Are there any fighting games out there with real tutorials? I mean, not the training mode where you try to learn how to execute moves and combos in a vacuum, which you (or at least I) proceed to completely forget against even the easiest computer opponent. I mean a tutorial, with scripted scenes that go something like
Your opponent threw an imprudent punch. *pause*
Here is how you respond to this.
Oops, you shouldn't have jumped there! *pause*
Here's what happens. *ow ow ow*
Here's what you should do instead.
I mean a tutorial that actually teaches you to play fighting games.
Because I'm in the same situation as several other posters in this thread -- I enjoy playing some fighting games, and even have an arcade stick for an occasional game -- but I am beyond suck. Well beyond suck, into some galactic-center-black-hole zone of cosmic failure. And it's not an issue of learning the inputs: those take time to learn, but practice builds muscle memory. What I've somehow never managed to grasp is the principles.
I got okay at street fighter IV by sitting down and playing with someone who was ridiculously good at Marvel vs Capcom 2, but new to SFIV. I learned from him how to effectively punish whiffed/blocked moves, which is a good starting point to getting better.
VF4: Evolution had the only good tutorial ever. It wasn't perfect, but it at least told you what each move was for. It will probably never be done for VF again, and I don't think any other company is interested in doing it, either; there's really no need -- people buy the games for pretty graphics and so they can put a cowboy hat on their character, and the people who actually want to learn how to play already have or can easily access better resources.
SC3 also had a training mode that tried to tell you how to play, but it wasn't very good and didn't explain things very well (also used some odd terminology).
But, we have youtube now. If you want to know how to play there are tutorial videos for most of the popular games, and there are tourney vids featuring most every character being used in different ways by different players and at different levels. Every major franchise has it's own site that offers in-depth info on the game's systems and characters. You will have to do some studying, but most importantly you will have to spend a lot of time playing. It'd be nice for these things to be included in the games, but it's a great business decision, so whatever.
Note: There are also very few fighting games that are released with proper balance the first time out. (Actually, none, unless you want to go out of your way and include MvC2, but that's a very special case). Additionally, players inevitably find ways to play the games that weren't quite intended by the developers -- who aren't the best players anyway -- so any guide put out before release, especially one constructed by the developers, will be rendered obsolete months or even weeks after the game has been released. This is three times as true now that many new fighting games don't get proper arcade releases.
Are there any fighting games out there with real tutorials? I mean, not the training mode where you try to learn how to execute moves and combos in a vacuum, which you (or at least I) proceed to completely forget against even the easiest computer opponent. I mean a tutorial, with scripted scenes that go something like
Your opponent threw an imprudent punch. *pause*
Here is how you respond to this.
Oops, you shouldn't have jumped there! *pause*
Here's what happens. *ow ow ow*
Here's what you should do instead.
I mean a tutorial that actually teaches you to play fighting games.
Because I'm in the same situation as several other posters in this thread -- I enjoy playing some fighting games, and even have an arcade stick for an occasional game -- but I am beyond suck. Well beyond suck, into some galactic-center-black-hole zone of cosmic failure. And it's not an issue of learning the inputs: those take time to learn, but practice builds muscle memory. What I've somehow never managed to grasp is the principles.
I'm not sure if a SF tutorial in the moonspeak our resident posters jabber away in would promote new people playing or scare them the fuck away. Personally though, I'd like something like that too.
Are there any fighting games out there with real tutorials? I mean, not the training mode where you try to learn how to execute moves and combos in a vacuum, which you (or at least I) proceed to completely forget against even the easiest computer opponent. I mean a tutorial, with scripted scenes that go something like
Your opponent threw an imprudent punch. *pause*
Here is how you respond to this.
Oops, you shouldn't have jumped there! *pause*
Here's what happens. *ow ow ow*
Here's what you should do instead.
I mean a tutorial that actually teaches you to play fighting games.
Because I'm in the same situation as several other posters in this thread -- I enjoy playing some fighting games, and even have an arcade stick for an occasional game -- but I am beyond suck. Well beyond suck, into some galactic-center-black-hole zone of cosmic failure. And it's not an issue of learning the inputs: those take time to learn, but practice builds muscle memory. What I've somehow never managed to grasp is the principles.
