Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: broodwars on February 25, 2011, 09:54:27 PM
Title: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: broodwars on February 25, 2011, 09:54:27 PM
My apologies in advance. This post is something of a Stream of Consciousness.
This is something that's actually bothered me for several years, but in recent days I've been reminded of it as I sat down to play the fairly recent BlazBlue: Continuum Shift and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. After playing both, I'm continually baffled at how stagnant the Fighting Game genre has been over the years, and how it has become something of a "walled garden" with rules both hidden and overt that seem to serve no other purpose than to prevent people from getting into the genre.
To preface this, while I enjoy watching them I confess I'm terrible at Fighting Games. No matter how much I practice and how hard I try, the skill to execute the elaborate contortions of the control stick and pressing the various buttons just eludes me. I'm familiar with the typical "Haduoken"-style movement, but I can rarely ever perform the move on command (and it only goes downhill from there). Despite this, a few years back I picked up the original BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger out of curiosity and found it both enjoyable and surprisingly accessible (gameplay-wise, anyway...there is no penetrating that convolution that Arc System Works calls a "story"). Instead of a laundry list of buttons that all on the surface seem to perform the same task, there were 4. One of those was devoted to a single character-specific move (which could change depending on how you moved the control stick), which helped differentiate the gameplay styles of the different fighters. The most advanced moves in the game, the "Hyper Combo"-esque Distortion Drives, were available both with regular button sequences and with Right-Stick enabled "shortcuts", making the game relatively easy to pick up and feel awesome playing while still allowing those who wished to delve deeper a more traditional format.
So why did I devote a rather lengthy paragraph to explaining this? A few days ago, I found the game's sequel, "Continuum Shift", on sale for extremely cheap so I picked it up expecting to have more of the same enjoyable experience. What I found makes me more than a little angry. The Right-Stick shortcuts for Distortion Drives, which gave less-capable players even the illusion of being decent? Gone, and researching the fan reaction to its removal the general consensus seems to be "LEARN HOW TO PLAY, NOOBS! WE DON'T REALLY WANT YOU HERE IF YOU CAN'T PLAY IT OUR WAY!". In the shortcut's place is a "Beginner Mode", where mashing buttons performs every combo in the game. There's no finesse or strategy, and the game makes sure you know it. Just mash buttons (with a lengthy time delay on the more powerful attacks), which does not help the player learn to play the game or how to defeat more advanced players. There is also a tutorial mode now, where the game continually insults the player for daring to be anything less than a master of fighting games (while quickly ramping up the difficulty beyond what a beginner can handle). Thanks, Arc System Works. That really made me feel welcome. Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 also has a similar button-mashing-focused "Beginner Mode", which is also "nerfed" to prevent the player from accessing their character's full potential.
While playing through the tutorial, it reminded me of another oddity of Fighting Games. I don't think I've ever seen a Fighting Game where the buttons are ever labeled what they actually are on the controller. Using Continuum Shift as an example again, in the Tutorials all the face buttons are labeled A, B, C, and D. Marvel Vs. Capcom refers to them all as L, M, S, and H. Here, let me just find my "D" and "H" buttons on my Dualshock 3...Oh Wait. ::) Why do Fighting Games still use this stupid and arbitrary way of naming their buttons, based on the conventions of old arcade cabinets that largely do not exist anymore? How is your typical player supposed to make sense of this?
Playing these games of late, it always strikes me that the Fighting Genre is one firmly stuck in the past. Why is there such a focus on being able to perform a move rather than on when the player uses it? I watched my best friend's brother today playing Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 online, and despite playing the game for 2 weeks and knowing exactly how to perform things like Hyper Combos he still couldn't produce the attacks on command. He knew what he wanted to do, but the game's arbitrary method of performing the attack made it difficult for him to perform when he needed it. Say what you will about Smash Bros., but the one thing that series absolutely nailed is that the moves a player can perform are both relatively few in number and exceptionally easy to perform (just the B Button in conjunction with the control stick). Instead of constantly worrying whether I can perform a given move, my focus can now be on if I have picked the right move and if I'm performing that move at the right time and location. Given that that seems to be most of what the Fighting Game experience is, why does the execution of it need to be so convoluted and arbitrary?
