Last week cmfl3x and I presented you with a list of games that we felt were good value from a standpoint of being enjoyable for pretty much every type of gamer. This week we’ll share more “niche” titles – games that you can enjoy – provided you’re into the genre. Again, we want to look at games that are good value – ones that either have a lengthy/replayable single player campaign or plenty of multiplayer hours to keep you coming back while at the same time being enjoyable while being inexpensive.

While many Western reviewers put down Japanese developed games that don’t have a lot of production quality, I tend to still enjoy them. I like Japanese fighting games, RPGs, action/adventure games, and beat’em ups. I appreciate the linearity with many of them, and personally don’t mind if the graphics tend to appear closer to last gen technology than current. Because at the deepest level, what’s most important to me is gameplay. Is it ultimately fun to play? Here are games that I feel are ultimately fun to play and are good value, if you like the genre:

Fighting

Dead or Alive 4
[360: $29.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Dead or Alive 4 was the very first fighting game released on the 360. While several others have come along since then, it’s still quite a casual friendly fighter while having a strong online mode that allows for four players sharing a room at once. If you want to get into a cheap, yet accessible online fighting game, consider this game.

Virtua Fighter 5
[360: $19.99, PS3: $19.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
While Dead or Alive 4 prides itself on its online infrastructure, Virtua Fighter 5 has no competitors when it comes to single player. For the best single-player fighting game on current consoles, Virtua Fighter 5 is it. It takes about 40-50 hours to get through, as you create a player and travel through various arcades that have hundreds of different AI opponents – with some modeled after real life Virtua Fighter 5 pros. There is a ranking system, and the ability to earn money to buy accessories for your character as well. Note that while the 360 version has online, the PS3 version does not.

Realtime Strategy

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3
[360: $27.99, PC: $27.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Red Alert 3 didn’t sell well enough upon released and quickly dropped to the under $30 value price only months after release. But it’s definitely worth a shot as it has a very lengthy single player campaign consisting of 27 missions (pretty much double Halo Wars), a skirmish mode, and online play. For the least expensive, yet enjoyable RTS games on the 360, Red Alert 3 is the game to get.

Multiplayer Shooter

Shadowrun
[360: $29.99, PC: $19.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Shadowrun has a funny existence on the 360 and PC. It’s a niche RPG game with its own fan-following, but the most recent game was converted into a Counter-Strike style online only shooter that allowed players to earn money and buy weapons, tech abilities, and magical skills. It’s a great game that also supports matchmaking, but because it wasn’t the type of game that Shadowrun fans wanted to play, and it shipped at $60 with no multiplayer, reviews were scathing. But at its current bargain price, the game is a gem. Just keep in mind that the PC version requires Vista.

Japanese RPG

Blue Dragon
[360: $19.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Blue Dragon is a Japanese RPG that comes from the creator of Final Fantasy and the artist behind Dragonball and Chrono Trigger. The game is an excellent (yet very standard) Japanese RPG, but the only thing really going against it is that it has children as protagonists. This makes it difficult for some people to really get into, but if you can look past that and are interested in a Japanese RPG, Blue Dragon is a great deal.

Lost Odyssey
[360: $29.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
It’s a little bit pricier than Blue Dragon, but Lost Odyssey is arguably the best Japanese RPG game on the 360. After Blue Dragon, Mistwalker decided to develop an RPG that was more mature and accessible to Western Audiences, and this game delivers. If you were a fan of Final Fantasy games growing up and didn’t exactly enjoy fighting the cutesy monsters of Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey is perhaps the better one to pick up.

Japanese Beat em up

Samurai Warriors 2
[360: $19.99 on Amazon]
Out of all of the Warriors series that Koei has spawned on the PS2 and 360, Samurai Warriors has always been my favorite. Playing as characters based on real-life samurais and ninjas with various missions, leveling up, finding gear, etc. has always made Samurai Warriors (as well as Warriors games in general) a good bang for the buck if you don’t mind the gameplay that is repetitive for some as well as the PS2 quality graphics.

Warriors Orochi
[360: $29.99 on Amazon]
Very similar to Samurai Warriors 2, but instead of following historical missions and levels, Warriors Orochi combines the world of Samurai Warriors with Dynasty Warriors, allowing you to create teams from both while confronting a new made-up enemy. While the storyline to the game isn’t as tight or appeal as that of Samurai Warriors 2, there is appeal to being able to choose from dozens of characters in both worlds. It also has PS2 style graphics.

