Soul Calibur I vs Soul Calibur V

[ChronoCalibreZero]

Ever since I was a kid I always thought SoulCalibur II was a cool game. Emphasis on cool. Yeah, if you had a few friends or relatives it would be fun to play for awhile, but I almost always played it and felt a sort of fatigue as I continued to play, as if there was something about the game that kept me from getting invested in it the way I wanted to. After seeing that the original SoulCalibur was the number 1 rated game via Metacritic and reading some comparisons that players of the original made with the sequel, I've come to the conclusion that not only is SoulCalibur I a mechanically better game, but it's probably more fun too. However, whenever I look up "soulcalibur tournament" on YouTube I almost always get results for SoulCalibur V and a couple for the second game here and there. Never do I get a result for the original SoulCalibur. As far as I can tell, in spite of less than glowing reviews (which were more focused on content than gameplay), I feel I would also consider SoulCalibur V a wholly "fun" game based upon what I've seen and how people have reacted to the gameplay. So my question is this...

(Read here for the tl;dr people)

With graphics and content aside entirely, which game is
a) more fun to play, as a whole
b) mechanically superior (with both fluidity and depth considered, and in regards to both standard gameplay and tournament-style gameplay)

SoulCalibur I or SoulCalibur V?

Please give reasoning, it would be greatly appreciated.
(Also, can anyone explain why I can't find any SC I tournaments?)

 

[-Mitsurules-]

I'll do the best I can with my response given that I've invested very little time into SCV. Also apologies for the late reply, this board is pretty much dead in terms of activity.

When SCI first came to arcades in the US in the mid 90s (or perhaps it was late 90s, I can't recall) it was a revolutionary game. No other fighting game had anything close to the free range of movement that SCI had, which was highly appealing to a lot of people. The game was also very fast paced and easy to play, but still contained the complexity for people with a more competitive nature. The mechanics for the game are still to this day the best I have seen for ANY fighting game, IMO. Pulling off one move to the next expresses fluidity that is like poetry in motion for me. I won't pretend I know everything about the game, but I have spent countless hours playing SCI both in arcades and on the Dreamcast. It was a very balanced game and I haven't heard of any glaring exploits for it.

SCV unfortunately continues the trend the series has carried on since SCIII- the mechanics of the game now favor combos over strategy. SCIII implemented a stun/combo system that would allow a played, upon stunning his/her opponent on a counter hit, to continue linking together other attacks to form a combo. This may not have been a problem in itself, but the movement of the series from this point on has come to a crawl, effectively eliminating any fluidity the first two SC games had. The new mechanics forces players to use more frame advantage moves since avoiding attacks is more tedious with the reduced 8-way run movement and longer delays between attacks to most moves. SCIV continued with this and actually shortened the command lists of all the characters, further accentuating the need to use advantageous moves.

SCV brought this to a head with the stiffest gameplay I have ever seen from an SC game. The inclusion of Brave Edge and Critical Edge commands and just, IMO, cop outs from Bandai-Namco in an attempt to copy other fighters. These commands do not innovate gameplay, it just artificially lengthens it by making combos even longer. Just Guard isn't really practical and gimping Guard Impact hinders the defensive side of the game. The result is a very shaky fighting game that has divided its fanbase. I see just as many people praise this game as I do question its existence.

The changes to the mechanics between SCI/SCII and SCIII-SCV make a world of difference. SCI was highly competitive, but still a ton of fun for more casual players to pick up and play. Although had the benefit of having a large arcade following. This was possible because mechanics were highly engaging- simple at the surface, but offered so much more for anyone willing to invest the time into it. This game was more about Yomi (knowing the mind of the opponent) than anything else. SCIII, SCIV & SCV are in fact too simple and relies more on who can land the biggest combo.

So my opinion is that in game mechanics of the original Soulcalibur are vastly superior to that of Soulcalibur 5, and that alone is enough to make it a MUCH more enjoyable game than SCV. The game also has more focus on its characters from an individual standpoint, a Weapon Master mode that has some creative missions in it, and includes a few other extras that are pretty intriguing too. I've only played SCV for a couple weeks, but I don't remember seeing many compelling extras from it. Not to mention I was severely underwhelmed by the condensed story of Partoklos & Pyrrha. I'll have to give SCI the edge of overall fun factor as well.

As far as not finding tournaments for the original SC game, the game is closing in on 20 years old, I don't think there were a lot of videos on the game going on back then. Then by the early 2000's SCII came along and everyone was focused on that. If I find anything I'll be sure to post it here.

 

[deathscythecustom]

SCV is crap.

SCI / SCII are two of the best fighters ever made.

