Sure, it's a perception thing--technically, the effects of suffering from a long, perfectly-executed combo aren't any different from getting hit by one big attack. But here's the thing: Game design is partly about perception.
TheStig: 5 seconds without control is a long time in a fast-paced action game, and 12 seconds is an eternity.
You have to also consider the mechanics of a fighting game, though. Its not constant combo after combo. You start off with 2 players in a neutral state: Neither has an advantage. At this point in the game, both players have to be careful. Generally, players only use safe attacks unless they're trying to draw their opponent into committing an error.
Sooner or later though, someone makes a mistake, and the other player has an opportunity to capitalize. This is where your mastery of combos becomes important, because you want to do as much damage to your opponent as you can before he recovers and both players are in that neutral state once again.
Now, the two obvious extremes are that a player commits a mistake, and then subsequently gets combo'ed to death. A game like this would be frustrating, because the smallest mistake would result in a loss.
On the other extreme, lets say that combos don't exist at all. In this case, the game would become tedious, and quickly devolve into a game where opponents slowly poke each other to death.
Clearly, there is a medium here: You need to be able to capitalize on your opponent's mistake, but your opponent similarly needs the opportunity to be able to recover from that mistake.
The combo is a good game mechanic. That 5 seconds where you can't respond? Thats a combination of your punishment for screwing up, as well as an opportunity for your opponent to demonstrate his technical ability by doing as much damage as he possibly can.
But if you want to talk about something that seems broader and more universal to game design, yes, I absolutely feel that having to sit helplessly watching as you get pummeled is not just a matter of taste, but a flaw with the game design. Any instance within gameplay where you have no control over your character for a lengthy period of time while you're being harmed is going to be frustrating to the player.
Sure, it's a perception thing--technically, the effects of suffering from a long, perfectly-executed combo aren't any different from getting hit by one big attack. But here's the thing: Game design is partly about perception.
So in a game where a major part is baiting mistakes and finding openings in the opponent's defense, we should not be able to punish those times that we do find an opening or when they made a mistake?
And really, a lengthy period most of the time is around 2-4 seconds, 6 maybe at the most extreme.
I also don't think that comparing game design for fighting games with game design from other genres is a good idea at all.
Why are you still arguing this? That's how fighting games work; if they didn't they'd be something else. It's like saying I don't like turn based strategy games because I can't move during the other player's turn. Well, if I could then I'd be playing an RTS.
Outside of your Power Stones and your Smash Brothers, I really, really hate fighting games.
Here's a list of combos to memorize. Don't feel like doing so or can't? Hah, you lose.
Seriously, what the fuck. It's like I have to take a correspondence course to play the damn things.
*sigh*
This is stemming from my picking the Naruto game for the 360 back up after it being on the shelf for a few months. I know it's not a "true" fighting game, but jesus is it annoying. Not only do you often times fight against people who have health bars twice as long as yours, but they're relentless in their attacks, and as I've said, combos and move lists to remember is ridiculous.
Back on the shelf you go for a few more months.
Exactly what games DO you like? Because alot of games have some type of control memorization. I would definately not say fighting games are the worst in that regard.
Edit: BTW neither powerstone or Smash Brothers are fighting games. Not saying they are bad, but they just arent fighting games.
Just because you aren't good at something, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a flaw with that thing. There's a flaw with you.
I don't like racing games as a whole. The reason doesn't matter, because it's personal preference. But there's nothing wrong with them as a whole.
And I'm not really going to point it out, but if you have a problem with a particular game then by all means address it. But don't apply those issues to the genre as a whole. More importantly you better know what the fuck you're talking about because you're gonna look an ass if not....like a lot of people in this thread.
Also when you're proven wrong by visual evidence as is this case in this thread, give up the fight and learn your lesson.
I have an odd relationship with fighting games. On one hand I love them, their style, and their gameplay. On the other hand I'm fucking terrible at damn near all of them. And yet I still play them because I find them fun. I'm the same way with RTS games. I can't micromanage to save my life, and yet RTS is one of my favorite genres.
This is pretty much me exactly. In both genres.
I've always liked fighting games, but I've never had many people to play against. And no one was above my crappy level. I've finally got a console online now and I'm really trying to get into them all over again. I really got into HD Remix and SFIV. I've learned the way I thought I knew how to play street fighter games was not at all how I should have been playing them. This goes back to learning the system before the more complex moves. But one thing I've really learned, is that to enjoy fighting games you have to at least somewhat enjoy losing at them. That is losing to better opponents, and learning from your defeats is integral to the genre. If you always get frustrated at losing, no matter how better your opponent was, stay the hell away from the fighting game genre.
Also dealing with Super Smash Bros. I really love the game, but I hate the way people play it. I think it really was never meant to be played competitively in any way. The chaos is what makes it so fun. Whenever I play with some of my friends who like to be competitive at the game, it's horrible. Basically they only like to go one on one, on the most boring levels, with all items turned off. To me this is akin to saying "Hey you know that really awsome game, let's suck 90% of the fun out of it and then play it." Bah!
Why are you still arguing this? That's how fighting games work; if they didn't they'd be something else. It's like saying I don't like turn based strategy games because I can't move during the other player's turn. Well, if I could then I'd be playing an RTS.
This is a very closed-minded way to look at it.
I know you're talking about having to wait through someone else's combo, but I'll respond to an earlier post's content instead. :P
It is entirely possible to design a deep fighting game that does not immediately repulse anyone who's not a fighting game afficionado.