Bladestorm
[360: $29.95, PS3: varies on Amazon] [espionage's review]
This game is perhaps my favorite Koei game on the 360 (unless the studio finally decides to release a Romance of the Three Kingdoms game). While it’s a beat-em-up like Samurai Warriors 2 and Warriors of Orochi, it has a lot more gameplay depth as it chronicles your life as a mercenary in the 100 years war. The game features next-gen graphics and army management of over a dozen different unit types that you need to manage and utilize to capture castles and towns.

Earth Defense Force 2017
[360: $19.99 on Amazon]
Another hardcore beat-em-up (or shoot-em-up in this case) is Earth Defense Force 2017. While the graphics and gameplay may be a bit on the simple side, the concept of simply defending the Earth from giant ants, spiders, mechs, and space ships using whatever lasers and rocket launchers you can find has a lot of appeal. With over 50 levels and five different difficulties as well as co-op split-screen support, it’s a game you can play for dozens of hours.

Japanese Hardcore Action Adventure

Dead Rising
[360: $19.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
While Dead Rising is somewhat of a shorter game due to it being time based, the concept of being stuck in a mall with zombies can be enjoyed forever. On top of that, there are straight out modes that have you simply trying to survive as long as possible. The game isn’t for everyone, as it adheres very closely to linear Japanese game design and Western gamers complain about the limited save system.

Devil May Cry 4
[360: $27.99, PS3: $27.99, PC: $39.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
I didn’t think Devil May Cry 4 was such an innovative jump over its predecessor (in fact, I enjoyed Devil May Cry 3 more), but I have to say that the game is lengthy. If you enjoy the combat engine of the Devil May Cry games (flashy combo-based fighting) you’ll probably get good mileage out of this one with its various difficulties and optional Bloody Palace mode.

Ninja Gaiden II
[360: $27.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Ninja Gaiden II has its fair share of detractors, but it’s my favorite action/adventure game this generation. I’ve sunk 100 hours into the game, and it doesn’t even have multiplayer. With several different weapons to learn and use as well as a lengthy campaign that has difficulty levels with differing enemies, if you want to conquer this super hard-core title you will be putting in 100 hours like I did.

The Rest

The Club
[360: $12.05, PS3: $14.97, PC: $12.69 on Amazon]
The Club is a radically different game from the normal shooter, as it combines the mechanics from racing games with shooting games. Think about how you would play a racing game – going along a track trying to get the best time on corners, etc. In The Club, you play a shooter like a racing game – running through a level, and shooting guys or killing them in a stylish enough way to give you score multipliers and extra time. The game’s longevity comes from wanting to compete for the best times/scores online, so if you’re playing it just to beat it, you probably won’t get as much out of it.

Viva Pinata & Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise
[360: $19.99 on Amazon] [360: $27.99 on Amazon]
Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise is not a sequel as so much as the original game plus a bit more of an expansion to the original game. Both are great and it’s fine to just pick up the first title if you want to save a few bucks. The concept to the game revolves around managing a garden, where the various flowers, vegetables, fruit, etc. all attract different pinata animals and those in turn attract others so the concept of the game is managing your garden in such a way that you have a thriving ecosystem. You could play these games for dozens of hours if you’re trying to accomplish everything in them.

Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts
[360: $27.99 on Amazon]
Unfortunately, this game is still sitting in shrinkwrap for me so I haven’t had a chance to really play it yet. But from what I hear, the game is a lengthy adventure and very open to choice in that it allows you to hunt for parts and to create what you’d like in order to tackle various challenges in the huge world of the game. Need to fly your vehicle and keep it in the air for several seconds? Add whatever parts necessary and embrace your LEGO childhood….

That’s quite a list espion4ge! It seems like you did a good job covering pretty much everything, but I want to include title that’s not on the 360, but PS3:

Flower
[PS3: $10 on PSN]
This is the only game on my budget list that I haven’t gotten to play but if I owned a PS3 I’d probably download this immediately. Flower is a very different type of “game”. It uses the PS3′s Sixaxis motion controls exclusively. You play as the wind, and basically “blow” around different environments. As you touch different flower petals they bloom, and you eventually populate the entire field with flowers. From everything I’ve heard, this game = amazing graphics + great use of music + interesting narrative. If I ever get a PS3 I’m definitely picking this one up.

