Because having powerful moves you could pull off at the drop of a hat would break the game unless they had incredibly telling startup times which would then make them not very useful.
Oh please, if you are good at a fighting game you can input most moves in the blink of an eye, and you are talking adding a couple frames at most to a move, you could even have those start up frames for the move not animate if you really wanted.
You know...one thing I always find funny about casual fighting game people is the emphasis they put on that long list of combos you just have to learn.
Really, I have to call BS on that. I will say more than anything, understanding the basics of a fighting game is the most important thing you can do. I mean how can you even get to that level if you don't have a strong foundation to begin with. Even at high level play you don't see the players throwing out those super fancy combos like crazy. Most of the time, they just figure out their character's best moves and abuse the hell out of those.
Basically, while those big combo strings are pretty looking, I think it is more important to know what attacks you can and can't use. When you pit practical against flashy, practical will always win out.
This goes back to the "learning the systems" thing. There's a reason why projectiles are terrible in Street Fighter 3, but not in Street Fighter 2 (which often is an advantage that determines who wins or loses... just look at Old Sagat, the fastest fireball in the West). There's a reason why certain counters are so great in Tekken (the ones that can't be counter-countered or "Chickened!") or why Cammy and Blanka are so much better in Capcom VS SNK than in their original games. This is a lot of name dropping of games, but the complexity of the game has very little to do with the "move lists" and a lot to do with learning the basics of the game you are playing. You can win pretty a lot of matches in Tekken with a good understanding of how to break combos with a simple right jab.
The main appeal of fighting games is that technical skill in the game is rewarded. You can't say the same with many other games (Gee, I learned how to do that, too, by reading the FAQ!), even first person shooters (Gee, I picked up a more powerful gun). Sadly, the other appeal is figuring out the abuse-able mechanics and learning how to exploit them as much as possible. For example, Tic Throws (one of the oldest abuses) in Street Fighter 2. You jab them, they block, and the resulting stun allows you to walk up and throw them. It is very hard to beat if you don't know the specific techniques to beat them (Reversals, command throws, crouching jab, perhaps). Same with fireball trapping (slow/fast fireballs alternating at a certain distance. If they jump in, you sweep) or pokes (since animations in most Street Fighter games can be "canceled" by inputting a special move during the animation of a normal move connecting with the opponent, most of the game play revolves around poking with fast attacks, and if it connects, continuing with a cancel into a special or even super move).
Again, it goes back to learning the systems rather than the moves. You do want to learn SOME moves, of course, but only as an enabler for you to use/abuse the various systems in the game. If the game has juggles, you want to learn which moves are launchers and which moves allow you to follow up. If the game allows move-canceling (like Street Fighter 2 and beyond), you want to learn which moves are great to set up the cancels and which special moves are good for following up these setups.
Why should they be, though? Can you think of a system (besides SSBs, since it actually being a FG is debatable anyway) that works better?
I mean, VF only has 3 buttons. Punch, Kick, Guard. Most characters have equivalent moves, i.e. downforward + kick = sidekick, forward + punch = elbow, down or downforward + kick and guard = sweep. Yet it is by far the least accessible, unmasherific fighting game series around.
Also, another reason to avoid standardized controls is to avoid the absolute worst thing about SSBB: Even with different moves coming out, every character feels the goddamn same. Sure, this one has a higher jump, and this one can float in the air a little longer, but this is precisely the reason I stopped playing SSBB and have given up on the franchise altogether.
Why should they be, though? Can you think of a system (besides SSBs, since it actually being a FG is debatable anyway) that works better?
I mean, VF only has 3 buttons. Punch, Kick, Guard. Most characters have equivalent moves, i.e. downforward + kick = sidekick, forward + punch = elbow, down or downforward + kick and guard = sweep. Yet it is by far the least accessible, unmasherific fighting game series around.
That's also because every character has about 80-100 moves. :P That seems like a pretty disingenuous argument.
I also can pull off moves and combos in VF games a hell of a lot easier than in SF games due to the simpler controls, which lets me focus on the deeper mechanics on the VF games, while in SF games I still mainly just fumble with the controls.
I'm not sure about completely standardized, but having easier moves is better than complex ones. I say this because experts will eventually be able to pull off any move at the drop of a hat. This removes move difficulty as a balancing factor. If you have easier moves, players can skip the stage of muscle memory and move onto more strategy.
I'm not sure about completely standardized, but having easier moves is better than complex ones. I say this because experts will eventually be able to pull off any move at the drop of a hat. This removes move difficulty as a balancing factor. If you have easier moves, players can skip the stage of muscle memory and move onto more strategy.
Again, I refer you to VF series, which has very simple inputs for almost every move, outside of a few of Akira's signatures. Besides that, Akira isn't a better or worse character because his moves are harder to pull off, but it does leave him more open to mistakes, and makes his hardcore shit even that more hardcore.
Also, there are plenty of times where harder inputs in FGs are actually important to the games balance. iCS and iSS for Ivy in Soul Calibur -- these are the two most damaging single throws in the game, but because of the way they need to be buffered most of the time you can usually see them coming. The challenge is for the Ivy player to find a way to get their iCS out without you noticing, and you need to recognize their setups or you're going to lose half your bar every time.
The smash bros. system works extremely well, but you can't just take the same system and apply it to everything else.
Really, in Street Fighter, controls aren't all that complicated. 3 punches on top, 3 kicks on bottom from weakest to strongest. Weak hits are faster and safer, but do less damage. Then you have your special moves, none of which are all that difficult to pull off. Realistically, it takes about 5 minutes to become familiar with every single move in a character's arsenal.
Mastering these moves, however, and knowing when to use them, will take much longer, but Smash is no different in this regard.
edit: I am not personally a fan of Brawl's mechanics, but I can't see how all the characters could possibly feel the same. The input motion for moves might be the same, but between 4 special moves, 7 ground attacks and 4 air attacks, all of which have unique properties for each character... all of which are appropriate in different situations for each character.
The smash bros. system works extremely well, but you can't just take the same system and apply it to everything else.