I'm not sure if a SF tutorial in the moonspeak our resident posters jabber away in would promote new people playing or scare them the fuck away. Personally though, I'd like something like that too.
All anybody needs to play in order to understand why a simplified control scheme like smash brothers is inferior to a more traditional street fighter control scheme is Tatsunoko vs Capcom. It has this fabled smash brothers SNKvsCapcom-EO scheme. Just press Forward and button 2 to do a dragonpunch! Button 2 alone throws a fireball! Back and button 2 does your hurricane kick. Hell, Button 2 is your special move button.
But then you begin to notice that, especially with other characters, your move set is limited, natural advantages embedded into moves are erased (i.e. the built-in block in any charge move), and that the fighting just seems a lot less involved.
All anybody needs to play in order to understand why a simplified control scheme like smash brothers is inferior to a more traditional street fighter control scheme is Tatsunoko vs Capcom. It has this fabled smash brothers SNKvsCapcom-EO scheme. Just press Forward and button 2 to do a dragonpunch! Button 2 alone throws a fireball! Back and button 2 does your hurricane kick. Hell, Button 2 is your special move button.
But then you begin to notice that, especially with other characters, your move set is limited, natural advantages embedded into moves are erased (i.e. the built-in block in any charge move), and that the fighting just seems a lot less involved.
That's not due to simplified control schemes being inferior. It has to be put in a game specifically designed for this sort of mechanics. You can't throw SSB's controls into SF or vice-versa. There could be a fantastic 2D fighter using SSB's style of controls, if all the moves were balanced in a way that they were designed to be activated very easily and immediatly.
All anybody needs to play in order to understand why a simplified control scheme like smash brothers is inferior to a more traditional street fighter control scheme is Tatsunoko vs Capcom. It has this fabled smash brothers SNKvsCapcom-EO scheme. Just press Forward and button 2 to do a dragonpunch! Button 2 alone throws a fireball! Back and button 2 does your hurricane kick. Hell, Button 2 is your special move button.
But then you begin to notice that, especially with other characters, your move set is limited, natural advantages embedded into moves are erased (i.e. the built-in block in any charge move), and that the fighting just seems a lot less involved.
That's not due to simplified control schemes being inferior. It has to be put in a game specifically designed for this sort of mechanics. You can't throw SSB's controls into SF or vice-versa. There could be a fantastic 2D fighter using SSB's style of controls, if all the moves were balanced in a way that they were designed to be activated very easily and immediatly.
Obviously I'm talking about a traditional street fighter game, like people were asking for. Another good example of why such controls fail in capcom fighters is the game I mentioned in my post - Capcom vs SNK 2 EO. Capcom fighters just aren't made for a smash brothers control scheme.
In that line of discussion, I have to state I really enjoyed MvC's "Easy" control scheme. I didn't feel it removed the depth of the game, it just changed it. Now that special moves were easily accomplished, you had to use them at the very right time against the right move, etc.
i really really enjoy fighting games when i play against people IRL, since i usually can stomp them and do so in a flashy manner. i hate them online or against experienced players because they will see through my shallow combo knowledge and dismantle me.
soul calibur and tekken i used to win all the time by button mashing. when i started street fighter i smartened up quite a bit, but i can really only stick to one or two characters as switching throws me off way too much.
basically if every game had zangief i'd be solid, but as it stands i will likely never be good at fighters.
Are there any fighting games out there with real tutorials? I mean, not the training mode where you try to learn how to execute moves and combos in a vacuum, which you (or at least I) proceed to completely forget against even the easiest computer opponent. I mean a tutorial, with scripted scenes that go something like
Your opponent threw an imprudent punch. *pause*
Here is how you respond to this.
Oops, you shouldn't have jumped there! *pause*
Here's what happens. *ow ow ow*
Here's what you should do instead.
I mean a tutorial that actually teaches you to play fighting games.