Well that about covers it for our two-part feature on gaming on the cheap – but you know what? Games constantly drop in price all the time so maybe in a couple weeks or months, we’ll continue to see the list of cheap, yet enjoyable games continue to increase. So my advice is, if you’re strapped for cash – just wait! It’s like deciding to save money by waiting for movies to go to video instead of going to the theatre every weekend. The savings definitely add up and based on how many games are out there today, if you’re watching your budget you can still be a gamer with plenty of games to tackle.

cmfl3x asked me a little while back if I was looking forward to the Fallout 3 downloadable content. He seemed pretty excited about it and I felt bad telling him but no, I didn’t share in his excitement. In fact, while there are games I may fully enjoy, like Ninja Gaiden II or Fallout 3, I’ll never buy their DLC. To this day, I have not paid for downloadable content for any traditional game, and I don’t plan on ever doing so. Why? Because I don’t believe in what it stands for. Obviously if downloadable content is free, such as Burnout Paradise’s motorcycles and whatnot, or BioShock’s extra plasmids, then sure – it is always welcome. It’s when it starts getting charged for that it gets on my nerves.

I actually wrote up an entire article just knocking on it, but then felt it may come off as too much of a rant so I held off. I figure that if I could turn it into a discussion topic with cmfl3x, it’d be a little more civil.

Let’s look at what type of monster paid downloadable content has become and why I choose to avoid it.

The biggest argument for publishers/developers to charge us for downloadable content is that we get more content for our favorite games. We can explore new things and play the games even longer. Woohoo! But honestly, do I want to pay for a couple more multiplayer levels in a game and maybe a new small planet or island I can explore instead of putting all of that money towards a new game with a more complete experience? And with game publishers and developers fully embracing downloadable content, it looks like more bad than good has come out of it for us consumers. Here’s why I think so.

1. Paid DLC is rarely even a part of the main game
Games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Fable II are heavy single player games that have all gotten or are getting paid DLC that allows you to travel to a small island somewhere to explore a new area. That’s all great but compared to how huge the in-game worlds of these games already are to begin with, these little diversions for $10 comes up a little short compared to what we’re already used to. In Fallout 3′s $60 retail package I can explore over a hundred unique areas and now I’m being charged another $10 to explore just a single new one? And now that we’ve maxed out our characters in games like Fallout 3 and Fable II, what’s the point of even playing these new diversions? Did people really think the Mass Effect DLC was worth its price? It’s like you buy a $10 movie ticket, and then buy another $2 ticket to go watch 10 minutes of footage of the characters in the movie you like doing something completely separate from the movie where it’s not part of the plot, has no relevance, nor does it contribute anything to the movie itself.

2. Paid DLC segments the userbase for online games
Games like Halo 3, Gears of War, and Call of Duty 4 have had map packs released that cost about $10 or so for a few new maps. But did we really sit down to think how this works out? When everyone buys a game, everyone has that map. But then when DLC comes out and only a fraction of the people buy the map, those are the only people you will end up playing with if you bought the map packs. Now you have a segment of the online audience playing the core maps, and another segment playing the core maps and the DLC maps. That’s all great but it screws over friends who can/want to buy the new maps versus the ones that don’t. Everyone has to pay or no one does in order for everyone to play together. Why not just make it all free like it is on the PC?

3. Paid DLC is just a fix for developers not finishing their game
Paid DLC is an easy way out for developer strapped on time as a consequence of poor management of the project. With the advent of title updates, we already have to deal with developers skipping thorough testing because they know they can always patch our games later down the road. But now with paid DLC, they even just cut out entire levels in their games if they’re running short on time. After all, that not only gives them a nice extension on their poorly organized release, but also gives them some extra money while they’re at it. (See Tomb Raider: Underworld.)

