controls (newbs can look good) with button-mashing. Counters, good use of environment, and dodging will devastate someone who doesn't know how to constantly mix up their attacks, which takes experience. Seriously, the game punishes button-mashing more than any other 3D fighter out there, with the possible exception of VF4, simply because that game has less intuitive controls (though better than Tekken, at least).
Guess you got a long explanation anyway.:P Regardless, I would check out that website I linked. There is lots of depth in DOA3, most gamers just don't realize it.
But they had huge problems with cheating in online games on Dreamcast, just like Sony (SOCOM, others) and Nintendo (via Phantasy Star Online) have. Honestly, if your console is hackable (and all of them are, to some degree), you are going to need to update your software. I would love for a company to not have to, but until we actually have some examples of a company that did initially release an online game that was unhackable, it seems a little unfair to diss MS in this case. Especially since there are plenty of other areas where the criticism is more warranted!
I also don't have Live yet - waiting for DOA:Online, maybe Ninja Gaiden, and now it looks like Rallisport Challenge 2.
Slashdot Mirror
SIDE-SCROLLING GAMES!
Seriously, camera issues plague every 3D-movement game, outside of a few certain genres like first-person shooters (in which you basically are a camera), rail shooters (again, half the gameplay is controlling the camera for most of them), and driving games (movement type doesn't require fancy camera work - you can't suddenly change direction like you can on foot).
This is a huge problem, and I think it is far and away the main reason old fogeys like to complain that games aren't as fun anymore. I do feel games are actually better nowadays, but gamers are expected to really work with the camera a lot, and I think that frankly sucks. I don't know any gamer who started their hobby because they wanted to mess around with a limited camera movement simulator, but so many recent games ask you to do exactly that.
For certain genres, 3D movement does work very well, and the camera isn't an issue. But platformers, non-FPS action games, and strategy games all play better with a fixed viewpoint. They did 10 years ago, and they still do now. I don't think there is really any way to bring the fixed-view playability to a fully 3D world (outside maybe some new interface that makes camera work seamless - like head-tracking VR goggles), and hopefully more developers will soon learn that and go back to making sure games are designed to play the best, not show off EXCITING BRAND NEW CUTTING-EDGE 3D WORLDS. And more players need to learn that 3D flash can still exist very easily with a fixed-camera, and stop shunning games just because they don't force you to be a handicapped cameraman...
Sorry, I have been getting really sick of camera problems in games. Sure, put camera control in it for something fun to do, to look around and admire scenary. Don't make me manage it as part of gameplay - it gets way too frustrating and monotonous. No game character should ever die because of a bad camera angle.
How about the one when they recalled the XBox over the spinning disc during ejection? They didn't expect Japanese gamers to be so finicky. Great, insult your customers. . .
They didn't insult their customers. The spinning disc issue didn't hurt the disc or the system. But a urban myth sprung up over there that it did, so many Japanese wanted their console replaced. I like Japan, and I like Japanese culture, but there is only so much you can expect MS to do when it comes to Japanese xenophobia.
He worked at Sega, not Nintendo.
Heh heh, yep. :)
(That's what I get for posting so late/early...)
EA is also still trying to get MS to relent on what they want (mainly the ability to cancel online play for a game, like when its sequel has come out). That is what this is really about. Devs are perfectly able to charge monthly for their Live games (see Phantasy Star Online), which is why EA's stated claim about not being able to make profits is BS. They just want the freedom to screw over their customers more easily, which goes completely against MS' goal of making a profitable, popular online gaming network.
Most likely answer:
Sony gives EA big bucks for online exclusivity.
Also, most previous online creations by EA have done horrendously (EA.com and Sims Online, for example).
And to think my post about stripper techno-implants got rejected ...
Please, tell us more!
I agree. Especially for the first game. For all of the huge amount of development time and money, not much actually happens in the game. Couple that with the fact that the game itself was very slow-paced, you fall far short from the hype.
I agree the second game was significantly better. I didn't even finish the first one, but Shenmue II kept me enthralled nearly nonstop until I finished it. Can't wait for Shenmue III.