 

[Deazynthe]

SCII is a somewhat better game than SC. While Edge Master is alright, your weariness with the general game is only going to get worse if you try to take that mess seriously. The only reason it was rated so highly was due to the situation it was in; everyone had forgotten about Soul Blade so it seemed new enough (it was also fairly different from Edge to begin with), and it was the only standard 3D fighter on the Dreamcast (which is also partly why everyone had SCII on GameCube).

The above two posters are madmen who haven't actually played SC or SCII; please see my post in this other topic for more details.

Your so-called "opinion" is a bunch of lies. The mere suggestion that SC is in any way balanced comes from a different dimension where Namco didn't completely botch the arcade version and barely saved the entire series with a not-much-better console port (mostly being saved due to a bunch of almost non-game fluff). The movement speed was never reduced until we got to V, and that was deemed as necessary because everything was similarly toned down so that the game would actually function properly (and due to characters like Alpha Patroklos and Viola (who needs to go back to BlazBlue), it almost doesn't); moves got removed over the years because they used the players as playtesters for their "good ideas" (read: lots of moves were always useless) instead of actually playing their own game, never mind that once again SC is way way way way way more about, ahem, "advantageous moves" than even IV. Brave Edges don't really function at all like EX attacks in other games, and while Critical Edges are more traditional they end up being a bit more unique in scope compared to so many other games. All those people who question the game's existence? They're always talking about the single player content. The only people who have ever dared to try and create the kind of illusion you have are you and your little friend here, which normally wouldn't mean anything (people like V but they don't like it to the extent I do) except for all the lies! Oh, and don't even get me started on David Sirlin; no wonder you like SC so much when you believe in that hack of a game "designer". Just about the only real point you have is how SCIII's increased comboability made that game even more broken than ever before, and even that point is twisted beyond belief.

And all of this for what is a poorly designed alpha versus a very well-made and tragically unfinished game. We are living in an age where commercial video games no longer have spirit, and when the indie games tend to not have nearly the kind of spirit that they claim... Soulcalibur V exists despite this. It's scary to think that you can call an unfinished game a masterpiece, especially when you view the scope of the nightmare that this series is, but V is the kind of game anyone who can call themselves a "Soulcalibur fan" deserves. I hope and pray VI is given the chance to bring the truth to all these ignorant fools who mindlessly refuse it except through the contradictory ways that the series (and fighting games in general) have been pressing since the genre hit consoles all those years ago.

 

[deathscythecustom]

SCII is a somewhat better game than SC. While Edge Master is alright, your weariness with the general game is only going to get worse if you try to take that mess seriously. The only reason it was rated so highly was due to the situation it was in; everyone had forgotten about Soul Blade so it seemed new enough (it was also fairly different from Edge to begin with), and it was the only standard 3D fighter on the Dreamcast (which is also partly why everyone had SCII on GameCube).

The above two posters are madmen who haven't actually played SC or SCII; please see my post in this other topic for more details.

Your so-called "opinion" is a bunch of lies. The mere suggestion that SC is in any way balanced comes from a different dimension where Namco didn't completely botch the arcade version and barely saved the entire series with a not-much-better console port (mostly being saved due to a bunch of almost non-game fluff). The movement speed was never reduced until we got to V, and that was deemed as necessary because everything was similarly toned down so that the game would actually function properly (and due to characters like Alpha Patroklos and Viola (who needs to go back to BlazBlue), it almost doesn't); moves got removed over the years because they used the players as playtesters for their "good ideas" (read: lots of moves were always useless) instead of actually playing their own game, never mind that once again SC is way way way way way more about, ahem, "advantageous moves" than even IV. Brave Edges don't really function at all like EX attacks in other games, and while Critical Edges are more traditional they end up being a bit more unique in scope compared to so many other games. All those people who question the game's existence? They're always talking about the single player content. The only people who have ever dared to try and create the kind of illusion you have are you and your little friend here, which normally wouldn't mean anything (people like V but they don't like it to the extent I do) except for all the lies! Oh, and don't even get me started on David Sirlin; no wonder you like SC so much when you believe in that hack of a game "designer". Just about the only real point you have is how SCIII's increased comboability made that game even more broken than ever before, and even that point is twisted beyond belief.

And all of this for what is a poorly designed alpha versus a very well-made and tragically unfinished game. We are living in an age where commercial video games no longer have spirit, and when the indie games tend to not have nearly the kind of spirit that they claim... Soulcalibur V exists despite this. It's scary to think that you can call an unfinished game a masterpiece, especially when you view the scope of the nightmare that this series is, but V is the kind of game anyone who can call themselves a "Soulcalibur fan" deserves. I hope and pray VI is given the chance to bring the truth to all these ignorant fools who mindlessly refuse it except through the contradictory ways that the series (and fighting games in general) have been pressing since the genre hit consoles all those years ago.

SCV is very nearly NOT Soul Calibur. And when Namco said that the original concept was to reboot in a different universe with different characters, that really shone through in the radical gameplay changes.