Sorry, I just needed to get all that off my chest. It irritates me to see a genre that can be so enjoyable also be so infuriatingly obtuse. Has anyone else had such problems with the genre?
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Caliban on February 25, 2011, 10:29:45 PM
It's just a matter of sold numbers declining and I bet they will change up the game. The thing is there still is somewhat of a big hardcore fighting culture that I don't see any changes happening soon.
I do wonder about what the ratio of casual fighting gamers, like me, is compared to the hardcore fighting gamers. How long are they going to tolerate such developer choices.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: lolmonade on February 25, 2011, 10:49:38 PM
As a fan of the genre, I completely sympathize with your plight. There are definite steps that could be taken to improve the accessibility of these fighting games, the problem is that with every bit of compromise to the mainstream, hardcore players will begin to abandon the franchise. Hell, even for Marvel Vs. Capcom 3, there have been complaints about it being far too easy in comparison to the earlier versions.
I agree with the confusion regarding button labeling in comparison to the controllers. I believe my biggest complaint with every fighter I've played is that it takes far too long to go between practice mode and opening up a specific character's set of moves. I'd like to be able to practice a character's move set and get a feel for him without having to pause, go to the menu, select character moves, select the character i'm using, and then scroll through their move list to find the specific move. I can't see why maybe there could be a minimized list at the top of the screen while practicing, and then you could assign a button to press in this mode to expand the list, and it would bring up the character you are specifically playing with. Completely infuriating, and an example of how bad UI can ruin a player's experience.
With that being said, the only fighter I know that has made major concessions to introduce accessibility in fighting games is Super Smash Bros. As far as I know, it's the only game which is easy enough to be accessible to the mainstream, but deep enough to encourage tourney play (for Melee, I'm not sure about Brawl).
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: leroypantweather on February 26, 2011, 02:19:50 AM
@lolmonade your second paragraph hit home to me as that has been my complaint for years. Luckily tatsunoko has the exact feature you described it seems, which is to say it allows you see a small command list during gameplay, and the list switches depending on which character you have out. the game also couples the feature with the ability to see you control inputs as you play to see where you went wrong.
Also on the main topic... arcade stick arcade stick arcade stick. it makes alot of moves wildly easier to do giving you more time to worry about what to do and when to do it and where to do it and less focus on execution of a tricky Z shaped pattern or some such crap
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: that Baby guy on February 26, 2011, 03:03:04 AM
Fighting games are an odd beast. Truthfully, they're meant to be played more closely to sport than typical games. When you realize that there's tournaments where these things are played with money on the line, you have to understand, it can't be entirely too simple.
I'm not saying the genre is flawless as it is, but with professional sports, players dedicated much of their waking lives to perfecting their game. It's difficult to throw a football with a great spiral and incredible accuracy like the pros do. It's tough to have great accuracy when you shoot a basketball at the three point line. Do you think baseball players don't have to go through quite a few side-effects when they take steroids to play the game so well?
The point is, while they're not directly comparable, they are similar. In this sense, a fighting game designed to be played in tournaments needs to be complicated and challenging, so that the participants have a chance to show skill.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: KDR_11k on February 26, 2011, 03:27:00 AM
I'd guess the button naming comes from the ability to rebind the keys easily but then again computers can easily replace the displayed button too. Maybe it's supposed to give people a common terminology no matter how they bound their controller or whatever.