Games do not have to require hundreds of hours of muscle memory training to be good.
It's quite possible to have combos, special moves, etc that do not require intense technical expertise to pull off. There are only two reasons to make them complex:
1) To cater to people who enjoy a technical input challenge on top of the strategic, tactical thinking
2) To prevent new-player-friendly games - both in terms of preventing button-mashing victories, and in terms of making new players lose more easily and thus distinguishing dedicated, higher-level players far more.
I don't really see the second one as positive, although I can see why some people would. If the game is easy to play, then your arcade cabinet will be raided by a bunch of crappy players, instead of similarly focused players who present you with an actual challenge.
I'm a believer in the idea that everyone has "their" fighting game; they just may never find it.
I can try to get into others, and I might get into them enough to have fun with them but still ultimately get my ass kicked (Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Fatal Fury). I can appreciate them though.
Others just feel so dead wrong to me that I wonder how anyone could make sense of them (Tekken, Dead or Alive, Marvel vs. Capcom 2).
Of course, some are just absolutely perfect (Virtua Fighter 4 and 5), the video game equivalent of Zooey Deschanel cooking me an omelette while I watch The Empire Strikes Back in high-def with the promise of sex afterwards.
I agree completely with this. After trying to shoehorn myself into SFIV (which ended up breaking my arcade stick and me taking an indefinite hiatus from all fighting games) I realized that it is just not my game.
The funny thing is that I know what my game is (Tekken 5) but I don't play it anymore.
I don't necessarily hate fighting games, I enjoy Brawl a bit, though I am in now way excellent at it.
I just can't remember all the move sets even for 1 person so I never know what to do next so I end up button mashing.
However, my favorite thing in a fighting game is going through the trainer (if one exists) and attempting (and usually after some practice, succeeding) all of the moves and combos possible. I remember one day when a friend got the guide for MK2 spending all day performing every combo and fatality for each character. It was fun. Also spent a whole day doing each move and combo with DOA when a different friend got that game. Ended up with a blister about the size of the one in the comic too from that. Hurt so bad.. But I did EVERY SINGLE MOVE.. And there are some complicated combos in DOA. I remember Tina had this crazy long and hard to do combo and it was one of the last ones I finally got.
Exactly what games DO you like? Because alot of games have some type of control memorization. I would definately not say fighting games are the worst in that regard.
Edit: BTW neither powerstone or Smash Brothers are fighting games. Not saying they are bad, but they just arent fighting games.
I know this is a common sentiment among serious fighting game fans, and I'm not really sure what my definition of fighting game is. I really only have three points to make with this post.
1. I am incredibly smitten with traditional 2D fighters (Street Fighter, KOF) and traditional 3D fighters (Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur) of just about every kind. I'm not good at many, but I still love them.
2. With that out of the way, I will be the first to admit that they are incredibly hard to get into and it's no surprise why they've become the niche genre they are today.
3. Considering how inaccessible traditional fighting games are, I would like to see more nontraditional 2D (SSB) and 3D fighters (Power Stone). Not because I think they'd be better, but just because I'd like to see the genre become mainstream again. I think even traditional fighting games would benefit from more people realizing, "Hey, beating up my friends is fun!" To use an example from another genre (apples and oranges, I know), I think action RPGs helped some people get into the genre.
Some people like to actually invest some time into a competitive game and be rewarded for it? I fail to see the part where you're being forced to play games in a genre that is already niche.
I don't like racing games. I don't play them. Problem solved. This is not worthy of a thread, especially since you haven't even named an actual fighting game that you hate playing -- 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.
Between this thread and the one on "pro gaming" I'm having to try very, very hard to not start trolling.
Have you actually played the Naruto games on the 360? I don't see how they are not fighting games.
I wouldn't say I hate fighting games. I just never really 'got' them.
Plus I'm fucking terrible at them.
This is me, too. I always used to buy them anyways, thinking I would eventually get good by repeatedly getting my ass handed to me. It never worked, and anymore I don't even bother.
I have an odd relationship with fighting games. On one hand I love them, their style, and their gameplay. On the other hand I'm fucking terrible at damn near all of them. And yet I still play them because I find them fun.
This. Fortunately, the people I play with all are about the same skill level (barely above button masher :P). I appreciate what people see in fighting games at a higher level, but personally don't have the time or inclination to put that effort into it. For me, fighting games are about picking up and playing casually with my friends - seeing some fun moves, beating each other up, and enjoying ourselves. So, the games I like more are the ones that are easier to pick up and play casually on a simple level. They can have deep mechanics for the people more willing to invest time and energy into the game, but if the game feels too clunky when button mashing, it's not one we will play much
Personally, my favorite series are the Smash Bros, Soul Calibur, and DoA games. I also loved Bloody Roar
I don't think it can be said that most fighting games couldn't have more intuitive controls.
I don't think it should ever be said that more intuitive controls are a bad thing.
But hey, that's just me.
Also: "eugh, it's hard to press these buttons in the right order" is not gameplay. No, don't try to pull any "well all gameplay boils down to pressing the right buttons" strawman shit. The buttons are merely a inputs which are designed, in any game that doesn't have its head up its own ass, to translate thought into action as fluidly as possible. I'm of the opinion that games should reward creativity and strategy - as all fighters do - instead of muscle memory - as, unfortunately, most fighters do. It's a paradigm that's taken a long time to wear down, and which will continue to propagate until developers stop making games for this generation of gamers.
I'm fine with that, I guess. I just avoid most fighters.