Really, in Street Fighter, controls aren't all that complicated. 3 punches on top, 3 kicks on bottom from weakest to strongest. Weak hits are faster and safer, but do less damage. Then you have your special moves, none of which are all that difficult to pull off. Realistically, it takes about 5 minutes to become familiar with every single move in a character's arsenal.
Mastering these moves, however, and knowing when to use them, will take much longer, but Smash is no different in this regard.
In my experience the timing for combos in Street Fighter games is much harder than the timing for Smash Brother games.
Page: Ivy throws are a very specific, and very uncommon example of where inputs make a difference and should be maintained for game balance.
The thing is, strategy doesn't come until you've invested the time and effort to perfect the moves. One can argue that without this initial investment, there is no real strategy. Part of high level Street Fighter 2 play, for example, is gauging how well your opponent wears the 'skin' of their chosen fighter. Can they reversal on command (note: This is a single frame on getting up after a knockdown that is almost impossible to get 100%)? How 'jumpy' are they (meaning, are they easily baited into performing their specials, which often have recovery frames that can be exploited)?
Also, the very inputs of most Street Fighter moves have within their structure hidden advantages. For example, E.Honda's Ochio Slam command throw is Forward -> Revolve to down-back -> Punch. In SF2, commands can be executed on both button presses and button releases. This allows you, after being knocked down, to perform the Ochio Slam command while holding down a punch button, releasing the punch button just as you are getting up, and throwing the opponent if he/she is close. If the opponent is attacking, however, you are still safe because down-back is also Block. Another example is Fei Long's Dragon Kick. It's a backwards dragon punch, which means the motion starts Back. If you somehow fumble the kick command during the move (a mistake often made when trying a reversal from knockdown), you are still holding back or down-back, and can block.
As far as the world of 2D fighters, though, there are really only five commands to master anymore. It's Quarter Circle rotation, Half Circle rotation, "Dragon Punch", 360 spin moves (which aren't really 360 degrees), and charge moves (Horizontal and Vertical), and most people don't even bother to learn 360 spins. I know a guy who only plays Charge characters in 2D fighting games, and he does well for himself. Everything else is a specific system integral to the gameplay specific to a game (tapping forward to parry, assists from tag members, etc.).
I'm not sure about completely standardized, but having easier moves is better than complex ones. I say this because experts will eventually be able to pull off any move at the drop of a hat. This removes move difficulty as a balancing factor. If you have easier moves, players can skip the stage of muscle memory and move onto more strategy.
Again, I refer you to VF series, which has very simple inputs for almost every move, outside of a few of Akira's signatures. Besides that, Akira isn't a better or worse character because his moves are harder to pull off, but it does leave him more open to mistakes, and makes his hardcore shit even that more hardcore.
Though to be fair, I imagine part of my problem is simply that I have to play on gamepads. On some, it's up to the will of the deity of your choosing if you can even pull off a goddamned hadouken.
I don't think it can be said that most fighting games couldn't have more intuitive controls.
I don't think it should ever be said that more intuitive controls are a bad thing.
But hey, that's just me.
Also: "eugh, it's hard to press these buttons in the right order" is not gameplay. No, don't try to pull any "well all gameplay boils down to pressing the right buttons" strawman shit. The buttons are merely a inputs which are designed, in any game that doesn't have its head up its own ass, to translate thought into action as fluidly as possible. I'm of the opinion that games should reward creativity and strategy - as all fighters do - instead of muscle memory - as, unfortunately, most fighters do. It's a paradigm that's taken a long time to wear down, and which will continue to propagate until developers stop making games for this generation of gamers.
I'm fine with that, I guess. I just avoid most fighters.
The smash bros. system works extremely well, but you can't just take the same system and apply it to everything else.
Really, in Street Fighter, controls aren't all that complicated. 3 punches on top, 3 kicks on bottom from weakest to strongest. Weak hits are faster and safer, but do less damage. Then you have your special moves, none of which are all that difficult to pull off. Realistically, it takes about 5 minutes to become familiar with every single move in a character's arsenal.
Mastering these moves, however, and knowing when to use them, will take much longer, but Smash is no different in this regard.
In my experience the timing for combos in Street Fighter games is much harder than the timing for Smash Brother games.
Page: Ivy throws are a very specific, and very uncommon example of where inputs make a difference and should be maintained for game balance.
Not so specific anymore. SC4 is full of just frame inputs now, and some make a huge difference. Kilik's Asura JF makes one of the best moves in the game like 10 frames safer, but the timing is so strict that nobody does it consistently right now. Cervante's FCA+BBBBBBB JF is is beyond amazing, but again, it's really, really hard to do consistently. Same goes for Amy's 236BBBBBB. Cervant'es iGDR and iTP are very important moves for him, but are hard for most people to pull off consistently.
Astaroth is actually in almost the same position as Ivy with his command throws: I recently had the chance to get some games in with a well known Astaroth player and when he did the command throws you could physically tell, since he had to change his hand position and mash the buttons on his stick in a very distinct way.
In VF it's a little less consistent. There are some combos that are hard to do, and Akira especially requires some very good input, but that's part of playing Akira, and it's just what you do. If you can get DLCs and SPoDs off super consistently, though, then there's a real sense of accomplishment that you may not get from doing elbow, heelkick, pounce.
Also, if controls are really all that's standing in so many people's way, then why isn't World Heroes a more popular series?
AJRSome guy who wrestlesNorwichRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Why would I hate fighting games? I mean, most of them aren't for me, but I don't see why they have to change. They can just continue entertaining the same audiences, and I'll continue not playing them (well, except for maybe SF4. That looks pretty fun actually).
I can't stand fighting games, by and large, for the same reasons people keep mentioning here--I hate the controls. And not just that, but by and large, I hate the way they handle character response to the controls. In general, these games feel unresponsive and ponderous when it seems like they should feel fluid and fast-paced.
In many games, your character does not move as fast backward as it does forward; realistic, maybe, but I can't stand it. Or the controls make it difficult (or in some cases, impossible) to control your jumps. There are too many long animations where you don't have control over your character. In most traditional fighting games, you can't move at all while you're performing an attack, other than whatever movement is programmed to coincide with the attack. Worse, in most games, you can't do shit during the animation where you get hit. Very few things make me want to throw my controller through the screen more than mashing buttons helplessly as somebody chains a long combo on me.
