Look, playing for fun is one thing, but playing to see who is better at a game is something else entirely.
I don't understand why some people are enraged that the Smash community would dare disable items and ban certain maps. I mean sure, playing sudden death pokeballs on high is tons of fun, but playing a more minimalistic game, and working solely within the abilities of your character is its own kind of fun.
The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of serious SSB players prefer items off. If you want to play in a tournament with items on, find some people who share your mindset and make your own. I don't begrudge anyone who enjoys playing with items on, but fuck you if you want to start telling me I'm doing it wrong.
Here's my explanation of Dokapon Kingdom (assuming you know of Mario Party):
Take Mario Party and remove the minigames. In their stead, have classic RPG-like combat, complete with gear, stats, spells and levels. You move around on the board with more control than in Mario Party, beating NPCs and liberating cities. There are a ton of random events like in Mario Party, but in this game they have a much, MUCH stronger impact. You can willingly attack the other players, steal shit from them, including towns and money (which are how you measure victory and ranking). Basically, take everything that make Mario Party random and cheap, and multiply it ten times over, and add the fact you can really fuck up the other players at will.
Here's my explanation of Dokapon Kingdom (assuming you know of Mario Party):
Take Mario Party and remove the minigames. In their stead, have classic RPG-like combat, complete with gear, stats, spells and levels. You move around on the board with more control than in Mario Party, beating NPCs and liberating cities. There are a ton of random events like in Mario Party, but in this game they have a much, MUCH stronger impact. You can willingly attack the other players, steal shit from them, including towns and money (which are how you measure victory and ranking). Basically, take everything that make Mario Party random and cheap, and multiply it ten times over, and add the fact you can really fuck up the other players at will.
A tabletop-rpg hybrid game with game mechanics EVEN more broken than mario party? Is that even possible?
Huh. I thought this was a thread about people hating fighting games. Not a clash of PhD Thesis findings on the effects of Items in Smash Bros.
I personally love Fighting Games, regardless of how good or bad I am at a particular one, because, to me, Fighting Games have always been about friendly competition. They're a social game, a way to test yourself against your peers while laughing and hooting and talking hilarious smack.
Just for fun, I'm going to put up a post I made in the actual Dokapon Kingdom thread. The terminology may confuse you but honestly it probably makes it better:
This game really does destroy friendships.
My friends and I have been going through the story mode somewhat slowly, mostly not screwing each other over horribly. However, the reason it has been so slow going is that we've had two Apocalypses (player going darkling) since we started playing, which as anyone who has experienced it knows, it pretty much undoes anywhere from 1 - 6 hours of game time.
One of my friends PKed me right as I was about to deliver the piggy bank and get the second castle. It definitely made me unhappy, especially as he gloated about it and declared that his character was too powerful to stop now.
We made our way through the third chapter, and when the castle mission opened, the king chose pretty much one of the most impossibly rare items for us to collect 5 of. We played for over two hours trying to find some, and then this same friend who ganked me before decided to wander into the casino cave and try the shop there. It was there (!), so he bought 5 of them and then used a Super Spinner thinking he could hightail it back to the castle. Meanwhile, I waited outside, like a good thief would, and when he left the cave, I used my 3 spinner (imagine rolling three dice instead of one on your turn) and ran laps around his character, stealing one of the necessary items every time (thief characters steal an item every time they pass someone on the board). Next turn, he tries to attack me, but as a thief, I just escape from the fight. Then, I use my item that paralyses people (freezes them to one spot), and start running laps around him again. At this point, he calls me a fucking faggot and storms out of the room.
Epic good times.
Games built around randomness are amazing fun, but it's hard to draw huge conclusions from them. Generally, just like real life, they tend to just bring out the worst in people.
That said, games like casual Smash and Dokapon are right up my ally, since I find that as I grow older, the battlelust of my youth has subsided and I don't want to compete so much as just have fun.
Ultimanecat on
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Huh. I thought this was a thread about people hating fighting games. Not a clash of PhD Thesis findings on the effects of Items in Smash Bros.
I personally love Fighting Games, regardless of how good or bad I am at a particular one, because, to me, Fighting Games have always been about friendly competition. They're a social game, a way to test yourself against your peers while laughing and hooting and talking hilarious smack.
Yeah...that is how I feel about them. For the most part I'm above average but at the same time not a a really pro level when it comes to fighters. On a scale of 1 to 10 of skill, I tend to teeter between a 6-8 depending on the game.
That is one of the reasons I miss arcades. It was nice to be able to play face-to-face with people who are just as enthusiastic as you about something. And except for the occasional jackass, most people would take losing/winning pretty good and most shit talking was just in good fun. Really, they just had a nice sense of community to them.