While I can input most regular special moves (I consider anything more complex than 3-5 directions stupid, it's just a barrier to entry, not a skill) even that isn't enough to understand most fighting games. They vomit a list of convoluted mechanics at you, stuff like Roman Cancels, desperation moves, crossover combos, various breaks, etc. Most of which the manual just mentions as existing but never mentioning why you'd want that. Shmup scoring these days is similarly convoluted with various combo systems and stuff. It's what happens when you make your games for an extremely small niche that does not want changes to the core mechanics even after 20 iterations and instead wants stupid **** bolted on. Having extremely simple core gameplay doesn't help, in most games your player character can do way more than move left, right, jump OR attack.
The basic elements of fighting games are so primitive that they have to tack stupid **** on there to add some variety. In an FPS you can move and shoot but you have 3D movement and completely analog aim so both elements have many nuances to them. In Super Mario Bros your jump can do so many different things. In fighting games none of that is there, everything is digital and adding depth merely means adding more states to the finite state engine that is the player character.
In football all you can do as a player is run around the field and hit the ball (or people if you're Dutch) but since there are many players in play, the ball can be in many positions and hitting the ball can move it into many other positions there's a lot of depth to the sport. Simple rules, complex gameplay, good tournament sport. Fighting games have insanely complex rules with very limited applications each.
Fighting game fans are worse than the people who like **** like the limited queue sizes and lack of zoom in Starcraft. You should be fighting your opponent, not the interface.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: SixthAngel on February 26, 2011, 03:42:24 AM
I always thought the different joystick moves and button presses were there just because there weren't enough buttons. I remember Soulcalibur had extra buttons that you could map to whatever you wanted and I always mapped them to make the special moves easier. Combos are there for people to master while the special moves are supposed to be regular things your character can do so it pisses me off when they require something like two full rotations followed by pressing three buttons at the same time.
This is probably one of the reasons Smash is so popular. When playing Streetfighter 2 or Mortal Kombat most people only picked one or two characters and it was usually because they had the easiest moves to perform. When I played Mortal Kombat back in day nobody ever picked Kano because he had moves that required the thumbhurting 360 spin.
Keep an eye on Street Fighter 4 for the 3DS. It has a mode where the special moves for your character become buttons on the touch screen. This has caused some people to bitch about it but I think its a great addition.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: that Baby guy on February 26, 2011, 08:43:23 AM
In football all you can do as a player is run around the field and hit the ball (or people if you're Dutch) but since there are many players in play, the ball can be in many positions and hitting the ball can move it into many other positions there's a lot of depth to the sport. Simple rules, complex gameplay, good tournament sport. Fighting games have insanely complex rules with very limited applications each.
How about putting spin on the ball? The rules about cards? How does extra time work, again? The referees just decide a number to add onto the end of the game? Why does the goalie get to use his hands? But wait, he can only use his hands where? Seriously, does anyone even know what officially is ruled as offsides in that sport? So a player can't use his hands, but he can pound the ball with his head? What's the deal with the ball going out of bounds? How do players earn penalty kicks? Why is there such a limitation on using your hands? It just seems to be a convoluted mechanic I just don't understand.
Even I have limited knowledge of the sport, and I can see a whole lot of rules, politics, and things that add difficulty to the game with no reason except to add difficulty, which makes sense, given it's a competitive sport. Players don't have to be able to do backflip kicks at will to play soccer, no. The one who does, however, may just be able to use the angle at just the right time to win the game-winning goal.