The fact that anyone credits it with extending the lifespan of the SNES is beyond me...
Then maybe you should look at sales numbers sometime. It sold like gangbusters, and single-handedly brought the SNES decisively ahead of the Genesis in sales. It also ensured that the SNES would continue to sell tons of games even with the competition of newer consoles.
Or Phantasy Star Online, or Final Fantasy XI, etc. Gamers have shown they will pay to play online - just not Nintendo's main demographic, who probably never will.
Plus, it takes time for game franchises to become beloved - Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Metroid, Final Fantasy - those franchises really only cemented their place in history by having consistently good sequels.
But *all of the games mentioned were very popular in their first incarnation. And hence, all of their sequels also did very good business. Starting a popular new franchise is as 'easy' as just making an excellent game. Look at games like Devil May Cry or Super Smash Brothers - one game was enough to start a very popular and profitable franchise. Same thing looks similar with Halo and Project Gotham (which was a sequel, technically).
And franchise alone isn't enough to sell a game - look at the really low (in comparison) sales
of the modern Nintendo games like Super Mario Sunshine and Metroid Prime. With very few exceptions, you are only as popular as your latest game. I don't think the 'belovedness' of a franchise sells a game as much as people expect.
* Except Metroid, kind of. Really didn't take off in Japan. I don't think any sequels have either.
I know the game Everquest is designed using similar principles to what the psychologist Skinner figured out by creating various addictions in animals like dogs. Keeps the game nice and profitable.
Imagine that - a widely derided as frivolous lawsuit, but when you actually take a hard, detailed look it becomes reasonable. Good thing the media, talk radio, etc. all encourage us to really take a good long look at these kind of things for ourselves, and not jump to quick, corporation-friendly judgements...
(Incidentally, thanks for the info. Very interesting.)
Absolutely. Neary every problem with big corporations is that they are too afraid of being sued - if we could just make it less scary, they could finally become the moral and ethical saints they strive to be. Remove suits like this, which do MASSIVE DAMAGE to poor companies like Sony, and utopia will be ours!
With the exception of certain specific professions (doctors, for example), unnecessary suits aren't a huge deal for corporations. The corporations exist due to legal fictions that us, the citizens, allow, so they can put up with little unnecessary legal problems. Two stupid lawsuits a day on Slashdot isn't that bad - how many stupid lawsuits have corporations launched recently? Who gets to essentially write new laws whenever they want? Who can easily smash nearly any citizen with a stupid lawsuit of their own? It is isn't you or me, buddy. They can put up with a little inconvenience, to allow us the ability to at least try and punish them when they do fuck everything up. How many valid lawsuits against big corporations manage to go NOWHERE, and why do we want to make it even harder??
1. True, though honestly I can't imagine devs would be stupid not to use '3D sprites', which basically does give free rotation, etc. in hardware. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation. AFAIK, the SNES was not able to do arbitrary sprite scaling, only for background sprites. Which of course, could be put in the foreground for that purposes - still, an important distinction, because you can't have levels filled with spinning sprites.
:) It does really hurt the system's performance, even against the Genesis, which was in other respects a much less impressive piece of hardware.
2. The ROM advantage is certainly true. Though my understanding was that the biggest SNES cartridges were only 2 Megs, so I think it isn't as big of an advantage as you suggest. And the slow CPU is kind of my point.
3. I don't have an exact date for arcade DoDonPachi's release, but the PSX version did come a year after the Saturn port (which was released in '97, same as the arcade version). Not a horrendous amount of time. I do think an optimized game is still an excellent display of a system's power - maybe not a good indicator for average game quality, but that isn't really the point of this discussion. The devs got it to run, and they got it to run ridiculously well. Agreed on the Saturn. Some awesome shooter games on that system.
4. Again, I completely agree about the Saturn. That soundchip was a serious piece of hardware.
5. Yep, that CD-ROM really kills too many arcade ports, though I supposed the timeframe really made it matter less. I am amazed that stuff like DoDonPachi does run so well on the PSX.
