How did they trash a game like this ?

if you read the article, you'll notice it was coming around the same time as soul calibur and virtua fighter 3.
Tekken 3 arcade also looks quite a bit better than the PlayStation version, so , that kinda explains it. Add to that the fact that VF3, SC and Tekken3 had formidable gameplay, and that makes it a lot more imaginable.

Well, first of all the game looks like a blatant rip-off of Tekken (and it probably was), so there'd most likely be copyright issues. Secondly, 3D-Fighting games flooded the market during the late 1990s, and people then were becoming sick of them. (Thus why only a few fighting game franchises still remain with notoriety in the 3D realm) Lastly, and most importantly, it looks like every other fighting game. You can't sell something that looks like everything else, no matter how good your marketing is. Word of mouth is something that affects consumer choices far more than marketing or editorial reviews, and it's fairly easy to assume that most people would say it looks like every other fighter, and most likely, plays like every other fighter, except it has a seventh button for blocking. (Which really wouldn't be interesting so much as annoying, I would guess.)

Tekken rip off ? I don't think so.
Tekken 3 was really 2D looking for me. And well even it would appear with Soul Calibur, other 3D games also appeared the same time. Some one has to be in the 2nd place ya know ^^ . I mean if it can't defeat Soul Calibur, it can stand against it. Btw, Virtua fighter 3 wasn't that good for me, maybe I'd prefer that Atari game though.
It's just opinions, some ppl like Capcom others like SNK. And btw Do you rememeber that Samurai Shodown 64-2 game? It had very good animation, Good system but low polygonal models.

was it a big hit?
Maybe it fared ok, but IIRC the 3D SNK games never had the mass audience Tekken, VF or SC had.

I meant the opposite, I meant it had so many good factors but they missed one important factor which is Gfx. So it failed.
"Tenth Degree" is good graphically to me.
I'm sorry to say that but as known "Graphics sell games"

to a certain degree, of course.
If the gameplay is absolute crap or average, I'm pretty sure people won't like it all that much.
Of course, if you go to a source like insertcredit, they will claim KOF MI (as an example) is all that good, but from a more realistic POV, it isn't all that much compared to the big 3d fighters out there, neither graphics-wise, OR gameplay wise.
I must admit I'm partly writing this based on assumptions, though.

t had nothing that hadn't been seen before, and the competition was just too advanced by the time it would reach full production.

Click to expand...

as above :innocent:

plus: characters look like they have more poligons than in tekken... but those models look strange in motion... unnatural it would probably end like MK4 ...

No 'fense but it doesn't "grab" me. Having been "spoiled" by Soul Calibur, Tekken Tag, and Dead or Alive 2, it really doesn't compare...
Of course I enjoyed Star Gladiator 2 and it was mediocre as well as Street Fighter Ex 1 & 2, so maybe, if were cheap enough, I might've tried it...But I wouldn't have paid more than $15-$20 for it...There are better 3D fighting games to play...

Everyone's comparing it to Tekken. In my own thoughts, I keep seeing "Battle Arena Toshiden". There was numerous canned fighters in the 90's. "Thrill Kill" anybody? These games might have been ground breaking, but then again they might have been piles of junk. Guess will never know...

Speaking of BAT, whatever happen to that series?

you probably have seen how BATs last installment looked like... and still you ask such question... I'm not surprised that this series have disapeared...

Battle arena wasn't good from any point IMO . Graphically,gameplay or even character design.

I think you wouldn't say that if we could get back to times when first part of BAT was released

BAT2 destroyed what BAT1 made.

here I have to agree... also I think we should put away BAT topic... that's just past

cloudvii said:

...I'm sorry to say that but as known "Graphics sell games"...

Click to expand...

To the ignorant casual gamers. To people who take gaming to heart, though, looks are only polish.

I thought Soul Calibur was better than Soul Calibur 2, Tekken 3 better than Tekken 4, in both cases better graphics doesn't equal a better game...

Zer0Soul said:

Everyone's comparing it to Tekken. In my own thoughts, I keep seeing "Battle Arena Toshiden". There was numerous canned fighters in the 90's. "Thrill Kill" anybody? These games might have been ground breaking, but then again they might have been piles of junk. Guess will never know...

Speaking of BAT, whatever happen to that series?

Click to expand...

Hmm..we have to agree with Zer0Soul. This appears to be a Battle Arena Toshinden without weapons and a slightly higher polygon count. The arenas even seem to resemble BAT (BAT 3 perhaps? We own 1 & 2 but didn't bother with 3)

Other then the comparison, it seems to fall into the typical fighting game stereotypes. You have the 3D Ryu fireball tosser clone, the speedy female ninja / fighter, the essential kung fu guy, the overly large but slow grappler, the freaky creature / man with claws, the tuff guy resembling Cody (Final Fight) or Axl (Streets of Rage), and the secondary female character that always has some sort of Judo / Aikido / grapple moves.

I didn't think much of Battle Arena Toshiden 3. I beat it three times and all three were the same ending, I unlocked 2 fighters in the process, but it gets old playing a game through to the same ending. At least Soul Calibur had different endings, which was a reason to replay it...

dude fighting games are not about story (endings and such) well it's not that important as in othere gengers... it's about gameplay and playing with friends story is just a little add of course story is more or less 'nasty' in different games