4. Paid DLC is an easy way for developers to make an extra buck
Horse armor anyone? If you remember Oblivion’s first DLC, there was an uproar over Bethesda Softworks trying to charge a couple dollars to simply put an armor texture on your horse. That was it. While the industry has since learned from that fiasco, that hasn’t stopped their decision to release new character costumes that you can buy for a couple dollars (see Ninja Gaiden II, Dead Space). This is honestly no different than the horse armor but I guess because it is the character you are controlling, players are less prone to complain. I still think it’s a rip-off all around since it really takes an insignificant amount of time to simply add a new art texture into the game.

5. Paid DLC is an easy way for developers to hold features ransom
The best example of this is Soul Calibur IV. This game came out with Yoda exclusive to the Xbox 360 version and Darth Vader exclusive to the PS3 version. Fans were asking if there was any way to unlock the other character on their system and Namco continued to deny it. Well, just when the game dropped from popularity, Namco released a $5 DLC to allow you to unlock the other Star Wars character on your console. Great. This character could have already been included, but was intentionally withheld simply to force users to buy it later. And what about times when you see paid DLC that’s the size of less than a meg? It means the content was sitting right there on your disc already but the developers decided to lock it so you’d have to pay for it. Games like the Dance Dance Revolution Universe series and Virtua Fighter 5 are guilty of this. If that’s not the biggest slap in the face, I don’t know what is.

In summary, for the most part I think paid DLC is a terrible “evolution” in gaming. It’s a monetizing of gaming not unlike the airline industry where we now have to pay for food, pillows, blankets, check our bags, or to even pick our own seats. The problem though, is that we’ve grown to accept it. When companies that are used to giving free content to their userbase on the PC (like Epic and Valve) want to do it on the 360, Microsoft will rarely let them. It now becomes Microsoft’s decision to price stuff accordingly because if they let companies that want to give out maps for free but other companies are charging, it makes everything seem out of wack. But unlike the airline industry where we have to fly, we don’t have to buy DLC. So I will continue my lone crusade and boycott buying any and all DLC content.

Correct me if I’m wrong, cmfl3x!

Well, espion4ge, unfortunately I can’t disagree with you completely, but I do think DLC does have its strong points. I probably will get Operation: Anchorage, eventually, but I’m trying to decide whether to wait for Broken Steel, the third DLC for Fallout 3 coming in March, first. Broken Steel will raise the level cap so I can at least get experience from Operation: Anchorage.

Honestly, your reasons for hating DLC are pretty valid, so I’m not going to try to refute them here. In fact, it really annoys me too when companies use DLC to make up for not finishing development on time. I pass on those kinds of DLC. Also, the nickel and dime DLC, like the new character in Castle Crashers, or new outfits for my avatar are the kinds of things I stay away from. I’d probably say, though, that monetized DLC is here to stay (which you know), and in some ways, it’s a necessary evil.

The fact of the matter is, we live in terrible economic times, which everyone knows. Developers and publishers are losing money just like everyone else, and they need ways to sustain themselves cheaply, and DLC is an answer to that. Gaming companies have been laying people off in droves. Without extra income from DLC, who knows whether some of these developers will even still be around in a year or so? That might sound over dramatic, but I don’t think it’s that far away from reality.

Meanwhile, I think there are some legitimate ways that companies can pull off DLC and not rip off consumers. I think a good example is GTAIV’s upcoming The Lost and the Damned. Liberty City is an amazingly well put together location, and the idea of basically creating another “game” to be played in it makes sense to me. Liberty City is a game world that deserves to have another story told in it. Sure, it’s not part of the main story, but it’s basically like buying an Arcade game that takes advantage of a pre-rendered game world.

Another factor at play is, consumers want more from their games and want to go deeper into the experience. The main game in Fallout 3 dropped hints about another city called The Pitt that was overrun by ghouls. As I was playing the game, I found myself interested in seeing how the nuclear war had affected some other cities. Well, then two months later Bethesda announces that the 2nd DLC for Fallout 3 will be The Pitt! Clever in-game marketing? Obviously. But the fact is, it’s the developer’s job to make me want to buy the DLC. In this case, I think they’ve done a good job.

Ultimately, I think it’s important to realize that video games are a business. Very few companies think like Valve, who is incredible about putting out new, free content for their users. And like you said, Microsoft forces Valve to charge for content that Valve releases on the PC for free. But you could argue that even Valve has been charging for DLC with Episodes 1 and 2 of Half Life 2 (although the Orange Box made up for all of that).

