Okay, I'll respect you (at least as far as that you are doing this with at least some degree of being affable). As such, I'll "play your game" and go through this in depth.
Stay with me now, man... your argument was that tourney players want to turn DOA into SF, when my argument is that's not the case. Now you're proving me right by admitting how different they are just by observing that DOA still prefers the 3-button scheme they've been using since 1996. If they were that concerned with changing DOA to another SF, wouldn't you think the first thing they would do is give a 6-button scheme for DOA, a single plane environment, and no interactive stages that contribute to extra damage?
First off, I refer to most games that rely on the name or the reputation as a wannabe Street Fighter, for two reasons. First off, it's safe to assume that the market has been saturated with these games which are very similar if not identical in nature. We would also be foolish to not say that Street Fighter opened the floodgates 23 years ago by starting it. However, the game is very typical and lacking in a lot of fields and nowadays there's so many others out there it's tough to pick one or even differentiate between the two.
I specifically call out Street Fighter not to "pick on the fat kid in the parking lot" but because 1) the company has gone exceptionally cheesy by only adding minor improvements and only releasing two official sequels in 23 years. Everything else has confusing nomenclature, such as "Ultra Street Fighter III Alpha". Well, what's the difference between this one and the original "Street Fighter III Alpha"? (do note, this was during my time on hiatus so I really don't know if those are real names but they're good for example's sake.)
2) Street Fighter is the game that relies more on the name than any actual improvements. Mortal Kombat was the first one to introduce the combo hit structure (such as "3 hits, 19% damage" in MK3), Virtua Fighter introduced the 3D Graphics. SF and most Capcom games have been flying on cruise control for some time and even though the games are very synonymous with each other, Capcom seems not to give a crap.
And yes, if your defense isn't on point, you deserve to get pummelled in that corner. Chances are you've been subject to a frame trap and didn't know what your opponent was capable of doing to put you in that guessing game. This is true in all fighting games, and that's what an honest time's worth of practice is for-- to find ways to avoid or counter those situations.
Being cheesy seems to be the selling point of most players I've met, honestly. I'm not going to quote the next part of the quote even though it was mildly inspirational.
Also, before you pull that "back in the arcade years" card, understand that we're not in that era anymore where arcades were relevant in the US. I know you've been living under a rock in a hiatus of at least a decade off fighting games (or so you said back at DOAW, IIRC), but it's time to wake up and come out. You have convenient, inexpensive ways to devote time to upping your game now (and this is for fighting games in general, not just DOA and SF). Worrying about getting your quarters munched for repeated beatings from this one-time friend of yours who played Street Fighter at the arcades a lot is a thing of the past... now you can get them for free.
16 1/2 years to be exact. In order to extrapolate on this more, however, I need to spell out why exactly I do, at least in part what I do.
Due to the vast plurality of fighting games out there, in order for me to actually play one, it should really have five things that are important, at least as far as me spending time and money. I could not spend the vast overwhelming amount of time required to play ALL of those games and become consummate with other obligations in my life. In order of importance, they are:
Primary: Gameplay (50%): I think everyone can agree that how the game plays, the responsiveness of the controls, the overall difficulty, etc., all the nuts, bolts and mechanisms in order to make a game good are a critical part of making the game actually playable. As was stated before, hentai games exist, but many of them are either grossly imbalanced or the controls are ridiculous. You won't hear me complain much about this because I think DoA's entire control schemata is well done, with the exception of those annoying "up diagonal"' moves. Up makes the character jump, up and to the right makes the character leap forward, etc. If a game is way too difficult (like you turn the difficulty all the way down to learn the game and the computer hands you your ass in nothing flat) or too easy (such as being able to win as Lili in Tekken Revolution by pressing the square key over and over again against the computer) I'm not going to be able to enjoy it. Somewhere in between is good.
Secondary: Reward (20%): As I stated before, there are a saturation of these games out, and considering we've already tackled the issue of the game play, the next thing we need to talk about is is there an incentive to play other than if you win a match, you hear some announcer say "You win!". (Sorry, picking on Street Fighter again). Mortal Kombat has the bitchin' fatalities. Dead or Alive has Tina and the other girls with their tits half out of their shirts and their asses half out of their swimsuits. Soulcalibur has very skimpy outfits and cool weapons. These are all good reasons to get me to pick up a game and play it, is something has to stand out. Does Tekken? Does Street Fighter? Does King of the Monsters? No. All you get is "You win" and wait for another Dorko to challenge you or move on to the next stage and start it again.
You'll actually notice that Girlfight would score higher in this category. However, why am I not playing it? Because the gameplay is flawed and that's always going to be more important.
