What is a worse release travesty? Street Fighter V vs. The Master Chief Collection

To my knowledge, one at least somewhat works on release, so i'll say the MCC. It does suck that they released SFV Lite, and are releasing further modes later.

Hahaha master chief collection obviously

People can actually play SFV so...

They can play half of it, much like The Master Chief Collection, just different halves of the game.

Both are looking like terrible day one releases but SFV's main draw still works as advertised at least.

Nobody buys fighting games for single player. Most people buy Halo for multiplayer.

[citation needed]

Smh travesty in what way dude? Halo online was completely broken, yoy can play SF online so what are you talking about?

You're just being ignorant trying to defend Halo

No contest MCC is the worse release

No combo trials, no multi-person lobbies, no live spectating, no standard arcade mode which is in literally every fighting game, and it's missing its entire story mode....

That's not enough? Half the game is missing, flat out, they released an early-access game.

No, you people are trying to make out the player bases of these games to be black and white when they're most certainly not.

Game lacks content and that fine but it works, Halo had all the content for online and didn't work at all, that's far worse to me. When I buy something I expect it to work, you can't put the 2 in the same boat. Halo was a far bigger mess and I don't even consider SF a mess. I mean Killer instinct when it came out had absolutely nothing compared to what SF offers, do you consider KI a flop when it came out.

Lobby created multiplayer worked fine, co-op worked fine, the campaigns worked fine, the issue was isolated to the match making functionality.

Care to try again.

P.S. Killer Instinct was FREE, this is $60.

SFV is said to have one of the best netcodes ever in video games... this should not even be a thread.

You have now reached greater levels of stupidity with "most people buy Halo for multiplayer" , dude, give it a break, we all know you got that rear end pleasure for Sony.

http://teambeyond.net/halo-the-master-chief-collection-100-days-later/

hahahahahahahahah

@nyadc:

Halo didn't work for months, you now that, SF online does work. Saying it need more content is fine and that will come, that's how all these online games are nowadays so it shouldn't be nothing new but to put it in the same sentence for a game that didn't even work online makes no sense.

Again, let me break this down for you.

Lobby created multiplayer worked fine, co-op worked fine, the campaigns worked fine, the issue was isolated to the match making functionality.

You're trying to tie The Master Chief Collection down as if it's only a multiplayer experience and the same with Street Fighter, both games hold considerable weight in their single player viability, not everyone plays online. Also most certainly fighting games throughout their origin and near entire history have held their weight entirely through their single player abilities and couch co-op.

What you people are doing is giving Street Fighter a break because it has left core features absent to be released at a later date and bashing The Master Chief Collection for releasing with a broken feature to be fixed at a later date, they're ideologically the exact same things.

The goal of this thread was to highlight blatant hypocrisy, in that sense it has been entirely successful.

So is this just the day when X1 fans decided to all grasp at straws?

This is the day when hypocrisy comes full circle.

You don't have to break anything down for me cause I have Halo MCC, I had it since launch. I know all of what worked and what didn't and it was a broken game, period. To try and compare that to SF and let's be honest, the reason why you did that is because SF is a Playstation exclusive is wrong and off. In that case you can lump Battlefront, Evolve, Destiny, Rainbow Six and all these other online only games in the same boat. Halo MCC is in a whole other boat cause it was a broken game like Assassin's Creed and DriveClub was. This is apples and oranges.

.....how is this even a comparable situation?

SFV works day 1 but lacks modes that have a foreseen release window, MCC has modes but was broken for an unforeseeable amount of time.

Good lord you're reaching now, pathetic.

Ok this thread actually annoys me by its mere existence, I can understand preferring MS' offerings but to compare a broken game to a game that works perfectly but just has fewer modes than it should....good lord.

You're saying it was a "broken game period", it wasn't though, you're being non-specific, you're embellishing the capacities in which it was broken and ignoring the ways in which it was not and failing to properly accentuate these in any form of elaborated list.

A game missing content that should be there is no different than if they were introduced broken, they cannot be used, them being present or not is a total irrelevance, they can't be used in either scenario, you're scapegoating and giving one a pass while harshly criticizing the other.

That is hypocrisy, no way around it, nothing you can do or say at this point can bring you back from that.

Yes, today is the day. The comparison doesnt even make sense tbh, a Splatoon SFV comparison would have been more suitable

Except SFV works, you can go online and play it perfectly while MCC you could not in any way.

SFV is getting those features on a regular basis (not ideal but it is happening) while with MCC we had to wait for months for it to become remotely presentable.