Because I'm in the same situation as several other posters in this thread -- I enjoy playing some fighting games, and even have an arcade stick for an occasional game -- but I am beyond suck. Well beyond suck, into some galactic-center-black-hole zone of cosmic failure. And it's not an issue of learning the inputs: those take time to learn, but practice builds muscle memory. What I've somehow never managed to grasp is the principles.
Tutorials are only good for the basics. You're not going to learn reactions and how to read the opponent without anything but practice, which is apparently anathema.
Are there any fighting games out there with real tutorials? I mean, not the training mode where you try to learn how to execute moves and combos in a vacuum, which you (or at least I) proceed to completely forget against even the easiest computer opponent. I mean a tutorial, with scripted scenes that go something like
Your opponent threw an imprudent punch. *pause*
Here is how you respond to this.
Oops, you shouldn't have jumped there! *pause*
Here's what happens. *ow ow ow*
Here's what you should do instead.
I mean a tutorial that actually teaches you to play fighting games.
Because I'm in the same situation as several other posters in this thread -- I enjoy playing some fighting games, and even have an arcade stick for an occasional game -- but I am beyond suck. Well beyond suck, into some galactic-center-black-hole zone of cosmic failure. And it's not an issue of learning the inputs: those take time to learn, but practice builds muscle memory. What I've somehow never managed to grasp is the principles.
Well, for starters, it's useful for getting a view of the various moves and knowing what to expect. I mean, tutorials are NOT supposed to do everything and cure cancer. That's why they're called 'tutorials'.
And honestly, I don't see what the problem with playing against AI is.....well, except maybe in really slow games like Tekken. In faster games, since the AI is scalable, you can use it as a way to steadily improve your reaction time. Will it improve your skill? No, as already pointed out, you're learning how to fight against AI. But your knowledge of the movelist and your reaction time is pretty much crucial in fighting any opponent, human or AI.
All anybody needs to play in order to understand why a simplified control scheme like smash brothers is inferior to a more traditional street fighter control scheme is Tatsunoko vs Capcom. It has this fabled smash brothers SNKvsCapcom-EO scheme. Just press Forward and button 2 to do a dragonpunch! Button 2 alone throws a fireball! Back and button 2 does your hurricane kick. Hell, Button 2 is your special move button.
But then you begin to notice that, especially with other characters, your move set is limited, natural advantages embedded into moves are erased (i.e. the built-in block in any charge move), and that the fighting just seems a lot less involved.
Pac-Man: Championship Edition has a control system that consists of 4 moves:
Move Up
Move Left
Move Right
Move Down
And yet, it has some of the deepest gameplay of any game released in this generation.
Likewise, series like Smash Bros & Naruto Gekitou Ninja Taisen have very deep gameplay despite having simple control schemes. The depth comes from learning how to use the moves that are given you in the best way (and deal with other's moves) rather than trying to memorize how to use the moves. In short, you get to skip training and go straight to actually playing the game.
I've played most of the big fighting game series and am fairly decent at most but I swear to god I could never get into Guilty Gear. It just never clicked I think.
Now Bushido Blade. Man I loved me some Bushido Blade. I'd love to see a sequel to that, just without the dude with the gun this time around.
I can kind of grant SSB. It's not exactly deep, but it's solid. That it has to be rigged up so specifically to allow tourney play kind of worries me, but whatever. I know the developers didn't intend for it to be a tourney game.
I've seen the Naruto games discussed on various fighting game forums, and I've only played a couple of the early ones, but I get the impression that if there really was the depth and balance that some people claim is there, then it would have a tourney presence. There's no shortage of a built-in fanbase, that's for sure.
I mean, there were Power Stone tourneys, and that game was broken as fuck. There aren't any anymore because it was broken as fuck. I love me some Power Stone, but it was not a balanced game.
Sometimes (all the time) you need to actual work to get good at something. Abloo bloo bloo.
I can kind of grant SSB. It's not exactly deep, but it's solid. That it has to be rigged up so specifically to allow tourney play kind of worries me, but whatever. I know the developers didn't intend for it to be a tourney game.