I've been considering actually trying to search out tourney places when I get a car, but at the same time I really don't want to go an get my shit handed to me by people who practice the game more than I do...so I don't know how much fun I could have at them.
Truly, I don't know if the arcade scene will ever be created again here in America. Online is nice and while I doubt it'll ever be perfect they have made some strides with it, but that still doesn't come close from the fun you get from playing someone face-to-face.
Something was mentioned only once in this whole thread that I think is important and is something that utterly shits me about most fighting games. I hate when what you are shown on the screen does not correspond with what happens in the game. People talk about "priority" but I think it is rubbish. When a developer creates a game they are making every element of game and I think a lot of the time that they could create a much more harmonious and homogenous product if the display they provide gave more accurate feedback of what was actually happening within the game's systems. I think this is true for fighters of the 2D and "3D" varieties ("" for the fact that most of them are really 2D with 3D presentation and maybe a sidestep if you're lucky). Yes, one can learn which moves have "priority." I've done it in many titles. But is it really too much to ask for a fighting game that reacts based on what you're seeing rather than a hidden set of arbitrary rules? REALLY? In this day and age? I think, if nothing else, it would be an interesting alternative to a fairly unevolved genre. When I think about it, the 2Ders have remained fairly unchanged since the days of SF2, which, admittedly, on the surface, employed a fairly elegant and various system, until we learned to break the game. I'd never heard of a tic throw back in the day but we did them all the time and felt like cheap little bitches for it. That's beside the point, however. The 3Ders, within their own series have evolved little over the years and really aren't all that different from eachother, at least I think the similarities outweigh the differences. Powerstone was always a bit different but it kind of disappeared. I think the VF series evolved the most within its own series but that may be because it was the progenitor and therefore had the greatest scope for growth. Never played Bushido Blade but the descriptions of it always intrigued me. Smash is different. It really is a great "fuck you" to traditional fighters but all three Smashes still suffer from the "what you see is not what you get" problem to varying degrees. I think Brawl is the best in the series in that regard but still nowhere near optimal. (I love or have loved many games in all these subgenres in spite of this gripe I have). This is quite rambly, I know but I just think it's time, with all this tech these days which I feel really, on the whole, has not been put toward any significant use (this is just my feeling, there's probably room for a whole flamey thread about it, I don't care) that someone brought something really new to the table in terms of one on one (not exclusively, I suppose) realtime arena-based human combat simulations. Something with accurate collision detection, location damage, weight and velocity based damage, real 3D movement. That's just off the top of my head. Could be fun or could suck, I don't know, I don't design games for a living. I suspect, if done well, it would at least be interesting.
Something was mentioned only once in this whole thread that I think is important and is something that utterly shits me about most fighting games. I hate when what you are shown on the screen does not correspond with what happens in the game. People talk about "priority" but I think it is rubbish. When a developer creates a game they are making every element of game and I think a lot of the time that they could create a much more harmonious and homogenous product if the display they provide gave more accurate feedback of what was actually happening within the game's systems. I think this is true for fighters of the 2D and "3D" varieties ("" for the fact that most of them are really 2D with 3D presentation and maybe a sidestep if you're lucky). Yes, one can learn which moves have "priority." I've done it in many titles. But is it really too much to ask for a fighting game that reacts based on what you're seeing rather than a hidden set of arbitrary rules? REALLY? In this day and age? I think, if nothing else, it would be an interesting alternative to a fairly unevolved genre. When I think about it, the 2Ders have remained fairly unchanged since the days of SF2, which, admittedly, on the surface, employed a fairly elegant and various system, until we learned to break the game. I'd never heard of a tic throw back in the day but we did them all the time and felt like cheap little bitches for it. That's beside the point, however. The 3Ders, within their own series have evolved little over the years and really aren't all that different from eachother, at least I think the similarities outweigh the differences. Powerstone was always a bit different but it kind of disappeared. I think the VF series evolved the most within its own series but that may be because it was the progenitor and therefore had the greatest scope for growth. Never played Bushido Blade but the descriptions of it always intrigued me. Smash is different. It really is a great "fuck you" to traditional fighters but all three Smashes still suffer from the "what you see is not what you get" problem to varying degrees. I think Brawl is the best in the series in that regard but still nowhere near optimal. (I love or have loved many games in all these subgenres in spite of this gripe I have). This is quite rambly, I know but I just think it's time, with all this tech these days which I feel really, on the whole, has not been put toward any significant use (this is just my feeling, there's probably room for a whole flamey thread about it, I don't care) that someone brought something really new to the table in terms of one on one (not exclusively, I suppose) realtime arena-based human combat simulations. Something with accurate collision detection, location damage, weight and velocity based damage, real 3D movement. That's just off the top of my head. Could be fun or could suck, I don't know, I don't design games for a living. I suspect, if done well, it would at least be interesting.
