• Publisher: Capcom
  • Release Date: Oct 4, 2000
User Score
8.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 68 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 58 out of 68
  2. Negative: 6 out of 68
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 14, 2022
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. ugly characters, weird animation, questionable game mechanics. this game was a TTTURD when it came out and it still is. The cast is just not very appealing and the animation is just sloppy. The music is that generic weird funk capcom started slapping into their games around this time. Just forgettable and leaves the player indifferent. Nothing anthemic or memorable like in Sf2. The much lauded parry mechanic shuts down the fun part of the game and between two skilled players it devolves into a boring back and forth shuffling poke fest. The boss is the most uncreative POS this side of boss characters. Dont let the fight game nerds fool you into thinking this is the greatest fighting game ever. More likely its the one of the most boring. There's a reason it took so long for SF to get a sequel after this steamer and Capcom has wisely abanodoned parrying as the core mechanic. Expand

Awards & Rankings

21
14
#14 Most Discussed Dreamcast Game of 2000
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 15 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 15
  2. Negative: 0 out of 15
  1. CNET Gamecenter
    80
    While weaker in the graphics department than its predecessor, this game still delivers punch.
  2. Although it doesn't have the insane special moves or high character count of "Marvel vs Capcom 2," it does offer a tight gameplay engine for skilled fighters, and wonderfully smooth graphics to complete the package.
  3. AllDreamcast
    84
    Really meant for diehard fans of the series only. The rest of us can probably do without this one.