Tertiary: Graphics/Design (15%) : Why isn't this higher? Well, Super Mario Bros. 3 didn't have outstanding or amazing graphics and I would still pick it up and play it. But if the game looks horrible, then I'm not going to want to play it. So yeah, this isn't as important but I'd still like it to look cool. To some extent, DoA can work on this as I have noticed some of the BG disappearing, but still, it's quite playable. Street Fighter also ignores this in favor of some guy standing in the background putting his hand up even if the player is on the other side of the screen.
Quaternary: Likable Characters (10%): long story short, are the characters actually ones you'd want to spend time with? Are they the kind of people that you'd bring home to your parents or are they the kind of people that you hope never to meet again? Most of the male characters are stock characters you can get anywhere. Jann Lee was better when he was called Liu Kang, hell Liu Kang was better when he was called Bruce Lee. Zack is your stereotypical '70s blaxploitation guy, Bass is the old guy who comes out of retirement to play one more match, Gen Fu is the old master (wannabe Mr. Miyagi) and Eliot is the impetuous child who needs someone to rein him in. Every game has the stereotype of the typical "ooh look, it's a guy with no shirt on" syndrome, even ones that don't use sex appeal at all to get people into battle. Yep, it's overkill.
I hate to pick on games like Tekken or Street Fighter but the number of likeable characters in that game is a resounding zero. I haven't been able to find one yet. The fact most of the guys in Tekken look like they'd flunk a drug test doesn't help either.
Quinary: Players (5%): I rank this the lowest because I can play the computer if all the people are douche bags, but it still plays on behalf of the game in general. If I face 20 or 30 James Powers and they make comments such as "Yeah, I fucked your mother" then I'm going to be disinclined to play again. When a person is better than you, there's an inherent obligation to help those who are less skilled. Also, if people strive to be the best, there comes with it a liability of being constantly able to prove it.
Even if the games are free now, there are other factors in play such as the attitude of the players. Let's be honest: Some of them get more than a little heated. To lay all the cards out on the table, DoA is very close to having everything a person like me is looking for in a game, it just needs to close a couple of minor loopholes. That said, I'm seeing people more than willing to turn it into a Tekken clone (which, by the way, TR DOES have collapsing items such as floors, I have seen it.). DoA is doing such a great job of differentiation but it isn't quite embracing its reputation.
Could you imagine how much critics would pan the game if MK stopped doing fatalities? The sex appeal makes Dead or Alive the MK of sex appeal.
Of course, there are some willing to help you out as you go along so you can get better.
This is, to a lesser extent, what I am looking for.
The problem is that Tekken and DOA are still nothing alike. Tekken has separate attack buttons for each limb, no universal hold system (except a low parry as of Tekken 6), and no stun system. What's more, in Tekken it's possible to automatically block while you're in neutral stance. And if I remember correctly, DOA4 was the 3D fighter that introduced the ground bounce mechanic, and Tekken 6 derived from it with its "Bound" system.
Again, you're talking about minor details. Both are in 3D, both even use the two tap system to sidestep, whereas SoulCalibur II HD uses a full 3D atmosphere and your sidestepping is done by moving the controller in a separate direction.
Points for honesty. I can respect your opinion about Tengu, but not when it comes to shoving your disdain down everyone's throats and make them feel terrible for it just because you're not seeing 100% T&A in your fighting game. It makes you look like a douche, and incredibly selfish. And that's just not how the world works. Whether you like it or not, Tengu was a staple villain in the DOA series, and popular enough to be playable in DOA4, when he's not even supposed to exist!
Like I said, he looks like Jinpachi from Tekken or the term I prefer to use is a reject from a dwarf-tossing contest. Again, this is not limited to fighting games. I've never felt comfortable playing an ugly character effectively. I was, to say the least, upset when I found out about Mileena in MK II. I honestly believe a character like that will turn people off. I did like R-tussin's idea of having multiple characters and a custom roster that you can create (say have 70 characters and be allowed to use up to 30 at a time).
People have different views. Respect them, but at the same time, don't cross the line by drawing their ire. I'm not the biggest fan of Tengu myself, but as a character loyalist, I wouldn't want the treatment Tengu fans are getting to happen to me as a Christie player. Suppose they decide to kill her off in the roster, then what?
This is a fine line for most people. They have 1 or 2 characters they get attached to and what happens if that character disappears. I've heard a few people complain because Sophitia is not in SCV. At the same time, I think the game needs to realize that most people who are casual gamers enjoy the sex appeal of DoA more than whatever in the hell Tengu is.
Sure, I'll support the scene in another way, but that's beside the point. That's why I show as much compassion and respect for the Tengu fanbase as I do. If you had a heart, you'd do the same.
I'll accept your pretense it's something I need to work on, at the same time, I don't think I'd be able to support the franchise if we had a menagerie of hideous characters that were suddenly thrown into the game. Even Street Fighter knew to call it quits after Zangief, Blanka and (nauseous) Gill. You draw a fine line the more ugly characters you put into the game.