I respect your decision not to buy DLC, because when it comes down to it, companies will only put out DLC if people will buy it. Unfortunately, just like things like Wii Play, people buy DLC for all sorts of reasons that aren’t really in hardcore gamers’ control. I’m sure there are people who love buying new outfits for their characters or their horses. Which means that like it or not, DLC is here to stay. As for me, I’ll let the developers convince me that their DLC is worth it, and if I think it is, then I’ll probably buy it.

A question for you, do you buy DLC for Rock Band?

Rock Band is a different case, and while I mentioned that I did have some Rock Band DLC in my original writeup, I decided to remove it when sharing my thoughts with you because I figured you would bring that point forward as at least one legitimate defense for paid DLC.

I have bought several Rock Band DLC tracks – probably about 15 or so songs. They are actually the only DLC I’ve ever bought for the 360, and I think that for the most part paid DLC in Rock Band is fine. This is because Rock Band is more about the music than the actual game. People want to sing and play instruments to songs they like, and with such a varied taste in music from one consumer to another, this is really the only possible solution.

For me, I tend to like pop rock bands from the 90s and up, so stuff like Weezer, Green Day (where is Green Day content anyway?!), Fallout Boy, All-American Rejects, etc. are my bread and butter for music games.

It would certainly be nice if all of the Rock Band DLC was free, but I understand that there’s a cost to licensing the use of the song, work needs to be done in making it playable by 4 people, etc. It’s not the same as an additional minor diversion to the main game. it’s very much a part of the main game since some people may just play the same 10 songs they bought for the life of their Rock Band game and that’s all they wanted to do. I tend to skip all the heavy metal songs in Rock Band so paid DLC is my only real option to enjoy the game how I best want to.

But what concerns me about Rock Band (and Guitar Hero) is that with how much money they’re making in DLC, the developers would intentionally withhold highly requested songs from sequels simply so they could charge for them separately later. Take for example, the 20 promised free DLC tracks with Rock Band 2 purchase. People were all excited about the songs and then we find out that no one has even heard of these songs or even the groups themselves. There could have been more well-known bands on that list of 20 songs, but they were probably held back to be charged for later. I’m just concerned that Rock Band 3, for example, may not have as good of a playlist as it should simply because the developers are intentionally withholding songs to sell later. It’s a minor issue though, since I probably get more out of a $2 song in Rock Band than a $10 island in Fable II.

Seriously, where IS Green Day!?

2 dollars for 4 instruments worth of gameplay really is a pretty good deal. What would be the absolute worst, I think, is if not only they hold back the good songs, but they start charging a premium for them. Say 3 dollars instead of 2. Especially with the way things have been going on iTunes lately, that could be a possibility, and wouldn’t be a good one.

I think ultimately you are probably right that DLC is another example of companies trying to rip us off. I wish I could have the same moral standards as you, but when it comes to being a consumer I am mostly a sucker: If they hype it and it sounds good I’ll probably buy it. I try to exact my revenge by buying games on sale. Small consolation, I know.

Since money is tighter these days, I will pick and choose what I purchase, especially for download, carefully. I’ve decided definitively to hold off on Operation: Anchorage right now. Though I would love to bust some communist heads, that level cap is a real bummer. I’m also more interested in what The Pitt and Broken Steel have to offer anyway, especially since Broken Steel supposedly extends the storyline a bit (plus fighting alongside the Brotherhood is cool).

Until then, I probably won’t even consider buying any DLC. Unless Valve comes out with some new maps for Left 4 Dead. Man, wouldn’t new maps for Left 4 Dead at least TEMPT you? What if they were like, 5 bucks? Just kidding…you should stick to your morals…maybe. [Editor's note: This discussion of Left 4 Dead DLC was before Wednesday's news that it would be free on the PC and 360.]

Left 4 Dead is a tough choice – especially if I see that PC gamers get all the stuff for free and we have to pay $10. I’ll probably pass, as once again, my morals are telling me that if I submit and pay the $10, it puts me down a slippery slope for buying DLC. Maybe I’ll just save that $10 and put it towards the PC version of the game.