Wall of Text has priority over most moves; one of the few things that beat it flat out is the Quote Spoiler, or perhaps the Humorous Trimdown.
I get your point about wanting Priority to correspond to the visuals, but in my opinion, it usually does. However, there are going to be times when it's visually ambiguous; when that guy is mid-level super-kicking at the same time as that chick's mid-level super punch, who wins? There's no clear winner based on animations, and that's just something that's going to occur as a limitation of the medium itself.
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.
Please tell me how SSB is not a fighting game.
Its a platform brawler, to call it a fighting game is blasphemy.
It's a game where the point is to fight people. Therefore it is a fighting game.
Just because it's not a traditional fighting game doesn't make it not a fighting game.
I find it funny that other genres, like RPGs for example, can have incredibly varied play styles...but if a fighting game is different, nope it's not a fighting game.
Something was mentioned only once in this whole thread that I think is important and is something that utterly shits me about most fighting games. I hate when what you are shown on the screen does not correspond with what happens in the game. People talk about "priority" but I think it is rubbish. When a developer creates a game they are making every element of game and I think a lot of the time that they could create a much more harmonious and homogenous product if the display they provide gave more accurate feedback of what was actually happening within the game's systems. I think this is true for fighters of the 2D and "3D" varieties ("" for the fact that most of them are really 2D with 3D presentation and maybe a sidestep if you're lucky). Yes, one can learn which moves have "priority." I've done it in many titles. But is it really too much to ask for a fighting game that reacts based on what you're seeing rather than a hidden set of arbitrary rules? REALLY? In this day and age? I think, if nothing else, it would be an interesting alternative to a fairly unevolved genre. When I think about it, the 2Ders have remained fairly unchanged since the days of SF2, which, admittedly, on the surface, employed a fairly elegant and various system, until we learned to break the game. I'd never heard of a tic throw back in the day but we did them all the time and felt like cheap little bitches for it. That's beside the point, however. The 3Ders, within their own series have evolved little over the years and really aren't all that different from eachother, at least I think the similarities outweigh the differences. Powerstone was always a bit different but it kind of disappeared. I think the VF series evolved the most within its own series but that may be because it was the progenitor and therefore had the greatest scope for growth. Never played Bushido Blade but the descriptions of it always intrigued me. Smash is different. It really is a great "fuck you" to traditional fighters but all three Smashes still suffer from the "what you see is not what you get" problem to varying degrees. I think Brawl is the best in the series in that regard but still nowhere near optimal. (I love or have loved many games in all these subgenres in spite of this gripe I have). This is quite rambly, I know but I just think it's time, with all this tech these days which I feel really, on the whole, has not been put toward any significant use (this is just my feeling, there's probably room for a whole flamey thread about it, I don't care) that someone brought something really new to the table in terms of one on one (not exclusively, I suppose) realtime arena-based human combat simulations. Something with accurate collision detection, location damage, weight and velocity based damage, real 3D movement. That's just off the top of my head. Could be fun or could suck, I don't know, I don't design games for a living. I suspect, if done well, it would at least be interesting.
Wall of Text has priority over most moves; one of the few things that beat it flat out is the Quote Spoiler, or perhaps the Humorous Trimdown.
I get your point about wanting Priority to correspond to the visuals, but in my opinion, it usually does. However, there are going to be times when it's visually ambiguous; when that guy is mid-level super-kicking at the same time as that chick's mid-level super punch, who wins? There's no clear winner based on animations, and that's just something that's going to occur as a limitation of the medium itself.
Well guess what? The items spawn like that because the game is not meant for tourney play. I still don't quite see your point since both players can grab the items, and Evo did remove a bunch of the items, only the ones that were deemed to be balanced (they have drawbacks as well, aren't overpowered) were allowed.
I don't understand how items made things less balanced. You have just as much of a chance of finding the exploding pill as your opponent does. So those are still balanced.
My point though, is that items have been playtested, and found to be detrimental to the gameplay.
By the people who only played Fox on Final Destination, so gives a fuck what they decided. The EVO tourney videos are actually fun to watch, unlike most "competitive" SSBB vids.
Please don't talk when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
I don't understand how items made things less balanced. You have just as much of a chance of finding the exploding pill as your opponent does. So those are still balanced.
It makes the outcome more random, which apparently makes a competitive game less fun, although I guess nobody told Vegas this yet.
Items are random, so that makes thing fair. However, its unbalanced, because you can randomly lose a stock, which gives your opponent a huge advantage that he didn't earn.
Compare to poker: Played over the course of dozens of hands, poker is a balanced game.
Now imagine that you're only playing 4 hands, and if you draw the ace of spades you automatically lose that hand.
shadydentist on
Steam & GT
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Boy this sure is a fresh argument.