Yes, some games have technical issues that limit what the players can do, as in StarCraft, but players react to the limitations by developing new strategies and skills. To me, that's mirrored in soccer, as people have developed a myriad of ways to perform while unable to use their hands to move the ball.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: KDR_11k on February 26, 2011, 11:07:48 AM
Except not using your hands is a fundamental rule that would completely break the game if ignored while the things that annoy me about Starcraft are arbitrary restrictions that exist merely to appease the pro players and hamper newbies. Removing the queue and zoom restrictions from starcraft would not alter the game at high level play, removing the no-hands rule from football would turn it into handball.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: broodwars on February 26, 2011, 12:54:02 PM
Also on the main topic... arcade stick arcade stick arcade stick. it makes alot of moves wildly easier to do giving you more time to worry about what to do and when to do it and where to do it and less focus on execution of a tricky Z shaped pattern or some such crap
The problem with that is that if Capcom/Arc System Works intends for me to use an Arcade Stick with these games, then they can pack it in with the game at partial cost to them like Nintendo does. I'm not paying upwards of $50 extra at the least (with the upper tier being in the hundreds of dollars) to have a specialty controller just because the developers couldn't be bothered to make the game perfectly playable on the console's standard controller. If you release a game without a pack-in accessory, I know I'm old-fashioned in this era of plastic guitars and bathroom scales but I fully expect the game to be perfectly playable without it.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: KDR_11k on February 26, 2011, 01:21:59 PM
To be fair you can play them fine without a stick but I agree, the genre as a whole needs someone experimenting with how it can be developed further and the answer is not to staple a ton of mechanics and bars onto the game.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Dirk Temporo on February 26, 2011, 03:00:18 PM
This is why Smash Bros. is the only fighting game I play and am any good at. It's entirely based on what individual move you choose, how you position yourself when you execute, and the timing with which you execute it. It's the epitome of easy to learn, hard to master.
Most fighting games (Blaz Blue included) are all about that, but then as soon as you execute a successful move, you're expected to hammer out some long-ass memorized combo to actually do any REAL damage. A more balanced game based on the Smash Bros. style of fighting and moving would be the perfect fighting game to me, to be honest, and may be one that I would sink some time into in an effort to get good at.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 26, 2011, 11:10:39 PM
Jesus christ, where do I even start with this thread?
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: broodwars on February 26, 2011, 11:44:34 PM
Jesus christ, where do I even start with this thread?
"Having a point" would generally be a good start. ::)
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 26, 2011, 11:46:35 PM
Quote
broodwars posted: After playing both, I'm continually baffled at how stagnant the Fighting Game genre has been over the years,
Stagnant being 5 million copies of SF4/SSF4 sold, MVC2 being in the top 10 XBLA games even though it was re-released last year, etc. Or do you mean in terms of design?
Quote
and how it has become something of a "walled garden" with rules both hidden and overt that seem to serve no other purpose than to prevent people from getting into the genre.
SF4 and MVC3 are the simplest to play in their respective series. I dunno if BlazBlue is simpler than Guilty Gear but I'm guessing maybe!!
Quote
Instead of a laundry list of buttons that all on the surface seem to perform the same task, there were 4.
I guess five or six buttons is a "laundry list"
Quote
In the shortcut's place is a "Beginner Mode", where mashing buttons performs every combo in the game.
I doubt it lets you do "every combo"
Quote
There's no finesse or strategy, and the game makes sure you know it. Just mash buttons (with a lengthy time delay on the more powerful attacks), which does not help the player learn to play the game or how to defeat more advanced players.
So don't use it? It's for children.
Quote
There is also a tutorial mode now, where the game continually insults the player
Yeah man, yesterday my copy of Tekken called me a bitch, I cried for two hours
Quote
for daring to be anything less than a master of fighting games (while quickly ramping up the difficulty beyond what a beginner can handle).
Learning is hard. Seriously though, it takes time and effort to get good at fighting games. If it didn't, they wouldn't be fun or interesting.
Quote
While playing through the tutorial, it reminded me of another oddity of Fighting Games. I don't think I've ever seen a Fighting Game where the buttons are ever labeled what they actually are on the controller. Using Continuum Shift as an example again, in the Tutorials all the face buttons are labeled A, B, C, and D. Marvel Vs. Capcom refers to them all as L, M, S, and H. Here, let me just find my "D" and "H" buttons on my Dualshock 3...Oh Wait. Why do Fighting Games still use this stupid and arbitrary way of naming their buttons, based on the conventions of old arcade cabinets that largely do not exist anymore? How is your typical player supposed to make sense of this?