Well, SSB was clearly not intended with any kind of serious competitive play in mind, but despite all of that SSB: Melee turned out to be a much deeper game than anyone was expecting. I feel like it almost turned into a really good game by accident.
I can kind of grant SSB. It's not exactly deep, but it's solid. That it has to be rigged up so specifically to allow tourney play kind of worries me, but whatever. I know the developers didn't intend for it to be a tourney game.
Well, SSB was clearly not intended with any kind of serious competitive play in mind, but despite all of that SSB: Melee turned out to be a much deeper game than anyone was expecting. I feel like it almost turned into a really good game by accident.
Wasn't the whole wave dashing thing that allowed most of the deeper gameplay elements unintended?
It wasn't just wavedashing. It was a lot of other things, like being able to cancel a dash in the opening frames of the animation with any move (including a dash in the other direction), being able to cancel a run by holding down, being able to input the 'soft landing' motion slightly before you got hit... a lot of these elements gave you a lot more freedom in movement. Then they were taken away in Brawl, and it feels (in comparison) like moving through molasses.
Reading through the thread I feel I have to throw in my 2 cents.
Fighting games are, much like the martial arts they represent, difficult to learn.
You wouldn't go into a tae-kwon-do class and expect to do the flashy kicks the masters do, so why do you expect to be able to do the gaming equivelent within minutes of playing?
Fighting games take many hours (hell even years) to learn and master, just like martial arts.
If you're not willing to go into them with the mindset of having to have patience and discipline to learn the moves, let alone the nuances of the games, then really they are not for you.
Yes, but guess what? Wave dashing takes some fucking practise! It isn't something you just do because you feel like it! Same with most of the advanced stuff in Melee. You want a simpler game, play Brawl. Oh wait, the tourney players don't like it as much.
Reading through the thread I feel I have to throw in my 2 cents.
Fighting games are, much like the martial arts they represent, difficult to learn.
You wouldn't go into a tae-kwon-do class and expect to do the flashy kicks the masters do, so why do you expect to be able to do the gaming equivelent within minutes of playing?
Fighting games take many hours (hell even years) to learn and master, just like martial arts.
If you're not willing to go into them with the mindset of having to have patience and discipline to learn the moves, let alone the nuances of the games, then really they are not for you.
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
If you're not willing to go into them with the mindset of having to have patience and discipline to learn the moves, let alone the nuances of the games, then really they are not for you.
Except there are plenty of fighting games that are highly accessible like Smash Bros & Naruto. Saying that every fighting game needs to be geared for the elite players is like saying that every brawler needs to be Ninja Gaiden, every RPG needs to be Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne, every shmup needs to be Ikaruga, and every platformer needs to be N+.
There's nothing wrong for taking into account different kinds of players. Some people like mastering a different set of 100 moves for dozens of characters. There are fighting games for those kind of people. Some people like to just jump in and start playing without a lot of prep time. There are fighting games for them as well. Heck, I'm about as competitive as you get for various games and even I have moods where I just want to chill with something low key like Rez or Castle Crashers.
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
The best fighting game I have EVER played had no complex moves, it was fun, open, and was very easy to learn. I'm completely and utterly disappointed that it never got a sequel this generation, because this generation of consoles could do it much better. And that's saying something. More games need to be like War of the Monsters.
I can kind of grant SSB. It's not exactly deep, but it's solid. That it has to be rigged up so specifically to allow tourney play kind of worries me, but whatever. I know the developers didn't intend for it to be a tourney game.
I've seen the Naruto games discussed on various fighting game forums, and I've only played a couple of the early ones, but I get the impression that if there really was the depth and balance that some people claim is there, then it would have a tourney presence. There's no shortage of a built-in fanbase, that's for sure.
I mean, there were Power Stone tourneys, and that game was broken as fuck. There aren't any anymore because it was broken as fuck. I love me some Power Stone, but it was not a balanced game.
Sometimes (all the time) you need to actual work to get good at something. Abloo bloo bloo.
I've only played the two 360 Naruto games, but I found the fighting system in them to be a nice medium between technical and simplified. You had your combos and your throws and your blocking/evading and your strategy...but toned down and easier to learn. The characters all seem pretty balanced with each other, too, for the most part.