Go to Smashboards if you want to have an endless ssb items debate. Jesus Christ.
I have recently taught a pair of teenagers (aged 14 and 15) how to play guilty gear xx accent core.
This took me approximately a week. Both of them are capable of some of the rather harder technical feats in the GG games (for instance, both of them can FRC at least one of their attacks). Neither of them at wanted to play the game at all at first.
Neither of them can exactly beat me very often yet, but that's not my point.
Anyone bitching about fighting games being to complex probably has issues with exerting any effort at all.
That said, there really isn't any good reason for the technical hurdles players have to go through to play these games being so damn high (I'm looking at you 1 frame links and FRCs, fuck 360 and larger circle motions too, made me so damn happy that Sirlin fixed that shit in STHD).
NOR on
Swehehehehehahahahahahahahahawhawhawhaw
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
If they didn't even want to play it then why the fuck did you teach them to
Something was mentioned only once in this whole thread that I think is important and is something that utterly shits me about most fighting games. I hate when what you are shown on the screen does not correspond with what happens in the game. People talk about "priority" but I think it is rubbish. When a developer creates a game they are making every element of game and I think a lot of the time that they could create a much more harmonious and homogenous product if the display they provide gave more accurate feedback of what was actually happening within the game's systems.
I agree with you about the visual feedback, but in a different way I'd say. Yeah, priority can be weird sometimes, like, you can anticipate your opponent's move, time a punch perfectly, but still get hit by their attack? annoying. What annoys me about super street fighter 2 turbo (old game, so hard to blame it) and it happens in other games too, is that there is that inconsistency in the visual feedback. Like in ss2ft, Deejay can fierce jump kick and hit nothing but air and you still get hit. Yet with some other characters, you barely miss or sometimes kick right through the sprite, since it all comes down to hitboxes (which you cannot see). In my opinion, you don't need to memorize hit boxes or anything, but some moves are extremely misleading when it comes to visual -> what is actually occurring and what you need to do to stop it (and I'm not talking about overheads).
Also in regards to the first post, maybe in newer games, but in street fighter 2 (and from what I've seen, 3 somewhat) you really don't need to memorize some big ass combo to be competitive. In fact, most of the time 2-4 hits is good enough. Hell, in ssf2t (and any sf2 interation) a two-hit combo can be extremely effective (like fierce punch into dragon punch). The complexity of the game lies in knowing other things like spacing, knowing what moves and tactics are effective against other characters (this really comes by just playing a bunch, you eventually learn), learning how to utilize cross-ups, tick throws, etc. to help mix up your game to keep your opponent guessing, and how to defend against those as well, reversaling etc.
I don't hate them, they're just not for me. My wife and I got really into Soul Calibur, and then Soul Calibur 2, because we played together and improved together. So while I won the majority of the matches starting off, she stuck with a character and improved and won quite a bit more often. We had arcade pads & everything.
Of course, we moved on, and I realized that fighting games are pretty much only fun if you have someone to play against in person. Lag's too much of an issue online (and it's only recently that games have even considered it), so unless you hunt down competition in your area, you're stuck playing against bots. And the posts about how fighters are a "pure" form of a lot of other games really makes a difference there -- yes, you have to be quick, and you have to know a character's moves, and the strategy and tactics to win. But if you're playing against the computer, who cares?
And if you practice and get so good that no one in your circle of friends wants to play against you, good job. You've practiced so much that you "won" and have no reason to play the game anymore.
Priority isn't really something thats directly programmed into the game. Its really just a combination of timing, invulnerability frames, and placement of hitboxes.
One thing I really liked about SSF2:HDR is that in training mode, you can turn on hitboxes and see exactly why an attack loses to another attack.
shadydentist on
Steam & GT
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
I don't get the tekken hate. I've seen all the arguments, so there's no need to rehash them. I don't disagree with said reasons, opinions are all equally valid. I just don't hold them issal.
I do, however, very rarely see caucasian people playing it. I mean sure I mean yes most of the time I've played it at arcades said arcades have been in or near chinatown or in the middle of an area like that.
Yet I can still count the number who play it in comparison on one hand, whereas I see a lot of causasian dudes playing the sf4 cabinet across from the tekken machines in the same area.
I'm guessing it's a cultural based dislike. I wouldn't know, I don't understand western culture all that well despite being caucasian.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
As far as ethnicity and background goes...I'd say MvC2 has the best spread really. I always see all kinds of people playing it. I guess it has something to do with the familiarity of the Marvel characters and the fast-paced action of the game.