As I understand it, these games are primarily about your timing and move choice versus your opponent's timing and move choice--about knowing what button(s) to press when. I almost feel like they are competitive QTEs, and I'm one of those who finds the QTE a miserable excuse for gameplay.
I love Smash Brothers, it's one of my favorite multiplayer games of all time, but I have yet to encounter a traditional fighter that is so responsive to player input and has such intuitive, consistent controls.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
As I understand it, these games are primarily about your timing and move choice versus your opponent's timing and move choice--about knowing what button(s) to press when. I almost feel like they are competitive QTEs, and I'm one of those who finds the QTE a miserable excuse for gameplay.
Whoa now.
Not me (I love QTEs), but some will say those are fightin' words.
UnbreakableVow on
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
As I understand it, these games are primarily about your timing and move choice versus your opponent's timing and move choice--about knowing what button(s) to press when. I almost feel like they are competitive QTEs, and I'm one of those who finds the QTE a miserable excuse for gameplay.
Whoa now.
Not me (I love QTEs), but some will say those are fightin' words.
Not to mention proactive action is just as important as reactive action in fighting games.
OremLK: I'm not sure I understand, from my experiences fighting games generally have top-notch controls and at times it almost feels like the game is a step ahead of me. Garu: Mark of The Wolves is one of the most fluid, responsive games I've ever played.
As I understand it, these games are primarily about your timing and move choice versus your opponent's timing and move choice--about knowing what button(s) to press when. I almost feel like they are competitive QTEs, and I'm one of those who finds the QTE a miserable excuse for gameplay.
While I share your hatred of QTEs, I'm going to have to disagree here. While reaction time (obviously) will give you an advantage, fighting games are typically less about reaction and more about being able to read your opponent.
i.e. not 'He did X, so I should do Y', but more 'Based on how he's been playing, I think hes going to do X (or if you're really good, bait him into doing X), so I will do Y'.
I can't stand fighting games, by and large, for the same reasons people keep mentioning here--I hate the controls. And not just that, but by and large, I hate the way they handle character response to the controls. In general, these games feel unresponsive and ponderous when it seems like they should feel fluid and fast-paced.
In many games, your character does not move as fast backward as it does forward; realistic, maybe, but I can't stand it. Or the controls make it difficult (or in some cases, impossible) to control your jumps. There are too many long animations where you don't have control over your character. In most traditional fighting games, you can't move at all while you're performing an attack, other than whatever movement is programmed to coincide with the attack. Worse, in most games, you can't do shit during the animation where you get hit. Very few things make me want to throw my controller through the screen more than mashing buttons helplessly as somebody chains a long combo on me.
As I understand it, these games are primarily about your timing and move choice versus your opponent's timing and move choice--about knowing what button(s) to press when. I almost feel like they are competitive QTEs, and I'm one of those who finds the QTE a miserable excuse for gameplay.
I love Smash Brothers, it's one of my favorite multiplayer games of all time, but I have yet to encounter a traditional fighter that is so responsive to player input and has such intuitive, consistent controls.
You should try playing street fighter, any of them really, it doesn't matter since they're all pretty much the opposite of what you have described. I think you may enjoy them.
A fighting game is fundamentally like chess. It's about predicting your opponent and knowing the advantages and disavantages of each move and character.
Here's a list of combos to memorize. Don't feel like doing so or can't? Hah, you lose.
If I don't want to learn the rules to a game and I lose, that's my fault.
Well, fair enough, perhaps not a good comparison with the QTE thing. Still, over all of the fighting games I've tried (all of the usual suspects and a few less usual ones), the responsiveness issue is the one that bothers me the most. Zombiemambo, I gave plenty examples of what I meant above. Not all of those issues are applicable to all fighting games but I do feel like they're common threads in the dozen-plus games I've played in the genre, most of them in well-established and iconic franchises.
RE: Street Fighter, it's one example of exactly what I'm talking about, albeit at a faster pace than many fighting games. Getting hit in particular is extremely aggravating in SF games due to the exaggerated, (comparatively) long animations.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
As I understand it, these games are primarily about your timing and move choice versus your opponent's timing and move choice--about knowing what button(s) to press when. I almost feel like they are competitive QTEs, and I'm one of those who finds the QTE a miserable excuse for gameplay.
While I share your hatred of QTEs, I'm going to have to disagree here. While reaction time (obviously) will give you an advantage, fighting games are typically less about reaction and more about being able to read your opponent.
Same here. I have a poor opinion of QTE, but I've never bothered with a 3D fighter that felt like a QTE. In any worthwhile 3D fighter, you have options (one thing I disliked about SSBM/SSBB was a general lack of options, but that's purely from my perspective). In a QTE, there is only one correct solution. In a 3D fighter, if you're willing to actual have fun and not mechanically answer ever attack with a counter or reversal, there's a lot of choice available to you (or, if you're playing a fighter with a variety of counters, like DOA or VF, you have a lot of options even then).
As Shady mentioned, there might be a mechanical response to every move, but you'll be better off simply surprising your partner with variety--a possible reason for those +100 moves for each character. You can do this in Smash Brothers as well, though the Smash Brothers games could suffer by the same problem (a mechanical response as soon as you enter the game).
You didn't give a single example that I can find. It's not important anyway, since this kind of thing is subjective.
I gave plenty of examples of specific problems. Go back and reread my post. If you're looking for example games: Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive, Battle Arena: Toshinden, Killer Instinct, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, and others. Of course not all of these games suffer from all of the above issues, but I remember issues with responsiveness in every one of these games/series, and I'd bet most or all of them suffer from at least one of the problems I mentioned above, probably more than one.
The issues I mentioned are not subjective; if they're present, that's a fact. Whether their presence is good or bad is subjective--you don't have to agree with me, but I'm not sure what this thread is for if not for explaining why we feel the way we do about the genre, like it or hate it.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I don't think it can be said that most fighting games couldn't have more intuitive controls.