I do want to go back to one point you mentioned earlier though, and that is how the current economic climate is bad so companies need to release paid DLC to help make some money to stay afloat. But if you think about it, the income from the paid DLC is only a tiny fraction of retail sales. Is it really worth it to charge for this stuff considering the good will and fanbase the companies could garner by just making the DLC free? I’m fiercely loyal to Blizzard, and am now starting to be pretty loyal to Valve too. These are companies that certainly don’t release paid DLC and thrive in today’s economy. Anything they release, I’ll buy. Don’t other companies want that level of appeal? Having such a strong fanbase that you can actually hold conventions with $100 tickets and still sell out?

In a way, this current economic climate may benefit us hardcore gamers. Being hardcore generally means we are well-versed in gaming and are serious about it. Isn’t it better if game companies die off as a result of releasing mundane games in a struggling economy since we won’t buy them? It’s during this time that the companies would have to “bring it” and release games that aren’t shovelware. If the game is good, it should sell itself right?

I remember how BioShock was almost canceled because no publisher was willing to pick up the game. They all thought it would not sell but it instead went on to become game of the year last year and sold millions. I guess this discussion is almost moving towards a discussion on whether DLC should even be charged for. And I honestly don’t think it should be. Maybe it seems harsh, but I want companies that release bad games to fail – not to extend their life by nickle and diming us. In a way, it has similarities to the banks these days asking for a bailout of taxpayers’ money for mistakes they made. It just so happens that our bailout for mediocre games these days is paid DLC. I’m not bailing out anyone!!

Yeah, I guess it all comes down to the different philosophies of different companies. Blizzard and Valve have both proven they can make boatloads of money by putting the consumer first. EA has proven it can make boatloads of money by continuously putting out sequels to mediocre games. And as you pointed out in your Mirror’s Edge review, when they tried something different they got burned financially. That’s why these companies like bailouts. Brilliant analogy, btw.

But maybe you’re right, the lower tier companies trying to nickel and dime us with DLC and cheap sequels might end up losing out and shutting down. Like, who is seriously going to buy the Prince of Persia DLC? (Actually, I don’t want to know the answer. Plus Ubisoft isn’t small, although no one is safe). As for me, I won’t mind buying DLC if it’s for a game I really love. But the funny thing about this little debate is I can’t think of a single piece of DLC that I have bought outside of Rock Band! I got all the Halo maps for free thru various machinations I think.

But yea, I can still fight for DLC at some level in principle because I will eventually purchase something for Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead and not lose too much sleep over it.

Yeah – looks like we all just have to coexist in a happy medium of some companies not charging while others do. I think that my thoughts on the matter are obviously more skewed towards being a hardcore gamer, and remember how things were “back in the day”. Maybe this generation is a bit different now, especially with the amount of casual gamers playing these days. For all we know, it could be the casual gamers that are buying most of this paid DLC. I remember how appalled I was a while back that EA was selling DLC that would just unlock features of a game in case you found it too hard. What the heck? But they are still doing it even today, with Skate 2′s paid DLC. So apparently people buy it! Maybe not you and me, but I guess it’s the same idea as people in MMORPG’s paying real money for in-game gold. The hardcore gamer would never stoop to such levels, but maybe the casual gamers are what are lining the pockets of these mediocre game developers on the 360…

Virtua Fighter 5 contains playable characters as this old guy who specializes in drunken kung fu.

I’ve probably spent maybe 10-15 hours playing Virtua Fighter 5 offline and online. The game doesn’t exactly have a storyline or something so I feel like I’ve played it enough to provide a review. My brother has played the online a lot more extensively than I have, and I have also taken his thoughts into consideration when writing this review. After all, he’s the more serious fighting game player that enjoys the online competition; I’m the more casual fighting game player that is just happy with a strong single player component. Is this game good enough to satisfy both the casual and serious fighting game fans? How about even non-fighting game fans?

Intro
The Virtua Fighter series has come a long way since the first one released in the arcades back in 1993. Since then it’s gone from the arcades to the Sega Saturn, Dreamcast, PS2, PS3, and finally, now on the 360. The Virtua Fighter series has always been more of a niche title; when the first game in the series was released back in the early 90s, it was the first fighting game to be in 3D. However, its blocky 3D graphics did not attract fans in the way that Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat’s flashier 2D graphics did. Even with its realistic fighting engine, American audiences and their limited attention spans could not get Virtua Fighter since they preferred something prettier. The Japanese loved the game though.