I don't think you have played enough PSX games. All three of the 2D series you mention are very poor at showing a console's true 2D capabilities, as they are generally slow-paced with very few onscreen sprites. There is NO WAY the SNES could pull off a (completely 2D) game like DoDonPachi, for example. Play the MAME version sometime if you haven't (the game is a classic), and then understand the PSX version has less slowdown. It looks better than a SNES game, it has less slowdown than similar SNES games (even though it has tons more going on), it sounds better than a SNES game, etc. Plenty of other PSX games demonstrate this as well (Darius Gaiden, several of the still-flawed Capcom fighters, later Parodius games, Salamander/Lifeforce II, Layer Section, Gradius Gaiden, Gunbird, various NeoGeo ports like Metal Slug and KOF, etc.).
Your bit claims are pretty meaningless. Ex: the Genesis was far better than the SNES at some 2D stuff (lots of sprites, less slowdown), due to its much faster processor. However, the SNES had better special effects (transparency, rotation of backgrounds, etc.). Both of them excelled at different 2D visual aspects, and both certainly qualify as 16-bit, seeing as how they literally are. Bit measurements do a really bad job at comparing real world performance.
The only area I think the SNES really beat the PSX in is maybe certain music. PSX's compressed digital and Redbook audio would beat the SNES, certainly, but I think a lot of SNES games put out better sound than the 'MIDI' the PSX generated for games like FFVII.
I would agree that for some reason most 2D PSX games did a very poor job with the graphics (poor libraries, maybe?). But several games for PSX certainly demonstrated that it can do amazing 2D, far beyond the slow SNES processor could do. And its 3D capabilities smash the SNES too, even with the SuperFX chip considered.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly love the SNES. But it just doesn't remotely compare in hardware to any of the big 32-bit gen consoles.
For reference:
PSX CPU
R3000A from MIPS(SGI) and LSI Logic Technologies
32 bit RISC processor
Clock 33.8688MHz
Operating performance 30 MIPS
Instruction Cache 4 KB
Data Cache 1 KB
BUS 132 MB/sec.
2 Megs RAM
SNES CPU
WDC 65C816 16 bit processor running at 1.79, 2.68 MHz, or 3.58 MHz (Changeable), with 128 KiB of RAM
(neither of the RAM amounts include sound/video RAM, etc.)
I won't bother putting stats for the graphics coprocessors, but the PSX whips the SNES one in capabilities. No sprite limit, functionally unlimited sprite size, no sprites-per-line limit (the SNES can only have 32 sprites per resolution line), and plenty of impressive special '3D' effects (ex: rotate any sprite, not just backgrounds like SNES can).
Really, Google their specs sometime. (Warning though - that PSX specs author is ignorant of the Saturn's actual hardware. It has more RAM than the PSX, for example. Their numbers are solid, though.) I think you will be surprised.
And just because a game (movie, book, etc.) has T&A doesn't mean it was a requirement for its success. Good art can still possess sex appeal.
(Not that I am personally interested in this game.)
It looks like they took the best of FFX and combined it with the best of DoA Volleyball.
:P
:)
So this is a Final Fantasy where the characters actually respond to you radically differently depending on how you treat them, instead of doing the same linear dialogue they do every time you play (relationship sim)? It is an easy-going 'chill game', where there is no danger and no real ending? Westerns get the original Japanese dub, complete with very famous voice talent? It will include a kickass trailer for Ninja Gaiden?
DOAXBV didn't invent sex appeal in gaming, and it does have some very good game qualities besides the obvious.
Yes, but plenty of PS2s and Xboxes are also sold at Walmart. (In many areas that is literally the only reasonably close place you can get a gaming system. Bleh.) I imagine publisher's reasoning is that since there isn't actual hard evidence of a massive sales differential at Walmart, the data is pretty accurate overall. Plenty of the kiddies ask for a PS2 or Xbox for Christmas, etc. nowadays.
How is an SNES equal to a PSX in processing capability? Even many 2D games on the PSX (not its forte) killed anything the SNES was capable of.
:)
And a true portable SNES would have 4 face buttons.
Excellent points, especially about the SC2 hype.