It's official, this thread is worthless

Who cares, the real issue is that this is a common problem in games today. Get it out there, fix it later, finish it later, buy a season pass, etc etc

Like I said.

"You're trying to tie The Master Chief Collection down as if it's only a multiplayer experience and the same with Street Fighter, both games hold considerable weight in their single player viability, not everyone plays online. Also most certainly fighting games throughout their origin and near entire history have held their weight entirely through their single player abilities and couch co-op."

You're tying in Halo on a major capacity to online multiplayer when its single player and co-op was fine and present, and for Street Fighter ignoring the importance of its single player features to downplay the impact of this and praising its online functionality, features which are missing entirely for its single player.

So you're telling me that months are not going to have to be waited for those things to be added to Street Fighter? Yeah, that's what I thought Davey boy, you're rationalizing hypocrites.

So by your logic then why didn't you just put Evolve, Battlefront, Rainbow Six, Destiny, Killer Instinct and other Online focused games? Why just focus on SF, a game that works and compare it too Halo MCC, which didn't work. Yeah you can make a custom lobby in Halo and that worked but people didn't buy Halo to make custom lobbies, people bought it to play other people online and it was broken, it didn't work for months. Hell, they had to cancel there first tournament cause it was still broken months after the release, there's no way you can compare SF to Halo at launch, you reaching too hard to try and make a point and bridge a gap that's no where near each other, just stop it.

Well Nya this is the difference, SFV I can have full access to every mode and know that stuff will be coming monthly while with MCC I have 1 portion open and the rest is screwed for an unforeseeable future.

Also there's nothing hypocritical about this, MCC was a broken turd while SFV isn't broken, it is lacking in modes that I get for free and I know EXACTLY when I'll get them.

Anyway it looks like this thread THANKFULLY backfired and people aren't complete morons, the people have spoken; MCC was worse.

How is this a comparable situation?

MCC had 4 totally playable campaigns, I played them flawlessly co-op, 60 hours worth of content straight out of the box, beta access to Halo 5 Multi, free tv show, and I bought it for less than full price.

SF5 doesn't even have Vs Cpu, something fighting games always have, in fact I think this is a first, unprecedented act in fighting games.

Well MCC was a FLOP with a 6, so naturally SFV>MCC

Overall it's review score was a 6? I think not.

It seems like every game I get the Collectors Edition of flops or has problems as of late. Destiny, The Order 1886, Halo 5 and now SF V. Maybe I should cancel the Uncharted 4 CE before that game is cursed too.

Only NyaDC would start such a ridiculous topic. I know you have probably been sitting on this for weeks now.

Excellent point, they're downplaying the gravity of a fighting game releasing without its very core feature that has made up literally every fighting game, plus there's more missing.

85 on Metacritic with all reviews turned in, SFV has about 35% of the reviews I would expect to see handed in, it's only going to go down from the 83 PS4/81 PC it's currently sitting at.

Every fighting fan is cringing see how Street Fighter is being dragged through this console war mud. True fans dont even see the ps4 colors.... they just see Street Fighter. Only the most balanced, greatest pure fighting game ever created.

It WAS a 6...go look.

I said what was it's overall score, you do realize there is a whole gaming world beyond gamespot right>?

I think it's obvious the MCC because SFV will get added content through its lifespan therefore we won't have to buy about 10 different versions of the same game.

Halo MCC SP and MP were broken at launch, according to 343, M$, and consumers.

I know this as well from owning MCC since day one.

---

It sucks that Capcom's game is lacking some content though.

Kinda odd a non-fighting gamer/Halo super fan is comparing a fighting game to an FPS.

Capcom vs. M$.

Hasn't this been happening since day 1 of this gen?

Dear god, this is just sad.

Considering that all of those scores were given prior to the release of the game, where the game breaking issues weren't apparent, I wouldn't put too much trust in the MC score. Remember how review sites waited a good while before releasing heir review scores when Halo 5 launched? They didn't want to look bad again.

@lostrib: Well,there's not much left for them to grasp on.

SFV. From the Review In Progress...

There are no difficulty settings. It has a laughably easy and short story campaign for each character. And by short, I mean they can last anywhere between two and four fights from beginning to end... based on my experience, you can complete everything in the story mode, for all characters, in less than an hour total, by doing nothing more than repeatedly sweeping the legs of your opponents.

This thread is another attempt at damage controlling the MCC, which is really unnecessary.