First of all, I hate the whole "fighting game are hard, I don't wanna/shouldn't have to practice" argument. Bullshit. It's a competitive game. ANY game, video or otherwise, where you have to "compete", you're gonna have to practice. Being hard is what makes it great, it's what makes the high's so high and the lows so low. If you don't like it, don't play. What's so hard about that? I'm sorry your ego bruises so easily and that it doesn't come naturally to you and that the game isn't catered to come naturally to you, but man the fuck up.
Second, I have a theory about fighting games and why they draw so much more ire than other competitive games. Fighting games are hard. They're really fucking hard. They take a whole lot of time and practice to be any good at. BUT the difference between it and the other two major competitive video game genres is that the matches are very personal.
In just about every FPS, it's you vs many, or team vs team. There's a lot of "random" things that happen and kills come and go. RTS's depend on you being at a god's eye perspective, and while at a very very high level you are controlling every little thing (i.e. Korean SC players), generally you don't have control and the computer is doing a bit of the work. Even Smash Bros and Power Stone at low levels cater to a certain FPS-like randomness, where things happen like lucky hits from players that weren't aiming for you or falling off the stage. They're also one vs many.
Fighting games are personal. It's just you and the other guy. There isn't a third party to interfere. The environment plays little to no role. It really just comes down to how good you are versus how good the other guy is. So when people aren't good at them and can't come to terms with that, all they're left with is to bitch about how the other guy was cheap, or how the other guy "wasted" their time practicing while they had a life, or how the rules are unfair.
It just sounds to me like whining about how dribbling the ball is dumb when you lose a game of 21.
I don't get the tekken hate. I've seen all the arguments, so there's no need to rehash them. I don't disagree with said reasons, opinions are all equally valid. I just don't hold them issal.
I do, however, very rarely see caucasian people playing it. I mean sure I mean yes most of the time I've played it at arcades said arcades have been in or near chinatown or in the middle of an area like that.
Yet I can still count the number who play it in comparison on one hand, whereas I see a lot of causasian dudes playing the sf4 cabinet across from the tekken machines in the same area.
I'm guessing it's a cultural based dislike. I wouldn't know, I don't understand western culture all that well despite being caucasian.
I don't know.
I'm of Asian descent. I was born and raised in an Asian culture. I don't like Tekken. I know other Asian people who don't like it either (actually, I can't immediately think of an Asian person who does, but I'm probably just not thinking hard).
I mean, I'm not going to say it's as bad as Bloody Roar or something. I just don't think it's as good as any of the major 3D fighters of the past few years. Of course, I'll acknowledge that much of that is a matter of personal taste (same for people who like Tekken).
Tekken was not hugely popular in Taiwan (most of my family was more SC/DOA), though it was popular while I was living in Yokohama (not VF popular, but well enough).
I don't think it's a cultural thing. But I could be wrong.
Tekken comes off as incredibly mashy even though its not and gets lost in the shuffle.
It doesn't have the flair of DOA or Soul Calibur.
It doesn't have the Technical Virtuosity of Virtua Fighter.
It doesn't have the tradition of Street Fighter or KoF.
It's both too simple and too complex to get a good audience. Plus the games after 3 just felt a bit off in small areas.
It's also got some of the lamest characters ever.
I don't really know about this, but I could see someone making that point. Personally, my harshest criticism of Tekken is the boring, mostly-same levels it used to share with SC (at least SC4 improved upon that). I don't like it's slow pacing, but I'll acknowledge that it's well suited for people who like a slower fighter.
Synthesis on
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Yeah...I'll have to agree. After T3 I couldn't really get into it anymore. I'm still trying 6 though.
Though I will say DOA has its own flaws. The stun system on that game is kind of broke, and the counter damage(not countering itself) has always felt inconsistent with me.
Take Ryu's Izuna Drop. Normally it doesn't do much damage, but depending on the counter it can go from doing fair damage to more than half your health bar.
I had a couple friends who were into Tekken 3 back in college, I played it a bit with them. It's not a bad game, but it never really grabbed me. I could do alright with the Korean Kickboxer who's name is currently eluding me, but eventually stopped playing when my friend's Dr. B became unbeatable.
Yeah...I'll have to agree. After T3 I couldn't really get into it anymore. I'm still trying 6 though.
Though I will say DOA has its own flaws. The stun system on that game is kind of broke, and the counter damage(not countering itself) has always felt inconsistent with me.
Take Ryu's Izuna Drop. Normally it doesn't do much damage, but depending on the counter it can go from doing fair damage to more than half your health bar.
Oh, god yes. *facepalm* I suppose I could say it's a complication of having ridiculously complex level design (stairways, multiple floors, destructable walls), but it still pisses me off when someone pulls it off on the edge of a platform and knocks me down a level.
Also, in DOA2 you could do it underneath a bell in a bell tower for similar effect. At least that was a little funny though.
Still, if it's a choice between that goddamn cheap circumstantial attack, and boring SC2-style levels, I'll take the goddamn cheap part.