I really can't get this point of view, because all games involve complex series of button presses. Three note powerchords in RB/GH give me just as much a headache as hadoken motions in fighters (seriously, every time I see Green+blue+orange I want to punch someone). Circle strafing in FPS games involves holding down one fire button while holding the analog sticks (or mouse angle/keypress) in opposite directions.
How are these easier to figure out than down to forward plus punch? Or harder than, say, holding a direction for a couple seconds then hitting the opposite direction and kick?
You couldn't have picked a better example for my point.
You know how they designed an entirely separate peripheral to play guitar hero? Yeah, that's because playing the game with a controller would be clunky and unintuitive. Just like having to know that down forward punch is the projectile attack for character A, while back forward punch is the projectile attack for character B is clunky and unintuitive. Guitar Hero's peripheral represents hundreds of man hours dedicated to making the controls feel as intuitive as possible - SF4's move list represents a slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay.
I won't pretend this is all fact, of course. It's my opinion. I see no reason to change it though.
Just like having to know that down forward punch is the projectile attack for character A, while back forward punch is the projectile attack for character B is clunky and unintuitive. Guitar Hero's peripheral represents hundreds of man hours dedicated to making the controls feel as intuitive as possible - SF4's move list represents a slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay.
Having different commands for special attacks is a good thing, and not a 'slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay'. If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes learning a few moves, Street Fighter 4 is clearly not for you.
Having different commands for each character also confers certain advantages and disadvantages to each character, which adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.
Look, I can understand being intimidated by the number of special moves, but complaining that they are different for each character smacks of laziness.
The only fighting game I've ever really liked is Dragonball Z: Burst Limit. I'm usually not a fan of fighting games, but something about it just feels so right.
Just like having to know that down forward punch is the projectile attack for character A, while back forward punch is the projectile attack for character B is clunky and unintuitive. Guitar Hero's peripheral represents hundreds of man hours dedicated to making the controls feel as intuitive as possible - SF4's move list represents a slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay.
Having different commands for special attacks is a good thing, and not a 'slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay'. If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes learning a few moves, Street Fighter 4 is clearly not for you.
Having different commands for each character also confers certain advantages and disadvantages to each character, which adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.
So I guess Street Fighter 4 isn't for me. I'm ok with that. I'll concede that SF games are not the worst offenders, though I think we've established that the "advantages and disadvantages" theory is bullshit by this point.
I prefer my controls to flow from the start, and others don't - for some reason. Ok.
Just like having to know that down forward punch is the projectile attack for character A, while back forward punch is the projectile attack for character B is clunky and unintuitive. Guitar Hero's peripheral represents hundreds of man hours dedicated to making the controls feel as intuitive as possible - SF4's move list represents a slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay.
Having different commands for special attacks is a good thing, and not a 'slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay'. If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes learning a few moves, Street Fighter 4 is clearly not for you.
Having different commands for each character also confers certain advantages and disadvantages to each character, which adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.
So I guess Street Fighter 4 isn't for me. I'm ok with that. I'll concede that SF games are not the worst offenders, though I think we've established that the "advantages and disadvantages" theory is bullshit by this point.
I prefer my controls to flow from the start, and others don't - for some reason. Ok.
Could you perhaps give an example of an action game where the controls "flow from the start"? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Comparing Street Fighter to a rhythm game like Guitar Hero is much too abstract for my liking. Besides, when I think back to most of my favorite action games of recent years (God Hand, Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, etc. ...) they all required me to spend some time learning the system. Even shmups, which have some of the most basic controls out there, require me to learn enemy patterns. And quite often, the only way these games helped me get better was by killing me.
Kind of like the Smoke combo in one of the Mortal Kombat games, where if you didn't block the initial kick you'd get killed by the end of that chain, guaranteed.
I can understand not liking games with juggle combos and dumb infinite combos, but fighting games that are more about strategy and skill (like SF and KOF) are awesome.
Then again, I've been playing them so long, I'm really biased.
I was playing Fatal Fury in the arcade when I was like seven.
though I think we've established that the "advantages and disadvantages" theory is bullshit by this point.
I'll take the bait.
Lets take charge characters: They need 2 seconds of charging back/down before they can throw out a special move. One one hand, this makes it harder for them to move while attacking, but they also have the advantage of being able to transition directly from a block into a special attack.
Meanwhile, take another character that needs to perform a quarter-circle forward in order to perform a special attack. This character can be much more mobile while still retaining his ability to throw out a special move, but during the process of actually performing the move, he can't also be blocking at the same time.
Its these kinds of details, none of which have anything to do with how difficult the move is to perform, that gives each character a unique flavor. Homogenizing the characters by making all of the motions the same would be a terrible idea.
The comparison with Guitar Hero is specious and irrelevant. A guitar is only one instrument, while the SF cast has enough variety to populate a small orchestra.
though I think we've established that the "advantages and disadvantages" theory is bullshit by this point.
I'll take the bait.
Lets take charge characters: They need 2 seconds of charging back/down before they can throw out a special move. One one hand, this makes it harder for them to move while attacking, but they also have the advantage of being able to transition directly from a block into a special attack.
Meanwhile, take another character that needs to perform a quarter-circle forward in order to perform a special attack. This character can be much more mobile while still retaining his ability to throw out a special move, but during the process of actually performing the move, he can't also be blocking at the same time.