I don't think it should ever be said that more intuitive controls are a bad thing.
But hey, that's just me.
Also: "eugh, it's hard to press these buttons in the right order" is not gameplay. No, don't try to pull any "well all gameplay boils down to pressing the right buttons" strawman shit. The buttons are merely a inputs which are designed, in any game that doesn't have its head up its own ass, to translate thought into action as fluidly as possible. I'm of the opinion that games should reward creativity and strategy - as all fighters do - instead of muscle memory - as, unfortunately, most fighters do. It's a paradigm that's taken a long time to wear down, and which will continue to propagate until developers stop making games for this generation of gamers.
I'm fine with that, I guess. I just avoid most fighters.
I really can't get this point of view, because all games involve complex series of button presses. Three note powerchords in RB/GH give me just as much a headache as hadoken motions in fighters (seriously, every time I see Green+blue+orange I want to punch someone). Circle strafing in FPS games involves holding down one fire button while holding the analog sticks (or mouse angle/keypress) in opposite directions.
How are these easier to figure out than down to forward plus punch? Or harder than, say, holding a direction for a couple seconds then hitting the opposite direction and kick?
Now, don't get me wrong, there are some moves that are kind of silly to input. Deadly Rave in King of Fighters and the Raging Demon in Street Fighter are both difficult inputs, but the reward for doing them (the gameplay carrot) is usually 50% or more of the opponent's lifebar. It's like getting the Spartan Laser in Halo and then complaining that it takes time to shoot. The difficult input is acting as a balancing factor at that point, just like build times in an RTS or projectile speed in an FPS.
I'm not saying that fighting games aren't hard to get used to, but so is every new genre of game if one is unfamiliar with the basics. Hell, it took me a year of Rock Band/Guitar Hero play before I even tried Expert difficulty. Similarly, one shouldn't expect to be doing high-level fighting combos within the first day, or even the first week. Is it possible, sure. Anybody can watch youtube or read up on combos in GameFAQs or Shoryuken.com. But, just like FCing high difficulty songs in RB/GH, it's pretty unlikely that one can do it on the first day.
Personally, I would have never listed 'responsiveness', as you've defined it--as one of the Smash Brothers' series high points (I would cite ease of approach and stylistic variety). Though for me, responsiveness is tied close to feeling--and since nothing really ever stops moving in Smash Brothers, it feels less like a fighting game and more akin to pinball where the balls occasionally have ranged attacks. The easiest way to win is just to make sure your pinball never falls off the screen (i.e. run away--if you're playing on a limited number of lives, this will pretty much guarantee a placing victory, if not a score one).
Then again, this is probably why I like characters who actually need to stop to use some of their attacks (Samus, Fox) or characters who attack in 'strokes'--brief bursts of movement that end with the move (Metaknight). I'll acknowledge that I'm no good at the games, however. It could simply be that every SB game I've played is against people with whom running away was more effective than fighting. Not a very good sign for the game, all the same.
I'm also one of those people who deliberately avoids special moves--I don't mind loosing (though I don't feel that I've had too many situations where having used an extremely elaborate would have made the difference). I tend to rely on the base moves--both in games I'm not that familiar with, and the ones I know well. They allow for more flexibility--you get 40 moves to choose from, and they can all connect-- and the choice is up to you. Then again, a lot of people accuse me of having a short attention span because I try not to use the same move more than twice in a round.
Orem, if I read you correctly, what frustrates you the most is when you get caught in a long combo string and you feel helpless?
Even though all true combos are inescapable, there are always things you should be doing as you're getting hit. In Street Fighter 4, a missed link in a combo means your opponent can perform a reversal attack, interrupt your combo, and possibly start your own.
Smash Bros. has an interesting property to it in that as you get hit, the direction that you're holding will affect the trajectory that you travel after you get hit. So even as you're getting hit, you have the ability to make it trickier for your opponent to continue the combo.
I can understand how the feeling of helplessness might turn you off, but in a well-designed game theres ALWAYS something you should be doing as you're getting hit. This is not a 'responsiveness' issue per se, but you've made a mistake in getting hit, and the skill of your opponent is going to determine how much you get punished, but you still have the ability to possibly mitigate the consequences.
See, its this 'give and take' dynamic that makes fighters fun for me.
edit: Synthesis, you really can't evaluate Smash as a fighting game if you're plaing free for all. 1v1 is where those things you dislike (running away, etc.) don't become dominant strategies. Not that turtling isn't a valid strategy, but no more so than other fighters.
Personally, I would have never listed 'responsiveness', as you've defined it--as one of the Smash Brothers' series high points (I would cite ease of approach and stylistic variety). Though for me, responsiveness is tied close to feeling--and since nothing really ever stops moving in Smash Brothers, it feels less like a fighting game and more akin to pinball where the balls occasionally have ranged attacks. The easiest way to win is just to make sure your pinball never falls off the screen (i.e. run away--if you're playing on a limited number of lives, this will pretty much guarantee a placing victory, if not a score one).
Then again, this is probably why I like characters who actually need to stop to use some of their attacks (Samus, Fox) or characters who attack in 'strokes'--brief bursts of movement that end with the move (Metaknight). I'll acknowledge that I'm no good at the games, however. It could simply be that every SB game I've played is against people with whom running away was more effective than fighting. Not a very good sign for the game, all the same.
I'm also one of those people who deliberately avoids special moves--I don't mind loosing (though I don't feel that I've had too many situations where having used an extremely elaborate would have made the difference). I tend to rely on the base moves--both in games I'm not that familiar with, and the ones I know well. They allow for more flexibility--you get 40 moves to choose from, and they can all connect-- and the choice is up to you. Then again, a lot of people accuse me of having a short attention span because I try not to use the same move more than twice in a round.
Even when you're flying through the air in Smash Brothers, you have an immense amount of air control over your movement. The second you hit the ground (even if you're knocked over) you can flick the thumbstick and roll away. The attacks take away control of your character momentarily, but that's about it. The animations are usually short and the attack begins instantly, requiring no lengthy combo input.