There's certainly enough there to call them fighting games, anyway. Plus they're just fun.
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
Would it still be wrong if someone wanted to play it? Not at all, it would be not for you.
Pac-Man: Championship Edition has a control system that consists of 4 moves:
Move Up
Move Left
Move Right
Move Down
And yet, it has some of the deepest gameplay of any game released in this generation.
I don't think having many gameplay modes is the same thing as having depth. By that logic I could make a game that has 1 million different single-button game modes and say it has the deepest gameplay of any game released ever, at least until someone made a game with 1 million and one single-button game game modes.
Likewise, series like Smash Bros & Naruto Gekitou Ninja Taisen have very deep gameplay despite having simple control schemes. The depth comes from learning how to use the moves that are given you in the best way (and deal with other's moves) rather than trying to memorize how to use the moves. In short, you get to skip training and go straight to actually playing the game.
Likewise, series like Street Fighter have very deep gameplay despite having simple control schemes. The depth comes from learning how to use the moves that are given you in the best way (and deal with other's moves) rather than trying to memorize how to use the moves. In short, you get to skip training and go straight to actually playing the game.
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
Would it still be wrong if someone wanted to play it? Not at all, it would be not for you.
As much as anything can be wrong with a video game, yes. Why do people keep coming back to the subjectivity thing? It's the most fruitless line of argument I can imagine. Of course it's fucking subjective, but that doesn't make it banned from reasoned debate.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
The best fighting game I have EVER played had no complex moves, it was fun, open, and was very easy to learn. I'm completely and utterly disappointed that it never got a sequel this generation, because this generation of consoles could do it much better. And that's saying something. More games need to be like King of the Monsters.
There's plenty of wrestling games out there.
B:L on
click for Anime chat
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Oh...those videos reminded me why I miss the arcade scene so much.
Dragkonias on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
Would it still be wrong if someone wanted to play it? Not at all, it would be not for you.
As much as anything can be wrong with a video game, yes. Why do people keep coming back to the subjectivity thing? It's the most fruitless line of argument I can imagine. Of course it's fucking subjective, but that doesn't make it banned from reasoned debate.
No, I'm just saying that if someone wants to play it, it cannot possibly be wrong. You can't just say that article A is not allowed to be a game because you don't want to play it. Whether or not you think it is a "good" game or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is indeed a game.
You seem to be implying that because you think it is wrong, it shout not be a game. . . I didn't know Hitler was still alive and lived in Texas. . .
I can't believe it took 7+ pages for this troll thread to get Godwin'd
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
Would it still be wrong if someone wanted to play it? Not at all, it would be not for you.
As much as anything can be wrong with a video game, yes. Why do people keep coming back to the subjectivity thing? It's the most fruitless line of argument I can imagine. Of course it's fucking subjective, but that doesn't make it banned from reasoned debate.
No, I'm just saying that if someone wants to play it, it cannot possibly be wrong. You can't just say that article A is not allowed to be a game because you don't want to play it. Whether or not you think it is a "good" game or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is indeed a game.
You seem to be implying that because you think it is wrong, it shout not be a game. . . I didn't know Hitler was still alive and lived in Texas. . .
I can't believe it took 7+ pages for this troll thread to get Godwin'd
Uh, when did I say it couldn't be a game? Apparently every professional game reviewer is a little Hitler, because they point out flaws in games every day. Are you seriously suggesting that you think pointing out that something is wrong with a game (or even genre) is a form of fascism? You honestly seem just to be trolling at this point.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
Would it still be wrong if someone wanted to play it? Not at all, it would be not for you.
Pac-Man: Championship Edition has a control system that consists of 4 moves:
Move Up
Move Left
Move Right
Move Down
And yet, it has some of the deepest gameplay of any game released in this generation.
I don't think having many gameplay modes is the same thing as having depth. By that logic I could make a game that has 1 million different single-button game modes and say it has the deepest gameplay of any game released ever, at least until someone made a game with 1 million and one single-button game game modes.