So the charge move and the quarter circle move could not be mapped to a unified input scheme like (God help me) Smashbros while maintaining the speed and vulnerability of each character? I'm honestly asking, because I don't see how that couldn't be possible - or why it shouldn't be possible. Like, could the charge move not just take longer to execute?
The comparison with Guitar Hero is specious and irrelevant. A guitar is only one instrument, while the SF cast has enough variety to populate a small orchestra.
It is irrelevant and I wasn't the one who suggested it. I just used it as a jumping point to add some commentary on how game design has progressed away from obtuse combo systems and clunky controls towards something more accessible without losing any difficulty (as the person I quoted noted).
Edit: and to Rex Dart - Shmups are actually a really good example of what I'm talking about too, as there is no divide between control and movement. Hell, they tend to have only 3 inputs: movement, attack (which may as well be automated in most of them) and a special attack. They translate your thoughts to movement without any blockage; the difficulty comes from the game as opposed to controls.
So the charge move could not conceivably be accomplished with the same input as the quarter circle while maintaining the speed and vulnerability of each character? I'm honestly asking, because I don't see how that could be possible - or why it should be possible. Like, could the charge move not just take longer to execute?
In SF, you hold backwards to block. So having a back charge means you can hold backwards to block, and at any point hit forward + punch (or kick, whatever) to execute your special attack almost instantly. The downside is you lose the freedom to do the move whenever you want.
The quarter circle command takes a little longer to execute, but you don't need to plan for it ahead of time.
The charge command doesn't actually affect how fast the move itself comes out, but it does affect the circumstances in which you can use the attack.
Does that help? I'm not trying to attack anyone for disliking fighting games, I'm just trying to explain why the mechanics are the way that they are.
It seems to me like everyone wants to boil down fighting games to their core-- just rock paper scissors. They also seem to want rock, paper, and scissors to be easy enough to execute that yomi (mindgame) is the "real" game being played, without having to memorize combos and stuff.
But if you don't memorize combos and inputs, you will lose to someone that does. If this is not the case, then the game is bad, since it does not reward people becoming good at it.
Regardless of the barrier of entry, fighting games are the pure soul of one on one competition. You really don't HAVE to be spectacular at inputs or combos or character-specific strategies... as long as you're cool with losing to people that have that shit on lock.
Also, good competition means that if one player is slightly (but truly) better than another, he should win almost every time (the standard deviation here will be essentially based on luck or by failed Layer 3 yomi).
So what do people want, exactly? The better player (the one that can do cool combos) will win almost every time, but if he didn't, the game would be ridiculous and no one would be motivated to be become a better player. The mind game does not come into play unless both players are at the same technical level.
So the charge move could not conceivably be accomplished with the same input as the quarter circle while maintaining the speed and vulnerability of each character? I'm honestly asking, because I don't see how that could be possible - or why it should be possible. Like, could the charge move not just take longer to execute?
In SF, you hold backwards to block. So having a back charge means you can hold backwards to block, and at any point hit forward + punch (or kick, whatever) to execute your special attack almost instantly. The downside is you lose the freedom to do the move whenever you want.
The quarter circle command takes a little longer to execute, but you don't need to plan for it ahead of time.
The charge command doesn't actually affect how fast the move itself comes out, but it does affect the circumstances in which you can use the attack.
Does that help? I'm not trying to attack anyone for disliking fighting games, I'm just trying to explain why the mechanics are the way that they are.
I'm glad you explained it, and I think I know where you're coming from on this. But at the same time, I (personally, as in - opinion) would classify such control schemes as obtuse, and it's what I meant when I said "slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay."
I can't even say with conviction that I'm right about the last bit though. Only time will tell whether developers move away from this kind of thing, and whether the hardcore fighter market will shrink (comparatively). I think I've detected a pattern along those lines, but my experience is probably much more limited than people who really enjoy fighting games.
I don't think it can be said that most fighting games couldn't have more intuitive controls.
I don't think it should ever be said that more intuitive controls are a bad thing.
But hey, that's just me.
Also: "eugh, it's hard to press these buttons in the right order" is not gameplay. No, don't try to pull any "well all gameplay boils down to pressing the right buttons" strawman shit. The buttons are merely a inputs which are designed, in any game that doesn't have its head up its own ass, to translate thought into action as fluidly as possible. I'm of the opinion that games should reward creativity and strategy - as all fighters do - instead of muscle memory - as, unfortunately, most fighters do. It's a paradigm that's taken a long time to wear down, and which will continue to propagate until developers stop making games for this generation of gamers.
I'm fine with that, I guess. I just avoid most fighters.
I really can't get this point of view, because all games involve complex series of button presses. Three note powerchords in RB/GH give me just as much a headache as hadoken motions in fighters (seriously, every time I see Green+blue+orange I want to punch someone). Circle strafing in FPS games involves holding down one fire button while holding the analog sticks (or mouse angle/keypress) in opposite directions.
How are these easier to figure out than down to forward plus punch? Or harder than, say, holding a direction for a couple seconds then hitting the opposite direction and kick?
You couldn't have picked a better example for my point.
You know how they designed an entirely separate peripheral to play guitar hero? Yeah, that's because playing the game with a controller would be clunky and unintuitive. Just like having to know that down forward punch is the projectile attack for character A, while back forward punch is the projectile attack for character B is clunky and unintuitive. Guitar Hero's peripheral represents hundreds of man hours dedicated to making the controls feel as intuitive as possible - SF4's move list represents a slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay.
I won't pretend this is all fact, of course. It's my opinion. I see no reason to change it though.