Orem, if I read you correctly, what frustrates you the most is when you get caught in a long combo string and you feel helpless?
Even though all true combos are inescapable, there are always things you should be doing as you're getting hit. In Street Fighter 4, a missed link in a combo means your opponent can perform a reversal attack, interrupt your combo, and possibly start your own.
Smash Bros. has an interesting property to it in that as you get hit, the direction that you're holding will affect the trajectory that you travel after you get hit. So even as you're getting hit, you have the ability to make it trickier for your opponent to continue the combo.
I can understand how the feeling of helplessness might turn you off, but in a well-designed game theres ALWAYS something you should be doing as you're getting hit. This is not a 'responsiveness' issue per se, but you've made a mistake in getting hit, and the skill of your opponent is going to determine how much you get punished, but you still have the ability to possibly mitigate the consequences.
See, its this 'give and take' dynamic that makes fighters fun for me.
That helplessness is a large part of it, yes, but it's not my only issue. There's just something about the way your character moves in most fighting games that bothers me. It's like you move too slowly compared to your attacks, like you're dragging an ankle weight behind you as you fight. And that combined with the small, simple arenas takes so much dynamicism out of the gameplay compared to what I feel like it could be. I want to be dodging in and out and flowing through the playfield, not inching around trying to guess my opponent's moves and hoping I don't fuck up whatever combo I need to utilize.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I have an odd relationship with fighting games. On one hand I love them, their style, and their gameplay. On the other hand I'm fucking terrible at damn near all of them. And yet I still play them because I find them fun. I'm the same way with RTS games. I can't micromanage to save my life, and yet RTS is one of my favorite genres.
Stronger moves (or really good setup moves) should be more complex to pull off. Some fighting games can get away with being that simple. I see no reason for a standardized Street Fighter.
Why?
Because having powerful moves you could pull off at the drop of a hat would break the game unless they had incredibly telling startup times which would then make them not very useful.
I know what you're trying to say but Street Fighter IV's ultras are piss easy to pull off with practice and many are next to instant...... and they aren't game breaking. And for those who will argue that they are, you also have specials and ex's which are almost instant and easy to pull off which aren't gamebreaking.
Well, fair enough, perhaps not a good comparison with the QTE thing. Still, over all of the fighting games I've tried (all of the usual suspects and a few less usual ones), the responsiveness issue is the one that bothers me the most. Zombiemambo, I gave plenty examples of what I meant above. Not all of those issues are applicable to all fighting games but I do feel like they're common threads in the dozen-plus games I've played in the genre, most of them in well-established and iconic franchises.
RE: Street Fighter, it's one example of exactly what I'm talking about, albeit at a faster pace than many fighting games. Getting hit in particular is extremely aggravating in SF games due to the exaggerated, (comparatively) long animations.
Really? Let's take what most consider to be the best example of street fighter, SF2T.
This video starts off with a stupidly long feilong combo, one that you will probably never see in a real match. Usually you will only see much shorter, easier to land combo. Time to complete the whole combo: 5 seconds, including the super at the end.
Now we can look at the most recent SF, you would be right to say the ultra animations are too long in this. Everyone has complained about it but it's only a minor annoyance in what is otherwise a great fighting game. At the end of this video you see what's probably the longest combo into ultra you will see in a real match, if it wasn't for the KO pause at the end it would last about 12 seconds. Hardly worth complaining about since you probably only see about 2 or 3 ultras landed in a 5 round match and most of them aren't comboed into.
Stronger moves (or really good setup moves) should be more complex to pull off. Some fighting games can get away with being that simple. I see no reason for a standardized Street Fighter.
Why?
Because having powerful moves you could pull off at the drop of a hat would break the game unless they had incredibly telling startup times which would then make them not very useful.
I know what you're trying to say but Street Fighter IV's ultras are piss easy to pull off with practice and many are next to instant...... and they aren't game breaking. And for those who will argue that they are, you also have specials and ex's which are almost instant and easy to pull off which aren't gamebreaking.
Well the ultras are easy to pull off and powerful but see they have that really long intro that people complain about to let you know they're coming, that way if someone just throws it out there instead of setting it up properly it's really easy to block or counter it.
Orem: Those sound more like personal complaints than actual flaws
Of course liking or disliking things is subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and all that. They're flaws to me, and probably to some other people, as well.
But if you want to talk about something that seems broader and more universal to game design, yes, I absolutely feel that having to sit helplessly watching as you get pummeled is not just a matter of taste, but a flaw with the game design. Any instance within gameplay where you have no control over your character for a lengthy period of time while you're being harmed is going to be frustrating to the player.
Sure, it's a perception thing--technically, the effects of suffering from a long, perfectly-executed combo aren't any different from getting hit by one big attack. But here's the thing: Game design is partly about perception.
TheStig: 5 seconds without control is a long time in a fast-paced action game, and 12 seconds is an eternity.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Orem: Those sound more like personal complaints than actual flaws
Of course liking or disliking things is subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and all that. They're flaws to me, and probably to some other people, as well.
But if you want to talk about something that seems broader and more universal to game design, yes, I absolutely feel that having to sit helplessly watching as you get pummeled is not just a matter of taste, but a flaw with the game design. Any instance within gameplay where you have no control over your character for a lengthy period of time while you're being harmed is going to be frustrating to the player.
Sure, it's a perception thing--technically, the effects of suffering from a long, perfectly-executed combo aren't any different from getting hit by one big attack. But here's the thing: Game design is partly about perception.
So first person shooters are flawed because you can die and lose control over your character while you respawn, turn based games are flawed because you have to watch the other player take his turn, RPGs are flawed when it's the enemie's turn to hit back, rts is flawed when your army get's surrounded and destroyed while you helplessly try to tell them to run... what else is there?
edit: 5 or 12 seconds without control would be an eternity if there was something you could be doing. Like say if your controller died for 5 seconds, that would cost you the match. 5 seconds is a nice amount of time to plan your counter attack, a nice break to think to yourself "what did i just fuck up there" or "am i that predictable?"