The depth has nothing to do with how many modes a game has. I say it has depth, because Pac-Man: Championship Edition played by a skilled player and Pac-Man: Championship Edition played by an amateur are essentially completely different games, as the strategies and gameplay involved at high level play and low level play have very little in common with each other (i.e. the skilled player is thinking about stuff that the casual player doesn't even realize exists). Likewise, a game like Street Fighter is considered to have depth to its gameplay because the divide between someone mashing buttons & someone who has mastered the game is so vast.
SSB, Power Stone and Naruto are not fighting games, and they don't even have difficult inputs or combos that keep you from just picking them up and playing them.
I generally say SSB is not a traditional fighting game because death is not directly caused by the other opposing player, but rather the stage.
There are also random consumables strewn about levels. (This is admittedly often turned off by tournament players, though the fact that a fantastic array of options need to be set just so to make the game "tournament worthy" makes me judge the game as a whole differently)
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
Would it still be wrong if someone wanted to play it? Not at all, it would be not for you.
Pac-Man: Championship Edition has a control system that consists of 4 moves:
Move Up
Move Left
Move Right
Move Down
And yet, it has some of the deepest gameplay of any game released in this generation.
I don't think having many gameplay modes is the same thing as having depth. By that logic I could make a game that has 1 million different single-button game modes and say it has the deepest gameplay of any game released ever, at least until someone made a game with 1 million and one single-button game game modes.
The depth has nothing to do with how many modes a game has. I say it has depth, because Pac-Man: Championship Edition played by a skilled player and Pac-Man: Championship Edition played by an amateur are essentially completely different games, as the strategies and gameplay involved at high level play and low level play have very little in common with each other (i.e. the skilled player is thinking about stuff that the casual player doesn't even realize exists). Likewise, a game like Street Fighter is considered to have depth to its gameplay because the divide between someone mashing buttons & someone who has mastered the game is so vast.
Oh, yeah. The master player has such a deep understanding of the ghost psyche, it's almost like he knows where they will go before they do, man.
I think you're confusing "depth" with "practice". Sharpening a pencil is not a deep activity, but if you do it enough times, you'll start to determine that there are quirks to the wood grain that, when exploited, can produce an ever so slightly sharper point, but that doesn't change the fact that you're sharpening a fucking pencil.
Pac-Man is not "deep". It's very shallow. It is because it is shallow and simple that it is such an accessible game, and has remained more or less popular for decades.
Oh, yeah. The master player has such a deep understanding of the ghost psyche, it's almost like he knows where they will go before they do, man.
I think you're confusing "depth" with "practice". Sharpening a pencil is not a deep activity, but if you do it enough times, you'll start to determine that there are quirks to the wood grain that, when exploited, can produce an ever so slightly sharper point, but that doesn't change the fact that you're sharpening a fucking pencil.
Pac-Man is not "deep". It's very shallow. It is because it is shallow and simple that it is such an accessible game, and has remained more or less popular for decades.
Pac-Man Championship != Pac-Man.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Posts
I got okay at street fighter IV by sitting down and playing with someone who was ridiculously good at Marvel vs Capcom 2, but new to SFIV. I learned from him how to effectively punish whiffed/blocked moves, which is a good starting point to getting better.
SC3 also had a training mode that tried to tell you how to play, but it wasn't very good and didn't explain things very well (also used some odd terminology).
But, we have youtube now. If you want to know how to play there are tutorial videos for most of the popular games, and there are tourney vids featuring most every character being used in different ways by different players and at different levels. Every major franchise has it's own site that offers in-depth info on the game's systems and characters. You will have to do some studying, but most importantly you will have to spend a lot of time playing. It'd be nice for these things to be included in the games, but it's a great business decision, so whatever.
Note: There are also very few fighting games that are released with proper balance the first time out. (Actually, none, unless you want to go out of your way and include MvC2, but that's a very special case). Additionally, players inevitably find ways to play the games that weren't quite intended by the developers -- who aren't the best players anyway -- so any guide put out before release, especially one constructed by the developers, will be rendered obsolete months or even weeks after the game has been released. This is three times as true now that many new fighting games don't get proper arcade releases.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I'm not sure if a SF tutorial in the moonspeak our resident posters jabber away in would promote new people playing or scare them the fuck away. Personally though, I'd like something like that too.