There are still arcade releases. Some people don't use standard controllers. Some people like to reconfigure buttons. Some people play the same game on DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. I'm trying to bear with you here, really, but this is not a complicated, arcane thing designed to keep you out of the genre. Actually, complaining about this is pretty stupid.
Quote
Playing these games of late, it always strikes me that the Fighting Genre is one firmly stuck in the past. Why is there such a focus on being able to perform a move rather than on when the player uses it? I watched my best friend's brother today playing Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 online, and despite playing the game for 2 weeks and knowing exactly how to perform things like Hyper Combos he still couldn't produce the attacks on command. He knew what he wanted to do, but the game's arbitrary method of performing the attack made it difficult for him to perform when he needed it. Say what you will about Smash Bros., but the one thing that series absolutely nailed is that the moves a player can perform are both relatively few in number and exceptionally easy to perform (just the B Button in conjunction with the control stick). Instead of constantly worrying whether I can perform a given move, my focus can now be on if I have picked the right move and if I'm performing that move at the right time and location. Given that that seems to be most of what the Fighting Game experience is, why does the execution of it need to be so convoluted and arbitrary?
Believe it or not, myself, top players, and certain prominent designers agree with you that inputs and execution should be easy. And it is, compared to the fighters coming out a few years ago. I mean, MVC3 is dead easy compared to MVC2, SF4 is really easy compared to CVS2/Alpha, etc. If you and your friends still can't do a hadoken motion, well, I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty easy.
Quote
Caliban posted: I do wonder about what the ratio of casual fighting gamers, like me, is compared to the hardcore fighting gamers. How long are they going to tolerate such developer choices.
Hilariously, a lot of hardcore fighting fans are kind of unhappy with what we percieve as casual baby friendly elements creeping in, such as the extremely generous input latiency in SF4...
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 26, 2011, 11:52:56 PM
Quote
The problem with that is that if Capcom/Arc System Works intends for me to use an Arcade Stick with these games, then they can pack it in with the game at partial cost to them like Nintendo does. I'm not paying upwards of $50 extra at the least (with the upper tier being in the hundreds of dollars) to have a specialty controller just because the developers couldn't be bothered to make the game perfectly playable on the console's standard controller.
They are perfectly playable on a standard controller. Just ask snakeeyez (Evo2K10 SF2 HDR champ) or wolfkrone (evo online champ)!
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Caliban on February 27, 2011, 12:20:04 AM
Caliban posted: I do wonder about what the ratio of casual fighting gamers, like me, is compared to the hardcore fighting gamers. How long are they going to tolerate such developer choices.
Hilariously, a lot of hardcore fighting fans are kind of unhappy with what we percieve as casual baby friendly elements creeping in, such as the extremely generous input latiency in SF4...
Yeah I can see that being a problem for the fighting game enthusiast. How is SF4's input latency compared to MvC3?
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 27, 2011, 12:21:37 AM
Quote
KDR_11k posted: While I can input most regular special moves (I consider anything more complex than 3-5 directions stupid, it's just a barrier to entry, not a skill) even that isn't enough to understand most fighting games. They vomit a list of convoluted mechanics at you, stuff like Roman Cancels, desperation moves, crossover combos, various breaks, etc. Most of which the manual just mentions as existing but never mentioning why you'd want that. Shmup scoring these days is similarly convoluted with various combo systems and stuff. It's what happens when you make your games for an extremely small niche that does not want changes to the core mechanics even after 20 iterations and instead wants stupid **** bolted on. Having extremely simple core gameplay doesn't help, in most games your player character can do way more than move left, right, jump OR attack.
>extremely small niche >sells millions
Quote
The basic elements of fighting games are so primitive that they have to tack stupid **** on there to add some variety. In an FPS you can move and shoot but you have 3D movement and completely analog aim so both elements have many nuances to them. In Super Mario Bros your jump can do so many different things. In fighting games none of that is there, everything is digital and adding depth merely means adding more states to the finite state engine that is the player character.