Orem: Those sound more like personal complaints than actual flaws
Of course liking or disliking things is subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and all that. They're flaws to me, and probably to some other people, as well.
But if you want to talk about something that seems broader and more universal to game design, yes, I absolutely feel that having to sit helplessly watching as you get pummeled is not just a matter of taste, but a flaw with the game design. Any instance within gameplay where you have no control over your character for a lengthy period of time while you're being harmed is going to be frustrating to the player.
Sure, it's a perception thing--technically, the effects of suffering from a long, perfectly-executed combo aren't any different from getting hit by one big attack. But here's the thing: Game design is partly about perception.
So first person shooters are flawed because you can die and lose control over your character while you respawn, turn based games are flawed because you have to watch the other player take his turn, RPGs are flawed when it's the enemie's turn to hit back, rts is flawed when your army get's surrounded and destroyed while you helplessly try to tell them to run... what else is there?
Note: While you're being harmed.
If you're dead and waiting to respawn, well, you're already dead. RPGs where you have to sit and watch long animations are flawed in that sense, yes. I find watching your opponents' turns mind-gratingly boring and frustrating in turn-based games, but relative to the overall slow pace of gameplay, it's not too bad. The RTS example you provided is completely contrived and I can count on one hand the instances when it happened to me, and even when something like that does occur, you can still micromanage what units to attack, or in many cases, what abilities to use for your surrounded units. Or, get this--you can go elsewhere and do something else. You haven't lost control over gameplay.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Posts
Oh please, if you are good at a fighting game you can input most moves in the blink of an eye, and you are talking adding a couple frames at most to a move, you could even have those start up frames for the move not animate if you really wanted.
The main appeal of fighting games is that technical skill in the game is rewarded. You can't say the same with many other games (Gee, I learned how to do that, too, by reading the FAQ!), even first person shooters (Gee, I picked up a more powerful gun). Sadly, the other appeal is figuring out the abuse-able mechanics and learning how to exploit them as much as possible. For example, Tic Throws (one of the oldest abuses) in Street Fighter 2. You jab them, they block, and the resulting stun allows you to walk up and throw them. It is very hard to beat if you don't know the specific techniques to beat them (Reversals, command throws, crouching jab, perhaps). Same with fireball trapping (slow/fast fireballs alternating at a certain distance. If they jump in, you sweep) or pokes (since animations in most Street Fighter games can be "canceled" by inputting a special move during the animation of a normal move connecting with the opponent, most of the game play revolves around poking with fast attacks, and if it connects, continuing with a cancel into a special or even super move).
Again, it goes back to learning the systems rather than the moves. You do want to learn SOME moves, of course, but only as an enabler for you to use/abuse the various systems in the game. If the game has juggles, you want to learn which moves are launchers and which moves allow you to follow up. If the game allows move-canceling (like Street Fighter 2 and beyond), you want to learn which moves are great to set up the cancels and which special moves are good for following up these setups.
I mean, VF only has 3 buttons. Punch, Kick, Guard. Most characters have equivalent moves, i.e. downforward + kick = sidekick, forward + punch = elbow, down or downforward + kick and guard = sweep. Yet it is by far the least accessible, unmasherific fighting game series around.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
That's also because every character has about 80-100 moves. :P That seems like a pretty disingenuous argument.
I also can pull off moves and combos in VF games a hell of a lot easier than in SF games due to the simpler controls, which lets me focus on the deeper mechanics on the VF games, while in SF games I still mainly just fumble with the controls.
Hell, you can play characters like Akira and Jacky perfectly well using ~4 moves and a couple grabs. In VF3 Jacky only really HAD like 4 good moves.
And with the way damage scaling is going in FGs now, there's really no point in even learning the long combos anymore. O_o
Again, I refer you to VF series, which has very simple inputs for almost every move, outside of a few of Akira's signatures. Besides that, Akira isn't a better or worse character because his moves are harder to pull off, but it does leave him more open to mistakes, and makes his hardcore shit even that more hardcore.
Also, there are plenty of times where harder inputs in FGs are actually important to the games balance. iCS and iSS for Ivy in Soul Calibur -- these are the two most damaging single throws in the game, but because of the way they need to be buffered most of the time you can usually see them coming. The challenge is for the Ivy player to find a way to get their iCS out without you noticing, and you need to recognize their setups or you're going to lose half your bar every time.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Really, in Street Fighter, controls aren't all that complicated. 3 punches on top, 3 kicks on bottom from weakest to strongest. Weak hits are faster and safer, but do less damage. Then you have your special moves, none of which are all that difficult to pull off. Realistically, it takes about 5 minutes to become familiar with every single move in a character's arsenal.
Mastering these moves, however, and knowing when to use them, will take much longer, but Smash is no different in this regard.
edit: I am not personally a fan of Brawl's mechanics, but I can't see how all the characters could possibly feel the same. The input motion for moves might be the same, but between 4 special moves, 7 ground attacks and 4 air attacks, all of which have unique properties for each character... all of which are appropriate in different situations for each character.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Though I really can't pull off the moves of charge characters that well.
I am honestly enjoying SF4 over SC4 right now. SC4 feels so bloated compared to SF4.
In my experience the timing for combos in Street Fighter games is much harder than the timing for Smash Brother games.
Page: Ivy throws are a very specific, and very uncommon example of where inputs make a difference and should be maintained for game balance.
I can't do rotation characters in SF games to save my life, if it makes you feel any better.
Charge characters are much easier for me.
Also, the very inputs of most Street Fighter moves have within their structure hidden advantages. For example, E.Honda's Ochio Slam command throw is Forward -> Revolve to down-back -> Punch. In SF2, commands can be executed on both button presses and button releases. This allows you, after being knocked down, to perform the Ochio Slam command while holding down a punch button, releasing the punch button just as you are getting up, and throwing the opponent if he/she is close. If the opponent is attacking, however, you are still safe because down-back is also Block. Another example is Fei Long's Dragon Kick. It's a backwards dragon punch, which means the motion starts Back. If you somehow fumble the kick command during the move (a mistake often made when trying a reversal from knockdown), you are still holding back or down-back, and can block.