Here ya go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0cFs5mHQC4&feature=PlayList&p=5E8E2A6415422B77&index=0&playnext=1
It's for SF2 but it's applicable for the new ones too.
But then you begin to notice that, especially with other characters, your move set is limited, natural advantages embedded into moves are erased (i.e. the built-in block in any charge move), and that the fighting just seems a lot less involved.
That's not due to simplified control schemes being inferior. It has to be put in a game specifically designed for this sort of mechanics. You can't throw SSB's controls into SF or vice-versa. There could be a fantastic 2D fighter using SSB's style of controls, if all the moves were balanced in a way that they were designed to be activated very easily and immediatly.
Obviously I'm talking about a traditional street fighter game, like people were asking for. Another good example of why such controls fail in capcom fighters is the game I mentioned in my post - Capcom vs SNK 2 EO. Capcom fighters just aren't made for a smash brothers control scheme.
soul calibur and tekken i used to win all the time by button mashing. when i started street fighter i smartened up quite a bit, but i can really only stick to one or two characters as switching throws me off way too much.
basically if every game had zangief i'd be solid, but as it stands i will likely never be good at fighters.
It's logical to conclude that a control scheme is incompatible with a type of game after 2 failed attempts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5NyiGU5EOg
Tutorials are only good for the basics. You're not going to learn reactions and how to read the opponent without anything but practice, which is apparently anathema.
Well, for starters, it's useful for getting a view of the various moves and knowing what to expect. I mean, tutorials are NOT supposed to do everything and cure cancer. That's why they're called 'tutorials'.
And honestly, I don't see what the problem with playing against AI is.....well, except maybe in really slow games like Tekken. In faster games, since the AI is scalable, you can use it as a way to steadily improve your reaction time. Will it improve your skill? No, as already pointed out, you're learning how to fight against AI. But your knowledge of the movelist and your reaction time is pretty much crucial in fighting any opponent, human or AI.
Pac-Man: Championship Edition has a control system that consists of 4 moves:
Move Up
Move Left
Move Right
Move Down
And yet, it has some of the deepest gameplay of any game released in this generation.
Likewise, series like Smash Bros & Naruto Gekitou Ninja Taisen have very deep gameplay despite having simple control schemes. The depth comes from learning how to use the moves that are given you in the best way (and deal with other's moves) rather than trying to memorize how to use the moves. In short, you get to skip training and go straight to actually playing the game.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Now Bushido Blade. Man I loved me some Bushido Blade. I'd love to see a sequel to that, just without the dude with the gun this time around.
I've seen the Naruto games discussed on various fighting game forums, and I've only played a couple of the early ones, but I get the impression that if there really was the depth and balance that some people claim is there, then it would have a tourney presence. There's no shortage of a built-in fanbase, that's for sure.
I mean, there were Power Stone tourneys, and that game was broken as fuck. There aren't any anymore because it was broken as fuck. I love me some Power Stone, but it was not a balanced game.
Sometimes (all the time) you need to actual work to get good at something. Abloo bloo bloo.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Well, SSB was clearly not intended with any kind of serious competitive play in mind, but despite all of that SSB: Melee turned out to be a much deeper game than anyone was expecting. I feel like it almost turned into a really good game by accident.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Wasn't the whole wave dashing thing that allowed most of the deeper gameplay elements unintended?
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Fighting games are, much like the martial arts they represent, difficult to learn.
You wouldn't go into a tae-kwon-do class and expect to do the flashy kicks the masters do, so why do you expect to be able to do the gaming equivelent within minutes of playing?
Fighting games take many hours (hell even years) to learn and master, just like martial arts.
If you're not willing to go into them with the mindset of having to have patience and discipline to learn the moves, let alone the nuances of the games, then really they are not for you.