If you recall, DDR and the first two Guitar Hero games are playable on controllers. As in, you don't need the "intuitive" guitar or dance pads to play either. Besides, changing the shape of the controller doesn't affect intuitiveness, it affects immersion. I feel more like a goddamn rock star when I have something approximating a guitar in my hands.
Still, this is akin to complaining about combos/special attacks in any game. Oh man, Devil May Cry must be way too difficult because if you're a hair off on pressing an attack button, you screw up combos. Oh man, I have to know what the recharge time is for the MAC cannon relative to the other superweapons the other factions can throw out. Special moves in fighting games have certain advantages and disadvantages based on the input required. Shadydentist is doing a great job of explaining that, though.
I get that fighting games are hard to learn and not for everyone, but that doesn't make them poorly designed or unintuitive. If you want intuitive and simple, play checkers or Uno. Complexity and depth are functions of every video game made past like, 1988.
The Guitar Hero comparison is very important because it demonstrates how people think about fighting games.
Guitar Hero is fundamentally a test of several skills:
1) The ability to press a certain configuration of buttons, in the right order, at the right speed (including lightning fast), while coordinating both hands.
2) The ability to learn and recognize visual patterns, and associate them with certain button presses.
A fighting game - let's say Street Fighter IV - tests a number of skills. It tests
1) The ability to press buttons in the right order, at the right speed (often very quickly), while coordinating both hands.
2) The ability to recognize when those button presses are required - very similarly, pattern recognition and sequencing.
BUT ALSO
3) The ability to quickly recognize patterns in the form of tactics - block strings to pressure you, occasionally interrupted by throws when you're blocking a lot, let's say - and develop counter-strategies on the spot, or recall counter-strategies you've read or discovered or practiced.
4) The ability to read your opponent and predict how he'll react.
5) The ability to be unpredictable and unreadable.
6) A lexical knowledge of how various attacks, defenses, characters, etc interact - what wins in which situation, what counters what, what is weak against what, etc.
To me, the latter ones are far more engaging, important, and fun when it comes to playing Street fighter. I'm not engaged in a competitive test of reflexes with someone else; I'm engaged in a complex web of rock/paper/scissors-style mindgames and pattern analysis/recognition.
Some people apparently really enjoy the reflex test and the combo memorization on the same level that I enjoy playing on Expert in Guitar Hero. I don't enjoy the combo memorization and the reflex tests nearly as much; often, I find it blocks me from doing what I want to do when it comes to the other elements the game is testing. If I can't do those hard link combos, I can't create pressure on the opponent effectively, for example, even though I know that's what I should be doing.
So the charge move could not conceivably be accomplished with the same input as the quarter circle while maintaining the speed and vulnerability of each character? I'm honestly asking, because I don't see how that could be possible - or why it should be possible. Like, could the charge move not just take longer to execute?
In SF, you hold backwards to block. So having a back charge means you can hold backwards to block, and at any point hit forward + punch (or kick, whatever) to execute your special attack almost instantly. The downside is you lose the freedom to do the move whenever you want.
The quarter circle command takes a little longer to execute, but you don't need to plan for it ahead of time.
The charge command doesn't actually affect how fast the move itself comes out, but it does affect the circumstances in which you can use the attack.
Does that help? I'm not trying to attack anyone for disliking fighting games, I'm just trying to explain why the mechanics are the way that they are.
I'm glad you explained it, and I think I know where you're coming from on this. But at the same time, I (personally, as in - opinion) would classify such control schemes as obtuse, and it's what I meant when I said "slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay."
I can't even say with conviction that I'm right about the last bit though. Only time will tell whether developers move away from this kind of thing, and whether the hardcore fighter market will shrink (comparatively). I think I've detected a pattern along those lines, but my experience is probably much more limited than people who really enjoy fighting games.
The one time I recall that a developer tried to move away from the traditional 2D fighting game combo mechanics was when Capcom added the "EO" mode to the Gamecube and Xbox versions of Capcom Vs. SNK 2.
That mode did exactly what you're suggesting, making the method for each character to pull off a combo exactly the same. It simultaneously annoyed the existing 2D fighting game fanbase and failed to attract any substantial numbers of new fans to the game.
At this point, with rare exceptions, I'd say that fighting games have joined platformers, shmups and adventure games as genres where most people who are still fans want an outdated (or to be charitable, "retro") style of gameplay.
The thing is, even if you have the best idea and a 75% execution rate, someone that plays "by the book" with 100% execution and faster reactions than you ought to beat you.
Strategy can be thought up before the game. What matters is what happens DURING the game.
So what do people want, exactly? The better player (the one that can do cool combos) will win almost every time, but if he didn't, the game would be ridiculous and no one would be motivated to be become a better player. The mind game does not come into play unless both players are at the same technical level.
What people like me want is for that technical level to be easier to achieve. I don't see any real value in limiting your player base for the sake of limiting your player base. The mindgame is the fun part - it's what wins and loses games when players are anywhere near the same skill. If the technical bits were easier to work with, we could skip all the grinding combos in training mode and having to practice your perfect timing with juggles in order to just get to the fun part of the game.
If you play at a very low technical level against someone else that plays at a very low technical level, the winner is decided by mindgame (and luck, since neither of you know exactly what you're doing).
The level of play isn't as important as the two players being at the same level of play.
I get that fighting games are hard to learn and not for everyone, but that doesn't make them poorly designed or unintuitive. If you want intuitive and simple, play checkers or Uno. Complexity and depth are functions of every video game made past like, 1988.