This trend continued throughout the Virtua Fighter series – while the Japanese enjoyed and supported each iteration of Virtua Fighter, Americans were caught up with other fighting games. Each Virtua Fighter game released on American consoles stood in the shadows of at least one other fighting game – Virtua Fighter 1 and 2 couldn’t compete in terms of popularity with the Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat games, and Virtua Fighter 3 and 4 could not compete against the Soul Calibur and Tekken series. Even Dead or Alive is more popular than Virtua Fighter in the US, as current sales of Dead or Alive 4 are over a million in the US while Virtua Fighter 5 has only sold about 80k copies.

Virtua Fighter 5 was originally released as a PS3 title back in February of this year, and has gone on to sell about 450k copies in the US. Considering the small size of the PS3 install base, that’s actually not bad. With about 2 million PS3 owners in the US, the game is practically in 1 out of every 4 PS3 owner’s game library. I originally considered getting a PS3 as Virtua Fighter 5 was one of the titles I wanted to get (at the time it was not announced for the 360), but ultimately decided against buying the system. Months later there was a huge announcement that Virtua Fighter 5 would be released on the 360, with online play (the PS3 version did not have online play). 360 owners were cheering all over the boards (myself included), but I’m a little surprised to see how little the game has been selling so far on the 360 since its release. At its current pace it may not even outsell the PS3 version, even with online play.

You can collect lots of gear for your character in quest mode, such as sunglasses, earrings, and hats.

Storyline and Premise of the Game
Fighting games generally have very little storyline and are most enjoyed when playing against other human players. When we were young, my brother and I came to enjoy fighting games because we were able to play each other often. As we grew up and went down our own paths, I began to accumulate fighting games that were not very fun to play alone.

I decided to give the Virtua Fighter series a try with VF4 for PS2. At the time I was getting bored of the weak and gimmicky “campaign modes” that several fighting games provided. Virtua Fighter 4 had a fully fleshed out campaign mode that was deeper than any fighting game I had ever played – it had a whole ranking system in a quest mode with hundreds of named “computer profiles” that you had to fight against in different arcades throughout the area. Some were even created based on top Virtua Fighter 4 players, so practically every profile played differently. On top of that, there was an item collection mechanic added to the quest mode, allowing your character to win accessories so you could dress him or her as you wanted. Virtua Fighter 5 continues with this deep campaign mode.

Virtua Fighter 5 contains the expected Arcade mode, Versus mode, Training mode, and Campaign mode, which are present in both the 360 and PS3 editions. In the 360 version an online Versus mode is also present, which I will get to later. The character roster for the game increases by two for each sequel – for Virtua Fighter 5, two new characters, Eileen (a Monkey Kung Fu fighter) and El Blaze (a Lucha Libre wrestler) were added to up the character count to 17.

The training mode isn’t as good as it was in VF4, but it still works.

Game Mechanics
To me, the beauty of Virtua Fighter has always been its deep fighting system wrapped up in its simple controls. Unlike other five or six button fighters, Virtua Fighter 5 uses only three buttons: Block, Punch, and Kick. However, the move list for each character is vast as not only do different combinations of each button pressed present new moves, but the direction the character moves in as well as the stance the character is in present new moves. Simply put, each character probably has over 50 different moves, just from 3 buttons and the directional pad.

Fighting game purists also love the balanced nature of Virtua Fighter 5, as it prides itself on realistic fighting. If it can be done in Virtua Fighter, it can most likely be done in real life. There are fireballs that players are throwing at each other or unrealistic “dial a combos” – just different punches, kicks, and holds. The simplicity of such a fighting system makes it such that each character has a chance against another one.

The game is a more defensive-oriented game than most other combo heavy games. Knowing when to sidestep certain attacks creates opportunities to punish, and successfully blocking attacks provides your character with a frame advantage in retaliating. In that sense, it means if you can successfully block all of an opponent’s combo or attack, you have a slight window of opportunity to punish the opponent for being predictable. Countering an attack (i.e. attacking someone with an attack that counters their own attack) does more damage than normal damage, rewarding a more patient play style.