As far as the world of 2D fighters, though, there are really only five commands to master anymore. It's Quarter Circle rotation, Half Circle rotation, "Dragon Punch", 360 spin moves (which aren't really 360 degrees), and charge moves (Horizontal and Vertical), and most people don't even bother to learn 360 spins. I know a guy who only plays Charge characters in 2D fighting games, and he does well for himself. Everything else is a specific system integral to the gameplay specific to a game (tapping forward to parry, assists from tag members, etc.).
Though to be fair, I imagine part of my problem is simply that I have to play on gamepads. On some, it's up to the will of the deity of your choosing if you can even pull off a goddamned hadouken.
I don't think it should ever be said that more intuitive controls are a bad thing.
But hey, that's just me.
Also: "eugh, it's hard to press these buttons in the right order" is not gameplay. No, don't try to pull any "well all gameplay boils down to pressing the right buttons" strawman shit. The buttons are merely a inputs which are designed, in any game that doesn't have its head up its own ass, to translate thought into action as fluidly as possible. I'm of the opinion that games should reward creativity and strategy - as all fighters do - instead of muscle memory - as, unfortunately, most fighters do. It's a paradigm that's taken a long time to wear down, and which will continue to propagate until developers stop making games for this generation of gamers.
I'm fine with that, I guess. I just avoid most fighters.
Not so specific anymore. SC4 is full of just frame inputs now, and some make a huge difference. Kilik's Asura JF makes one of the best moves in the game like 10 frames safer, but the timing is so strict that nobody does it consistently right now. Cervante's FCA+BBBBBBB JF is is beyond amazing, but again, it's really, really hard to do consistently. Same goes for Amy's 236BBBBBB. Cervant'es iGDR and iTP are very important moves for him, but are hard for most people to pull off consistently.
Astaroth is actually in almost the same position as Ivy with his command throws: I recently had the chance to get some games in with a well known Astaroth player and when he did the command throws you could physically tell, since he had to change his hand position and mash the buttons on his stick in a very distinct way.
In VF it's a little less consistent. There are some combos that are hard to do, and Akira especially requires some very good input, but that's part of playing Akira, and it's just what you do. If you can get DLCs and SPoDs off super consistently, though, then there's a real sense of accomplishment that you may not get from doing elbow, heelkick, pounce.
Also, if controls are really all that's standing in so many people's way, then why isn't World Heroes a more popular series?
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
In many games, your character does not move as fast backward as it does forward; realistic, maybe, but I can't stand it. Or the controls make it difficult (or in some cases, impossible) to control your jumps. There are too many long animations where you don't have control over your character. In most traditional fighting games, you can't move at all while you're performing an attack, other than whatever movement is programmed to coincide with the attack. Worse, in most games, you can't do shit during the animation where you get hit. Very few things make me want to throw my controller through the screen more than mashing buttons helplessly as somebody chains a long combo on me.
As I understand it, these games are primarily about your timing and move choice versus your opponent's timing and move choice--about knowing what button(s) to press when. I almost feel like they are competitive QTEs, and I'm one of those who finds the QTE a miserable excuse for gameplay.
I love Smash Brothers, it's one of my favorite multiplayer games of all time, but I have yet to encounter a traditional fighter that is so responsive to player input and has such intuitive, consistent controls.
Whoa now.
Not me (I love QTEs), but some will say those are fightin' words.
Not to mention proactive action is just as important as reactive action in fighting games.
While I share your hatred of QTEs, I'm going to have to disagree here. While reaction time (obviously) will give you an advantage, fighting games are typically less about reaction and more about being able to read your opponent.
i.e. not 'He did X, so I should do Y', but more 'Based on how he's been playing, I think hes going to do X (or if you're really good, bait him into doing X), so I will do Y'.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
You should try playing street fighter, any of them really, it doesn't matter since they're all pretty much the opposite of what you have described. I think you may enjoy them.
If I don't want to learn the rules to a game and I lose, that's my fault.
RE: Street Fighter, it's one example of exactly what I'm talking about, albeit at a faster pace than many fighting games. Getting hit in particular is extremely aggravating in SF games due to the exaggerated, (comparatively) long animations.
Same here. I have a poor opinion of QTE, but I've never bothered with a 3D fighter that felt like a QTE. In any worthwhile 3D fighter, you have options (one thing I disliked about SSBM/SSBB was a general lack of options, but that's purely from my perspective). In a QTE, there is only one correct solution. In a 3D fighter, if you're willing to actual have fun and not mechanically answer ever attack with a counter or reversal, there's a lot of choice available to you (or, if you're playing a fighter with a variety of counters, like DOA or VF, you have a lot of options even then).
As Shady mentioned, there might be a mechanical response to every move, but you'll be better off simply surprising your partner with variety--a possible reason for those +100 moves for each character. You can do this in Smash Brothers as well, though the Smash Brothers games could suffer by the same problem (a mechanical response as soon as you enter the game).
I gave plenty of examples of specific problems. Go back and reread my post. If you're looking for example games: Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive, Battle Arena: Toshinden, Killer Instinct, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, and others. Of course not all of these games suffer from all of the above issues, but I remember issues with responsiveness in every one of these games/series, and I'd bet most or all of them suffer from at least one of the problems I mentioned above, probably more than one.
The issues I mentioned are not subjective; if they're present, that's a fact. Whether their presence is good or bad is subjective--you don't have to agree with me, but I'm not sure what this thread is for if not for explaining why we feel the way we do about the genre, like it or hate it.
I really can't get this point of view, because all games involve complex series of button presses. Three note powerchords in RB/GH give me just as much a headache as hadoken motions in fighters (seriously, every time I see Green+blue+orange I want to punch someone). Circle strafing in FPS games involves holding down one fire button while holding the analog sticks (or mouse angle/keypress) in opposite directions.
How are these easier to figure out than down to forward plus punch? Or harder than, say, holding a direction for a couple seconds then hitting the opposite direction and kick?