Complexity is not depth. They are not synonyms in game design. Intuitiveness is not simplicity. They are not synonyms in game design.
And have you played guitar hero or DDR on the gamepad? They suck, straight up. There's a reason for this.
Edit: To Lawndart - we seem to be on the same page, but I was referring more to new IPs in the fighting genre, which seem to be more intuitive and less retro these days. But again, my experience is not comprehensive.
Although I did play Capcom vs SNK on my friend's Xbox and enjoyed the easy mode a lot more than regular - but that was because I was so busy trying to adapt to the Xbox controller that I didn't exactly have time to memorize combos.
Posts
You have to also consider the mechanics of a fighting game, though. Its not constant combo after combo. You start off with 2 players in a neutral state: Neither has an advantage. At this point in the game, both players have to be careful. Generally, players only use safe attacks unless they're trying to draw their opponent into committing an error.
Sooner or later though, someone makes a mistake, and the other player has an opportunity to capitalize. This is where your mastery of combos becomes important, because you want to do as much damage to your opponent as you can before he recovers and both players are in that neutral state once again.
Now, the two obvious extremes are that a player commits a mistake, and then subsequently gets combo'ed to death. A game like this would be frustrating, because the smallest mistake would result in a loss.
On the other extreme, lets say that combos don't exist at all. In this case, the game would become tedious, and quickly devolve into a game where opponents slowly poke each other to death.
Clearly, there is a medium here: You need to be able to capitalize on your opponent's mistake, but your opponent similarly needs the opportunity to be able to recover from that mistake.
The combo is a good game mechanic. That 5 seconds where you can't respond? Thats a combination of your punishment for screwing up, as well as an opportunity for your opponent to demonstrate his technical ability by doing as much damage as he possibly can.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
You lose control once you're hit.
Protip: don't get hit.
So in a game where a major part is baiting mistakes and finding openings in the opponent's defense, we should not be able to punish those times that we do find an opening or when they made a mistake?
And really, a lengthy period most of the time is around 2-4 seconds, 6 maybe at the most extreme.
I also don't think that comparing game design for fighting games with game design from other genres is a good idea at all.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Thats about it.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
Exactly what games DO you like? Because alot of games have some type of control memorization. I would definately not say fighting games are the worst in that regard.
Edit: BTW neither powerstone or Smash Brothers are fighting games. Not saying they are bad, but they just arent fighting games.
God I hate RTS...
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I don't like racing games as a whole. The reason doesn't matter, because it's personal preference. But there's nothing wrong with them as a whole.
And I'm not really going to point it out, but if you have a problem with a particular game then by all means address it. But don't apply those issues to the genre as a whole. More importantly you better know what the fuck you're talking about because you're gonna look an ass if not....like a lot of people in this thread.
Also when you're proven wrong by visual evidence as is this case in this thread, give up the fight and learn your lesson.
This is pretty much me exactly. In both genres.
I've always liked fighting games, but I've never had many people to play against. And no one was above my crappy level. I've finally got a console online now and I'm really trying to get into them all over again. I really got into HD Remix and SFIV. I've learned the way I thought I knew how to play street fighter games was not at all how I should have been playing them. This goes back to learning the system before the more complex moves. But one thing I've really learned, is that to enjoy fighting games you have to at least somewhat enjoy losing at them. That is losing to better opponents, and learning from your defeats is integral to the genre. If you always get frustrated at losing, no matter how better your opponent was, stay the hell away from the fighting game genre.
Also dealing with Super Smash Bros. I really love the game, but I hate the way people play it. I think it really was never meant to be played competitively in any way. The chaos is what makes it so fun. Whenever I play with some of my friends who like to be competitive at the game, it's horrible. Basically they only like to go one on one, on the most boring levels, with all items turned off. To me this is akin to saying "Hey you know that really awsome game, let's suck 90% of the fun out of it and then play it." Bah!
Plus I'm fucking terrible at them.
This is a very closed-minded way to look at it.
I know you're talking about having to wait through someone else's combo, but I'll respond to an earlier post's content instead. :P
It is entirely possible to design a deep fighting game that does not immediately repulse anyone who's not a fighting game afficionado.
Games do not have to require hundreds of hours of muscle memory training to be good.
It's quite possible to have combos, special moves, etc that do not require intense technical expertise to pull off. There are only two reasons to make them complex:
1) To cater to people who enjoy a technical input challenge on top of the strategic, tactical thinking
2) To prevent new-player-friendly games - both in terms of preventing button-mashing victories, and in terms of making new players lose more easily and thus distinguishing dedicated, higher-level players far more.
I don't really see the second one as positive, although I can see why some people would. If the game is easy to play, then your arcade cabinet will be raided by a bunch of crappy players, instead of similarly focused players who present you with an actual challenge.
I agree completely with this. After trying to shoehorn myself into SFIV (which ended up breaking my arcade stick and me taking an indefinite hiatus from all fighting games) I realized that it is just not my game.
The funny thing is that I know what my game is (Tekken 5) but I don't play it anymore.
I just can't remember all the move sets even for 1 person so I never know what to do next so I end up button mashing.