Posts
I don't understand why some people are enraged that the Smash community would dare disable items and ban certain maps. I mean sure, playing sudden death pokeballs on high is tons of fun, but playing a more minimalistic game, and working solely within the abilities of your character is its own kind of fun.
The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of serious SSB players prefer items off. If you want to play in a tournament with items on, find some people who share your mindset and make your own. I don't begrudge anyone who enjoys playing with items on, but fuck you if you want to start telling me I'm doing it wrong.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Take Mario Party and remove the minigames. In their stead, have classic RPG-like combat, complete with gear, stats, spells and levels. You move around on the board with more control than in Mario Party, beating NPCs and liberating cities. There are a ton of random events like in Mario Party, but in this game they have a much, MUCH stronger impact. You can willingly attack the other players, steal shit from them, including towns and money (which are how you measure victory and ranking). Basically, take everything that make Mario Party random and cheap, and multiply it ten times over, and add the fact you can really fuck up the other players at will.
A tabletop-rpg hybrid game with game mechanics EVEN more broken than mario party? Is that even possible?
For what console is this dokapon kingdom?
I personally love Fighting Games, regardless of how good or bad I am at a particular one, because, to me, Fighting Games have always been about friendly competition. They're a social game, a way to test yourself against your peers while laughing and hooting and talking hilarious smack.
My friends and I have been going through the story mode somewhat slowly, mostly not screwing each other over horribly. However, the reason it has been so slow going is that we've had two Apocalypses (player going darkling) since we started playing, which as anyone who has experienced it knows, it pretty much undoes anywhere from 1 - 6 hours of game time.
One of my friends PKed me right as I was about to deliver the piggy bank and get the second castle. It definitely made me unhappy, especially as he gloated about it and declared that his character was too powerful to stop now.
We made our way through the third chapter, and when the castle mission opened, the king chose pretty much one of the most impossibly rare items for us to collect 5 of. We played for over two hours trying to find some, and then this same friend who ganked me before decided to wander into the casino cave and try the shop there. It was there (!), so he bought 5 of them and then used a Super Spinner thinking he could hightail it back to the castle. Meanwhile, I waited outside, like a good thief would, and when he left the cave, I used my 3 spinner (imagine rolling three dice instead of one on your turn) and ran laps around his character, stealing one of the necessary items every time (thief characters steal an item every time they pass someone on the board). Next turn, he tries to attack me, but as a thief, I just escape from the fight. Then, I use my item that paralyses people (freezes them to one spot), and start running laps around him again. At this point, he calls me a fucking faggot and storms out of the room.
Epic good times.
Games built around randomness are amazing fun, but it's hard to draw huge conclusions from them. Generally, just like real life, they tend to just bring out the worst in people.
That said, games like casual Smash and Dokapon are right up my ally, since I find that as I grow older, the battlelust of my youth has subsided and I don't want to compete so much as just have fun.
Yeah...that is how I feel about them. For the most part I'm above average but at the same time not a a really pro level when it comes to fighters. On a scale of 1 to 10 of skill, I tend to teeter between a 6-8 depending on the game.
That is one of the reasons I miss arcades. It was nice to be able to play face-to-face with people who are just as enthusiastic as you about something. And except for the occasional jackass, most people would take losing/winning pretty good and most shit talking was just in good fun. Really, they just had a nice sense of community to them.
I've been considering actually trying to search out tourney places when I get a car, but at the same time I really don't want to go an get my shit handed to me by people who practice the game more than I do...so I don't know how much fun I could have at them.
Truly, I don't know if the arcade scene will ever be created again here in America. Online is nice and while I doubt it'll ever be perfect they have made some strides with it, but that still doesn't come close from the fun you get from playing someone face-to-face.