Now, don't get me wrong, there are some moves that are kind of silly to input. Deadly Rave in King of Fighters and the Raging Demon in Street Fighter are both difficult inputs, but the reward for doing them (the gameplay carrot) is usually 50% or more of the opponent's lifebar. It's like getting the Spartan Laser in Halo and then complaining that it takes time to shoot. The difficult input is acting as a balancing factor at that point, just like build times in an RTS or projectile speed in an FPS.
I'm not saying that fighting games aren't hard to get used to, but so is every new genre of game if one is unfamiliar with the basics. Hell, it took me a year of Rock Band/Guitar Hero play before I even tried Expert difficulty. Similarly, one shouldn't expect to be doing high-level fighting combos within the first day, or even the first week. Is it possible, sure. Anybody can watch youtube or read up on combos in GameFAQs or Shoryuken.com. But, just like FCing high difficulty songs in RB/GH, it's pretty unlikely that one can do it on the first day.
Then again, this is probably why I like characters who actually need to stop to use some of their attacks (Samus, Fox) or characters who attack in 'strokes'--brief bursts of movement that end with the move (Metaknight). I'll acknowledge that I'm no good at the games, however. It could simply be that every SB game I've played is against people with whom running away was more effective than fighting. Not a very good sign for the game, all the same.
I'm also one of those people who deliberately avoids special moves--I don't mind loosing (though I don't feel that I've had too many situations where having used an extremely elaborate would have made the difference). I tend to rely on the base moves--both in games I'm not that familiar with, and the ones I know well. They allow for more flexibility--you get 40 moves to choose from, and they can all connect-- and the choice is up to you. Then again, a lot of people accuse me of having a short attention span because I try not to use the same move more than twice in a round.
Even though all true combos are inescapable, there are always things you should be doing as you're getting hit. In Street Fighter 4, a missed link in a combo means your opponent can perform a reversal attack, interrupt your combo, and possibly start your own.
Smash Bros. has an interesting property to it in that as you get hit, the direction that you're holding will affect the trajectory that you travel after you get hit. So even as you're getting hit, you have the ability to make it trickier for your opponent to continue the combo.
I can understand how the feeling of helplessness might turn you off, but in a well-designed game theres ALWAYS something you should be doing as you're getting hit. This is not a 'responsiveness' issue per se, but you've made a mistake in getting hit, and the skill of your opponent is going to determine how much you get punished, but you still have the ability to possibly mitigate the consequences.
See, its this 'give and take' dynamic that makes fighters fun for me.
edit: Synthesis, you really can't evaluate Smash as a fighting game if you're plaing free for all. 1v1 is where those things you dislike (running away, etc.) don't become dominant strategies. Not that turtling isn't a valid strategy, but no more so than other fighters.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Even when you're flying through the air in Smash Brothers, you have an immense amount of air control over your movement. The second you hit the ground (even if you're knocked over) you can flick the thumbstick and roll away. The attacks take away control of your character momentarily, but that's about it. The animations are usually short and the attack begins instantly, requiring no lengthy combo input.
That helplessness is a large part of it, yes, but it's not my only issue. There's just something about the way your character moves in most fighting games that bothers me. It's like you move too slowly compared to your attacks, like you're dragging an ankle weight behind you as you fight. And that combined with the small, simple arenas takes so much dynamicism out of the gameplay compared to what I feel like it could be. I want to be dodging in and out and flowing through the playfield, not inching around trying to guess my opponent's moves and hoping I don't fuck up whatever combo I need to utilize.
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
I know what you're trying to say but Street Fighter IV's ultras are piss easy to pull off with practice and many are next to instant...... and they aren't game breaking. And for those who will argue that they are, you also have specials and ex's which are almost instant and easy to pull off which aren't gamebreaking.
Really? Let's take what most consider to be the best example of street fighter, SF2T.
Now we can look at the most recent SF, you would be right to say the ultra animations are too long in this. Everyone has complained about it but it's only a minor annoyance in what is otherwise a great fighting game. At the end of this video you see what's probably the longest combo into ultra you will see in a real match, if it wasn't for the KO pause at the end it would last about 12 seconds. Hardly worth complaining about since you probably only see about 2 or 3 ultras landed in a 5 round match and most of them aren't comboed into.
Well the ultras are easy to pull off and powerful but see they have that really long intro that people complain about to let you know they're coming, that way if someone just throws it out there instead of setting it up properly it's really easy to block or counter it.
Of course liking or disliking things is subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and all that. They're flaws to me, and probably to some other people, as well.
But if you want to talk about something that seems broader and more universal to game design, yes, I absolutely feel that having to sit helplessly watching as you get pummeled is not just a matter of taste, but a flaw with the game design. Any instance within gameplay where you have no control over your character for a lengthy period of time while you're being harmed is going to be frustrating to the player.
Sure, it's a perception thing--technically, the effects of suffering from a long, perfectly-executed combo aren't any different from getting hit by one big attack. But here's the thing: Game design is partly about perception.
TheStig: 5 seconds without control is a long time in a fast-paced action game, and 12 seconds is an eternity.
So first person shooters are flawed because you can die and lose control over your character while you respawn, turn based games are flawed because you have to watch the other player take his turn, RPGs are flawed when it's the enemie's turn to hit back, rts is flawed when your army get's surrounded and destroyed while you helplessly try to tell them to run... what else is there?
edit: 5 or 12 seconds without control would be an eternity if there was something you could be doing. Like say if your controller died for 5 seconds, that would cost you the match. 5 seconds is a nice amount of time to plan your counter attack, a nice break to think to yourself "what did i just fuck up there" or "am i that predictable?"
Note: While you're being harmed.
If you're dead and waiting to respawn, well, you're already dead. RPGs where you have to sit and watch long animations are flawed in that sense, yes. I find watching your opponents' turns mind-gratingly boring and frustrating in turn-based games, but relative to the overall slow pace of gameplay, it's not too bad. The RTS example you provided is completely contrived and I can count on one hand the instances when it happened to me, and even when something like that does occur, you can still micromanage what units to attack, or in many cases, what abilities to use for your surrounded units. Or, get this--you can go elsewhere and do something else. You haven't lost control over gameplay.