However, my favorite thing in a fighting game is going through the trainer (if one exists) and attempting (and usually after some practice, succeeding) all of the moves and combos possible. I remember one day when a friend got the guide for MK2 spending all day performing every combo and fatality for each character. It was fun. Also spent a whole day doing each move and combo with DOA when a different friend got that game. Ended up with a blister about the size of the one in the comic too from that. Hurt so bad.. But I did EVERY SINGLE MOVE.. And there are some complicated combos in DOA. I remember Tina had this crazy long and hard to do combo and it was one of the last ones I finally got.
1. I am incredibly smitten with traditional 2D fighters (Street Fighter, KOF) and traditional 3D fighters (Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur) of just about every kind. I'm not good at many, but I still love them.
2. With that out of the way, I will be the first to admit that they are incredibly hard to get into and it's no surprise why they've become the niche genre they are today.
3. Considering how inaccessible traditional fighting games are, I would like to see more nontraditional 2D (SSB) and 3D fighters (Power Stone). Not because I think they'd be better, but just because I'd like to see the genre become mainstream again. I think even traditional fighting games would benefit from more people realizing, "Hey, beating up my friends is fun!" To use an example from another genre (apples and oranges, I know), I think action RPGs helped some people get into the genre.
Have you actually played the Naruto games on the 360? I don't see how they are not fighting games.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
This is me, too. I always used to buy them anyways, thinking I would eventually get good by repeatedly getting my ass handed to me. It never worked, and anymore I don't even bother.
This. Fortunately, the people I play with all are about the same skill level (barely above button masher :P). I appreciate what people see in fighting games at a higher level, but personally don't have the time or inclination to put that effort into it. For me, fighting games are about picking up and playing casually with my friends - seeing some fun moves, beating each other up, and enjoying ourselves. So, the games I like more are the ones that are easier to pick up and play casually on a simple level. They can have deep mechanics for the people more willing to invest time and energy into the game, but if the game feels too clunky when button mashing, it's not one we will play much
Personally, my favorite series are the Smash Bros, Soul Calibur, and DoA games. I also loved Bloody Roar
You couldn't have picked a better example for my point.
You know how they designed an entirely separate peripheral to play guitar hero? Yeah, that's because playing the game with a controller would be clunky and unintuitive. Just like having to know that down forward punch is the projectile attack for character A, while back forward punch is the projectile attack for character B is clunky and unintuitive. Guitar Hero's peripheral represents hundreds of man hours dedicated to making the controls feel as intuitive as possible - SF4's move list represents a slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay.
I won't pretend this is all fact, of course. It's my opinion. I see no reason to change it though.
I really hate comments like this. It's like saying Persona 4 isn't an RPG because it's not like Baldur's Gate.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Having different commands for special attacks is a good thing, and not a 'slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay'. If you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes learning a few moves, Street Fighter 4 is clearly not for you.
Having different commands for each character also confers certain advantages and disadvantages to each character, which adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.
Look, I can understand being intimidated by the number of special moves, but complaining that they are different for each character smacks of laziness.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Plus, it's pretty.
Really?
I can get King of Fighters, what with the double half-circles and stuff, but street fighter?
Edit: Not counting Tiger Knees, of course. Those are retarded.
Twitter
So I guess Street Fighter 4 isn't for me. I'm ok with that. I'll concede that SF games are not the worst offenders, though I think we've established that the "advantages and disadvantages" theory is bullshit by this point.
I prefer my controls to flow from the start, and others don't - for some reason. Ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMdMZBS4v64&feature=related
Kind of like the Smoke combo in one of the Mortal Kombat games, where if you didn't block the initial kick you'd get killed by the end of that chain, guaranteed.
Then again, I've been playing them so long, I'm really biased.
I was playing Fatal Fury in the arcade when I was like seven.
Really biased.
I'll take the bait.
Lets take charge characters: They need 2 seconds of charging back/down before they can throw out a special move. One one hand, this makes it harder for them to move while attacking, but they also have the advantage of being able to transition directly from a block into a special attack.
Meanwhile, take another character that needs to perform a quarter-circle forward in order to perform a special attack. This character can be much more mobile while still retaining his ability to throw out a special move, but during the process of actually performing the move, he can't also be blocking at the same time.
Its these kinds of details, none of which have anything to do with how difficult the move is to perform, that gives each character a unique flavor. Homogenizing the characters by making all of the motions the same would be a terrible idea.
The comparison with Guitar Hero is specious and irrelevant. A guitar is only one instrument, while the SF cast has enough variety to populate a small orchestra.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
So the charge move and the quarter circle move could not be mapped to a unified input scheme like (God help me) Smashbros while maintaining the speed and vulnerability of each character? I'm honestly asking, because I don't see how that couldn't be possible - or why it shouldn't be possible. Like, could the charge move not just take longer to execute?
It is irrelevant and I wasn't the one who suggested it. I just used it as a jumping point to add some commentary on how game design has progressed away from obtuse combo systems and clunky controls towards something more accessible without losing any difficulty (as the person I quoted noted).
Edit: and to Rex Dart - Shmups are actually a really good example of what I'm talking about too, as there is no divide between control and movement. Hell, they tend to have only 3 inputs: movement, attack (which may as well be automated in most of them) and a special attack. They translate your thoughts to movement without any blockage; the difficulty comes from the game as opposed to controls.
In SF, you hold backwards to block. So having a back charge means you can hold backwards to block, and at any point hit forward + punch (or kick, whatever) to execute your special attack almost instantly. The downside is you lose the freedom to do the move whenever you want.
The quarter circle command takes a little longer to execute, but you don't need to plan for it ahead of time.
The charge command doesn't actually affect how fast the move itself comes out, but it does affect the circumstances in which you can use the attack.