Something was mentioned only once in this whole thread that I think is important and is something that utterly shits me about most fighting games. I hate when what you are shown on the screen does not correspond with what happens in the game. People talk about "priority" but I think it is rubbish. When a developer creates a game they are making every element of game and I think a lot of the time that they could create a much more harmonious and homogenous product if the display they provide gave more accurate feedback of what was actually happening within the game's systems. I think this is true for fighters of the 2D and "3D" varieties ("" for the fact that most of them are really 2D with 3D presentation and maybe a sidestep if you're lucky). Yes, one can learn which moves have "priority." I've done it in many titles. But is it really too much to ask for a fighting game that reacts based on what you're seeing rather than a hidden set of arbitrary rules? REALLY? In this day and age? I think, if nothing else, it would be an interesting alternative to a fairly unevolved genre. When I think about it, the 2Ders have remained fairly unchanged since the days of SF2, which, admittedly, on the surface, employed a fairly elegant and various system, until we learned to break the game. I'd never heard of a tic throw back in the day but we did them all the time and felt like cheap little bitches for it. That's beside the point, however. The 3Ders, within their own series have evolved little over the years and really aren't all that different from eachother, at least I think the similarities outweigh the differences. Powerstone was always a bit different but it kind of disappeared. I think the VF series evolved the most within its own series but that may be because it was the progenitor and therefore had the greatest scope for growth. Never played Bushido Blade but the descriptions of it always intrigued me. Smash is different. It really is a great "fuck you" to traditional fighters but all three Smashes still suffer from the "what you see is not what you get" problem to varying degrees. I think Brawl is the best in the series in that regard but still nowhere near optimal. (I love or have loved many games in all these subgenres in spite of this gripe I have). This is quite rambly, I know but I just think it's time, with all this tech these days which I feel really, on the whole, has not been put toward any significant use (this is just my feeling, there's probably room for a whole flamey thread about it, I don't care) that someone brought something really new to the table in terms of one on one (not exclusively, I suppose) realtime arena-based human combat simulations. Something with accurate collision detection, location damage, weight and velocity based damage, real 3D movement. That's just off the top of my head. Could be fun or could suck, I don't know, I don't design games for a living. I suspect, if done well, it would at least be interesting.
Wall of Text has priority over most moves; one of the few things that beat it flat out is the Quote Spoiler, or perhaps the Humorous Trimdown.
I get your point about wanting Priority to correspond to the visuals, but in my opinion, it usually does. However, there are going to be times when it's visually ambiguous; when that guy is mid-level super-kicking at the same time as that chick's mid-level super punch, who wins? There's no clear winner based on animations, and that's just something that's going to occur as a limitation of the medium itself.
Perhaps if you could give some examples?
It's a game where the point is to fight people. Therefore it is a fighting game.
Just because it's not a traditional fighting game doesn't make it not a fighting game.
I find it funny that other genres, like RPGs for example, can have incredibly varied play styles...but if a fighting game is different, nope it's not a fighting game.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
nuclear blast resulting from super-super contact crits level for 9999. Level becomes nuclear wasteland, cheering crowd becomes skeletons and/or radiated dust.
that'd be pretty epic.
edit: Breaking News:
Quake is a fighting game. Objective is to fight people, not traditional, but still fight.
ps: I'm being shallow and pedantic. Please don't hate.
Developer intent is irrelevant.
Next.
It makes the outcome more random, which apparently makes a competitive game less fun, although I guess nobody told Vegas this yet.
Compare to poker: Played over the course of dozens of hands, poker is a balanced game.
Now imagine that you're only playing 4 hands, and if you draw the ace of spades you automatically lose that hand.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Go to Smashboards if you want to have an endless ssb items debate. Jesus Christ.
Item smash is fun, but it's a completely different game and it's not the game that the serious community decided was worth exploring. Get over it.
You probably like having items in Smash...
Or you don't like having items in Smash...
Either way I hate you and everything you stand for.
This took me approximately a week. Both of them are capable of some of the rather harder technical feats in the GG games (for instance, both of them can FRC at least one of their attacks). Neither of them at wanted to play the game at all at first.
Neither of them can exactly beat me very often yet, but that's not my point.
Anyone bitching about fighting games being to complex probably has issues with exerting any effort at all.
That said, there really isn't any good reason for the technical hurdles players have to go through to play these games being so damn high (I'm looking at you 1 frame links and FRCs, fuck 360 and larger circle motions too, made me so damn happy that Sirlin fixed that shit in STHD).
I agree with you about the visual feedback, but in a different way I'd say. Yeah, priority can be weird sometimes, like, you can anticipate your opponent's move, time a punch perfectly, but still get hit by their attack? annoying. What annoys me about super street fighter 2 turbo (old game, so hard to blame it) and it happens in other games too, is that there is that inconsistency in the visual feedback. Like in ss2ft, Deejay can fierce jump kick and hit nothing but air and you still get hit. Yet with some other characters, you barely miss or sometimes kick right through the sprite, since it all comes down to hitboxes (which you cannot see). In my opinion, you don't need to memorize hit boxes or anything, but some moves are extremely misleading when it comes to visual -> what is actually occurring and what you need to do to stop it (and I'm not talking about overheads).
Also in regards to the first post, maybe in newer games, but in street fighter 2 (and from what I've seen, 3 somewhat) you really don't need to memorize some big ass combo to be competitive. In fact, most of the time 2-4 hits is good enough. Hell, in ssf2t (and any sf2 interation) a two-hit combo can be extremely effective (like fierce punch into dragon punch). The complexity of the game lies in knowing other things like spacing, knowing what moves and tactics are effective against other characters (this really comes by just playing a bunch, you eventually learn), learning how to utilize cross-ups, tick throws, etc. to help mix up your game to keep your opponent guessing, and how to defend against those as well, reversaling etc.