Where Madness and the Fantasical Come to Play
I guess we'll never be happy.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
Except there are plenty of fighting games that are highly accessible like Smash Bros & Naruto. Saying that every fighting game needs to be geared for the elite players is like saying that every brawler needs to be Ninja Gaiden, every RPG needs to be Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne, every shmup needs to be Ikaruga, and every platformer needs to be N+.
There's nothing wrong for taking into account different kinds of players. Some people like mastering a different set of 100 moves for dozens of characters. There are fighting games for those kind of people. Some people like to just jump in and start playing without a lot of prep time. There are fighting games for them as well. Heck, I'm about as competitive as you get for various games and even I have moods where I just want to chill with something low key like Rez or Castle Crashers.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Pffffft!
I hate western RPGs, but ya don't see me makin' a thread about it!
:P
In all seriousness, I love fighting games; particularly 2D ones evolved from the groundwork laid by the likes of Street Fighter II.
KOF is my favorite fighting game series, some of my fav fighters besides those are the SF Alpha games, and I love love love me some Guilty Gear XX.
Bring on the circle-motion and dp based controls woooO!
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I've only played the two 360 Naruto games, but I found the fighting system in them to be a nice medium between technical and simplified. You had your combos and your throws and your blocking/evading and your strategy...but toned down and easier to learn. The characters all seem pretty balanced with each other, too, for the most part.
There's certainly enough there to call them fighting games, anyway. Plus they're just fun.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Would it still be wrong if someone wanted to play it? Not at all, it would be not for you.
I don't think having many gameplay modes is the same thing as having depth. By that logic I could make a game that has 1 million different single-button game modes and say it has the deepest gameplay of any game released ever, at least until someone made a game with 1 million and one single-button game game modes.
Likewise, series like Street Fighter have very deep gameplay despite having simple control schemes. The depth comes from learning how to use the moves that are given you in the best way (and deal with other's moves) rather than trying to memorize how to use the moves. In short, you get to skip training and go straight to actually playing the game.
Last video reminds me of all the shit talking and fights during Tekken tournaments back a few years ago, was pure awsome win!!!
As much as anything can be wrong with a video game, yes. Why do people keep coming back to the subjectivity thing? It's the most fruitless line of argument I can imagine. Of course it's fucking subjective, but that doesn't make it banned from reasoned debate.
There's plenty of wrestling games out there.
No, I'm just saying that if someone wants to play it, it cannot possibly be wrong. You can't just say that article A is not allowed to be a game because you don't want to play it. Whether or not you think it is a "good" game or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is indeed a game.
You seem to be implying that because you think it is wrong, it shout not be a game. . . I didn't know Hitler was still alive and lived in Texas. . .
Uh, when did I say it couldn't be a game? Apparently every professional game reviewer is a little Hitler, because they point out flaws in games every day. Are you seriously suggesting that you think pointing out that something is wrong with a game (or even genre) is a form of fascism? You honestly seem just to be trolling at this point.
The depth has nothing to do with how many modes a game has. I say it has depth, because Pac-Man: Championship Edition played by a skilled player and Pac-Man: Championship Edition played by an amateur are essentially completely different games, as the strategies and gameplay involved at high level play and low level play have very little in common with each other (i.e. the skilled player is thinking about stuff that the casual player doesn't even realize exists). Likewise, a game like Street Fighter is considered to have depth to its gameplay because the divide between someone mashing buttons & someone who has mastered the game is so vast.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
There are also random consumables strewn about levels. (This is admittedly often turned off by tournament players, though the fact that a fantastic array of options need to be set just so to make the game "tournament worthy" makes me judge the game as a whole differently)
Oh, yeah. The master player has such a deep understanding of the ghost psyche, it's almost like he knows where they will go before they do, man.
I think you're confusing "depth" with "practice". Sharpening a pencil is not a deep activity, but if you do it enough times, you'll start to determine that there are quirks to the wood grain that, when exploited, can produce an ever so slightly sharper point, but that doesn't change the fact that you're sharpening a fucking pencil.
Pac-Man is not "deep". It's very shallow. It is because it is shallow and simple that it is such an accessible game, and has remained more or less popular for decades.
Pac-Man Championship != Pac-Man.