Does that help? I'm not trying to attack anyone for disliking fighting games, I'm just trying to explain why the mechanics are the way that they are.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
But if you don't memorize combos and inputs, you will lose to someone that does. If this is not the case, then the game is bad, since it does not reward people becoming good at it.
Regardless of the barrier of entry, fighting games are the pure soul of one on one competition. You really don't HAVE to be spectacular at inputs or combos or character-specific strategies... as long as you're cool with losing to people that have that shit on lock.
Also, good competition means that if one player is slightly (but truly) better than another, he should win almost every time (the standard deviation here will be essentially based on luck or by failed Layer 3 yomi).
So what do people want, exactly? The better player (the one that can do cool combos) will win almost every time, but if he didn't, the game would be ridiculous and no one would be motivated to be become a better player. The mind game does not come into play unless both players are at the same technical level.
I'm glad you explained it, and I think I know where you're coming from on this. But at the same time, I (personally, as in - opinion) would classify such control schemes as obtuse, and it's what I meant when I said "slavish obsession with an outdated style of gameplay."
I can't even say with conviction that I'm right about the last bit though. Only time will tell whether developers move away from this kind of thing, and whether the hardcore fighter market will shrink (comparatively). I think I've detected a pattern along those lines, but my experience is probably much more limited than people who really enjoy fighting games.
If you recall, DDR and the first two Guitar Hero games are playable on controllers. As in, you don't need the "intuitive" guitar or dance pads to play either. Besides, changing the shape of the controller doesn't affect intuitiveness, it affects immersion. I feel more like a goddamn rock star when I have something approximating a guitar in my hands.
Still, this is akin to complaining about combos/special attacks in any game. Oh man, Devil May Cry must be way too difficult because if you're a hair off on pressing an attack button, you screw up combos. Oh man, I have to know what the recharge time is for the MAC cannon relative to the other superweapons the other factions can throw out. Special moves in fighting games have certain advantages and disadvantages based on the input required. Shadydentist is doing a great job of explaining that, though.
I get that fighting games are hard to learn and not for everyone, but that doesn't make them poorly designed or unintuitive. If you want intuitive and simple, play checkers or Uno. Complexity and depth are functions of every video game made past like, 1988.
Guitar Hero is fundamentally a test of several skills:
1) The ability to press a certain configuration of buttons, in the right order, at the right speed (including lightning fast), while coordinating both hands.
2) The ability to learn and recognize visual patterns, and associate them with certain button presses.
A fighting game - let's say Street Fighter IV - tests a number of skills. It tests
1) The ability to press buttons in the right order, at the right speed (often very quickly), while coordinating both hands.
2) The ability to recognize when those button presses are required - very similarly, pattern recognition and sequencing.
BUT ALSO
3) The ability to quickly recognize patterns in the form of tactics - block strings to pressure you, occasionally interrupted by throws when you're blocking a lot, let's say - and develop counter-strategies on the spot, or recall counter-strategies you've read or discovered or practiced.
4) The ability to read your opponent and predict how he'll react.
5) The ability to be unpredictable and unreadable.
6) A lexical knowledge of how various attacks, defenses, characters, etc interact - what wins in which situation, what counters what, what is weak against what, etc.
To me, the latter ones are far more engaging, important, and fun when it comes to playing Street fighter. I'm not engaged in a competitive test of reflexes with someone else; I'm engaged in a complex web of rock/paper/scissors-style mindgames and pattern analysis/recognition.
Some people apparently really enjoy the reflex test and the combo memorization on the same level that I enjoy playing on Expert in Guitar Hero. I don't enjoy the combo memorization and the reflex tests nearly as much; often, I find it blocks me from doing what I want to do when it comes to the other elements the game is testing. If I can't do those hard link combos, I can't create pressure on the opponent effectively, for example, even though I know that's what I should be doing.
The one time I recall that a developer tried to move away from the traditional 2D fighting game combo mechanics was when Capcom added the "EO" mode to the Gamecube and Xbox versions of Capcom Vs. SNK 2.
That mode did exactly what you're suggesting, making the method for each character to pull off a combo exactly the same. It simultaneously annoyed the existing 2D fighting game fanbase and failed to attract any substantial numbers of new fans to the game.
At this point, with rare exceptions, I'd say that fighting games have joined platformers, shmups and adventure games as genres where most people who are still fans want an outdated (or to be charitable, "retro") style of gameplay.
Strategy can be thought up before the game. What matters is what happens DURING the game.
What people like me want is for that technical level to be easier to achieve. I don't see any real value in limiting your player base for the sake of limiting your player base. The mindgame is the fun part - it's what wins and loses games when players are anywhere near the same skill. If the technical bits were easier to work with, we could skip all the grinding combos in training mode and having to practice your perfect timing with juggles in order to just get to the fun part of the game.
The level of play isn't as important as the two players being at the same level of play.
Complexity is not depth. They are not synonyms in game design. Intuitiveness is not simplicity. They are not synonyms in game design.
And have you played guitar hero or DDR on the gamepad? They suck, straight up. There's a reason for this.
Edit: To Lawndart - we seem to be on the same page, but I was referring more to new IPs in the fighting genre, which seem to be more intuitive and less retro these days. But again, my experience is not comprehensive.
Although I did play Capcom vs SNK on my friend's Xbox and enjoyed the easy mode a lot more than regular - but that was because I was so busy trying to adapt to the Xbox controller that I didn't exactly have time to memorize combos.