I do have high hopes that DOA being the first semi-major online 3D fighter will maybe bring it more prominence. And AFAIK, DOA3 did outsell Tekken 4 world-wide, so it does have a better foundation for fame than I think many of the hardcore fighters believe.
It is too bad that fighting games have lost so much of their importance, in that new series just really can't get the kind of credit stuff like Street Fighter II did. Of course, neither did Street Fighter III. Maybe the genre's time really has passed, soon to be consigned to the videogame alleys like my beloved shmups...
(Though it is possible that the 'death' of the arcade has been the main problem with fighters, so maybe online play will bring the genre back more? I do hope so.)
I am not really sure why you are having problems with the controls - everyone else I know that has played it usually finds it the easiest to play out of any fighters. Do you maybe have analog buttons turned on? (forget if it defaults to that or not) They are EVIL, turn them off ASAP. They do make the game nearly impossible to play high-level, in most players' opinions.
:P Regardless, I would check out that website I linked. There is lots of depth in DOA3, most gamers just don't realize it.
But feel free to check out Gamefaqs. Some hardcore DOA players recently posted some very indepth FAQs for DOA3. Likewise, at least until recently there were some great indepth discussions about how DOA3 is different than the other fighters. It is probably archived somewhere here, which is another great place to go to learn about the game (though their interface could use some work).
I really don't feel like going too much into yet another Slashdot discussion on why DOA3 is a great fighter (seems like I do that every week), especially with an anonymous coward (no offense - I just think there is little chance of a response, among other problems). Briefly, though, why I prefer DOA3 as my premiere fighter:
1: Poking doesn't dominate the game. See Tekken for an example of a game where it does. I don't like that at all - high priority attacks are important to learn, but they shouldn't dominate like that!
2: Memorization, especially in the form of canned combos, isn't as useful as in most other fighters.
3: The environment, especially for game #3, adds a ridiculous amount of strategy to the game. No other fighter comes even close.
3.5: To add to the above, no ringouts. Though they add some suspense, I nearly always feel cheated in other games when they are used - even if I win with them. Too high penalty for what is usually a pretty balanced game otherwise.
4: Counters are a vital part of play. This has all sorts of benefits, especially once you realize how to deal with people who counter too much (usually a throw works best, since that will do more damage than any other attack in the game). It encourages more mixing up of attacks, as well as more mind games. Note: it was too powerful in DOA2. That has since been fixed.
5: Very complex system of 'states'. There are all sorts of modifiers on attacks, counters, and throws depending on what is happening when the move is performed. Adds some nice complexity. VF4 is at least close to DOA3 in this area, but nothing else compares.
Other things certainly help: beautiful graphics, great sound (love all of the famous professional voice actors), appealing character designs, plenty of varied martial arts styles, lots of different moves, nicest animation out of the current fighters (though the next DOA is certainly topping it), the best and deepest tag-team play out of any fighting game, tons of different arenas, an interesting (if obtuse) and sad storyline, online play very very soon now, etc.
And people who claim it is a button-masher are INSANE! Don't confuse intuitive controls (newbs can look good) with button-mashing. Counters, good use of environment, and dodging will devastate someone who doesn't know how to constantly mix up their attacks, which takes experience. Seriously, the game punishes button-mashing more than any other 3D fighter out there, with the possible exception of VF4, simply because that game has less intuitive controls (though better than Tekken, at least).
Guess you got a long explanation anyway.
Respect to Sega, certainly.
But they had huge problems with cheating in online games on Dreamcast, just like Sony (SOCOM, others) and Nintendo (via Phantasy Star Online) have. Honestly, if your console is hackable (and all of them are, to some degree), you are going to need to update your software. I would love for a company to not have to, but until we actually have some examples of a company that did initially release an online game that was unhackable, it seems a little unfair to diss MS in this case. Especially since there are plenty of other areas where the criticism is more warranted!
I also don't have Live yet - waiting for DOA:Online, maybe Ninja Gaiden, and now it looks like Rallisport Challenge 2.
I can certainly understand your confusion. Gearbox hasn't really done anything of note other than HL addons and the like. :P
If anything, 12 Monkeys was an argument against solipsism - what a bizarre anonymous troll you managed to turn up.