I personally cannot go too deep into dissecting why the game mechanics are so great, as I don’t have that kind of skill level to judge. But I enjoy the fact that even with just three buttons, I find myself still going through the training mode over and over to learn new moves that I haven’t yet learned. It’s unfortunate that in VF5 they took away the “classroom training” that was in VF4. The “classroom training” was amazing in teaching you how to best play each character, noting what combos and hits were most effective when and such. Now in VF5 it’s just the move list you go through for training.

Although this shot is from the Japanese version, this is the online match-up screen. Here you can decide if you want to play your opponent or not. If both players hit “Ready” the match will start.

Multiplayer
I tried out a few matches of unranked online and my opinion is that it’s functional but could have been a lot better. First of all, the lag is actually not bad. In the games that I played, I noticed some input lag very rarely in all of my fights against random people and my brother. There was one game that contained significant lag (I felt like I was playing Dead or Alive 4 online or something) but after the game I checked and found out that the guy I played against was hosting from UK.

My brother feels differently though; he says that when he plays online without playing offline first it’s passable and he doesn’t really notice the lag. But when he plays offline and switches over to online, the lag is quite prevalent. I personally feel that if a casual player such as myself doesn’t notice it and a serious player like my brother only notices if he plays offline first, it’s pretty good.

So the connection isn’t bad, but the way the actual matchmaking works is shoddy. First of all, the way online is set up is that you can decide if you want to host or join a match. Doesn’t host get an advantage on lag time? Matchmaking should make who hosts random (or even the person with the better connection) instead of allowing the players to decide.

I’m also spoiled by the “online room” that Dead or Alive 4 and Puzzle Fighter have. In those games, you can have an online room that can be joined by four people so that it feels like it’s four of you at one arcade cabinet all trading turns yet watching and socializing with the two that are up playing. Obviously this can potentially cause more lag to the game with 4 people in the room instead of two, but such an option is quite welcome.

Finally, there is one practical deal breaker that my brother told me about for online ranked play. In unranked play, you are given the option when you join a potential match to either accept or reject playing against the player that you are matched with. That’s fine for unranked play, as you’re not playing for records or anything but just for fun. But this same mechanic exists as well for ranked play! My brother had a hard time playing it because of that.

Whoever he beat in Ranked play would refuse to play him again, so he was forced to only play against players that were ranked higher than him that hadn’t played him yet. One should not have a choice with who they play against in ranked play – there should have been some type of matchmaking to at least put two similarly ranked players against each other. What is the point of Microsoft’s “Trueskill” algorithms then? What is the point of ranking in Virtua Fighter 5 if you can choose who you will or will not play against?

I have to play this old geezer to rank up?

Achievement System
I can say that I’m happy with the way the Achievements are implemented in Virtua Fighter 5. There aren’t any Achievements for online play (a peeve of mine) and the offline Achievements aren’t ridiculous either. Most of the Achievements revolve around the quest mode, giving you Achievements for not only reaching higher ranks from playing, but also from winning tournaments. There are also Achievements for collecting all of the items as well as beating all of the opponents in Quest mode (probably 500+ different opponents). There are Achievements for collecting everything in Quest mode, which allow one to really spend a lot of time playing the single player game.

One thing that I applaud Sega with is the decision to keep the Achievements in Quest Mode to just one character. Beating all 500+ other opponents and collecting the 100 or so gear pieces for your character will take dozens of hours. Sega could have made things worse by having Achievements for you to do this with every character, but instead they kept the Achievements for the Quest Mode to just one character. They have my thanks for that.

Replays automatically are shown at the end of each round.

Final Thoughts
Virtua Fighter 5 is among the best fighting games I’ve ever played. It has a lengthy and enjoyable single player Quest mode, the fighting is smooth and balanced, and the 360 version even has online play and well thought-out Achievements. However, the online play for the 360 is rudimentary and leaves more to be desired.

Even though Virtua Fighter 5 is a great fighting game, it’s not for everyone. It’s a fighting game with very little story and if you don’t appreciate pulling off fighting moves while sparring against another character for hours at a time on a small playing field, it’s not going to float your boat. I give the game a B+. It does a lot of things well for a fighting game (even with the poor online features), but I can’t possibly recommend that everyone buy it. It’s still a niche title – just a very solid one at that. I’m curious to see when Soul Calibur 4 comes out next year and how it will compare to Virtua Fighter 5.