Of course, we moved on, and I realized that fighting games are pretty much only fun if you have someone to play against in person. Lag's too much of an issue online (and it's only recently that games have even considered it), so unless you hunt down competition in your area, you're stuck playing against bots. And the posts about how fighters are a "pure" form of a lot of other games really makes a difference there -- yes, you have to be quick, and you have to know a character's moves, and the strategy and tactics to win. But if you're playing against the computer, who cares?
And if you practice and get so good that no one in your circle of friends wants to play against you, good job. You've practiced so much that you "won" and have no reason to play the game anymore.
Bushido Blade was awesome. I was never amazing at that game but I still had a ton of fun with it.
I can hear Black Lotus doing that stupid "mash the button" Rapier combo in my head, right now.
One thing I really liked about SSF2:HDR is that in training mode, you can turn on hitboxes and see exactly why an attack loses to another attack.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
I do, however, very rarely see caucasian people playing it. I mean sure I mean yes most of the time I've played it at arcades said arcades have been in or near chinatown or in the middle of an area like that.
Yet I can still count the number who play it in comparison on one hand, whereas I see a lot of causasian dudes playing the sf4 cabinet across from the tekken machines in the same area.
I'm guessing it's a cultural based dislike. I wouldn't know, I don't understand western culture all that well despite being caucasian.
Just saying, Tekken is a bit more, well, "Anime", at first glance, and that's just not everyone's bag.
Gamertag(SSF4/MW2)StokedAidzzzSC2 ID Stoked.655
Uploaded SC2 Replays
It doesn't have the flair of DOA or Soul Calibur.
It doesn't have the Technical Virtuosity of Virtua Fighter.
It doesn't have the tradition of Street Fighter or KoF.
It's both too simple and too complex to get a good audience. Plus the games after 3 just felt a bit off in small areas.
It's also got some of the lamest characters ever.
I'm excited for T6.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Second, I have a theory about fighting games and why they draw so much more ire than other competitive games. Fighting games are hard. They're really fucking hard. They take a whole lot of time and practice to be any good at. BUT the difference between it and the other two major competitive video game genres is that the matches are very personal.
In just about every FPS, it's you vs many, or team vs team. There's a lot of "random" things that happen and kills come and go. RTS's depend on you being at a god's eye perspective, and while at a very very high level you are controlling every little thing (i.e. Korean SC players), generally you don't have control and the computer is doing a bit of the work. Even Smash Bros and Power Stone at low levels cater to a certain FPS-like randomness, where things happen like lucky hits from players that weren't aiming for you or falling off the stage. They're also one vs many.
Fighting games are personal. It's just you and the other guy. There isn't a third party to interfere. The environment plays little to no role. It really just comes down to how good you are versus how good the other guy is. So when people aren't good at them and can't come to terms with that, all they're left with is to bitch about how the other guy was cheap, or how the other guy "wasted" their time practicing while they had a life, or how the rules are unfair.
It just sounds to me like whining about how dribbling the ball is dumb when you lose a game of 21.
I don't know.
I'm of Asian descent. I was born and raised in an Asian culture. I don't like Tekken. I know other Asian people who don't like it either (actually, I can't immediately think of an Asian person who does, but I'm probably just not thinking hard).
I mean, I'm not going to say it's as bad as Bloody Roar or something. I just don't think it's as good as any of the major 3D fighters of the past few years. Of course, I'll acknowledge that much of that is a matter of personal taste (same for people who like Tekken).
Tekken was not hugely popular in Taiwan (most of my family was more SC/DOA), though it was popular while I was living in Yokohama (not VF popular, but well enough).
I don't think it's a cultural thing. But I could be wrong.
I don't really know about this, but I could see someone making that point. Personally, my harshest criticism of Tekken is the boring, mostly-same levels it used to share with SC (at least SC4 improved upon that). I don't like it's slow pacing, but I'll acknowledge that it's well suited for people who like a slower fighter.
Though I will say DOA has its own flaws. The stun system on that game is kind of broke, and the counter damage(not countering itself) has always felt inconsistent with me.
Take Ryu's Izuna Drop. Normally it doesn't do much damage, but depending on the counter it can go from doing fair damage to more than half your health bar.
*edit* 3, not 2.
Oh, god yes. *facepalm* I suppose I could say it's a complication of having ridiculously complex level design (stairways, multiple floors, destructable walls), but it still pisses me off when someone pulls it off on the edge of a platform and knocks me down a level.
Also, in DOA2 you could do it underneath a bell in a bell tower for similar effect. At least that was a little funny though.
Still, if it's a choice between that goddamn cheap circumstantial attack, and boring SC2-style levels, I'll take the goddamn cheap part.