What's the difference between 'stupid ****' and fun features? I'm not getting your point here. I find being able to use roman cancels and crossover combos, etc, very fun.
Quote
In football all you can do as a player is run around the field and hit the ball (or people if you're Dutch) but since there are many players in play, the ball can be in many positions and hitting the ball can move it into many other positions there's a lot of depth to the sport. Simple rules, complex gameplay, good tournament sport. Fighting games have insanely complex rules with very limited applications each.
I don't get your football analogy here. Fighting games don't have "complex rules" any more than football does. Simple rules: beat the other guy or have more life left when the timer runs out. Complex gameplay: combos, cancels, tags, complicated setup into infinite combo glitch, whatever. Oh yeah, and moves generally have more than one use each. :3
Quote
Fighting game fans are worse than the people who like **** like the limited queue sizes and lack of zoom in Starcraft.
[citation needed] As someone who is very much in touch with fighting game fans, I really don't agree. Having to practice **** more than we should really isn't that fun. But on the other hand, we really love to see and do very impressive things. I believe the popularity of fighting games has exploded in the last several years due in large part to improved accessibility... (and fun!)
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 27, 2011, 12:25:44 AM
Quote
Yeah I can see that being a problem for the fighting game enthusiast. How is SF4's input latency compared to MvC3?
MvC3 feels 'just right' on the goldilocks porridge scale, if you ask me.
Also my problem with SF4 easy inputs isn't that they're easy - I want everyone to be able to shoryuken right away, and I really like the easy reversal timing. It's the unintended consequences something like walk forward and hadoken becoming shoryuken - I have to let the stick go to neutral so I have to deliberately slow down. :S
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Caliban on February 27, 2011, 12:35:34 AM
I was playing Mission mode in MvC3, and I was shocked at how fast I had to press some of the combinations so that it wouldn't reset. Not that I'm complaining.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Caterkiller on February 27, 2011, 03:26:25 AM
I wanted to be good at Tatsunoko, I really did. As a kid I hated playing SF or MK with everyone because I just could not do it. I really thought things would turn around with Tatsunoko VS Capcom, especially since I really got the hang of 3D fighters. But no... every complaint in the OP is exactly what I deal with today.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: KDR_11k on February 27, 2011, 04:58:24 AM
KDR_11k posted: While I can input most regular special moves (I consider anything more complex than 3-5 directions stupid, it's just a barrier to entry, not a skill) even that isn't enough to understand most fighting games. They vomit a list of convoluted mechanics at you, stuff like Roman Cancels, desperation moves, crossover combos, various breaks, etc. Most of which the manual just mentions as existing but never mentioning why you'd want that. Shmup scoring these days is similarly convoluted with various combo systems and stuff. It's what happens when you make your games for an extremely small niche that does not want changes to the core mechanics even after 20 iterations and instead wants stupid **** bolted on. Having extremely simple core gameplay doesn't help, in most games your player character can do way more than move left, right, jump OR attack.
>extremely small niche >sells millions
How much of that stuff is actually in SF4? How many of those millions of people know how to use every system in the game? How many just mash buttons and are proud if they manage to do one hadouken?
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: that Baby guy on February 27, 2011, 10:48:40 AM
How many people just kick the ball as hard as they can and hope something good comes from it?
Quote from: KDR_11k
Except not using your hands is a fundamental rule that would completely break the game if ignored while the things that annoy me about Starcraft are arbitrary restrictions that exist merely to appease the pro players and hamper newbies. Removing the queue and zoom restrictions from starcraft would not alter the game at high level play, removing the no-hands rule from football would turn it into handball.
Seriously. Yes, adding the ability to use your hands considerably changes the fundamentals of soccer. Yes, changing how a majority of fighting games work would considerably change their fundamentals as well. Smash Bros. is a great example. The method to fight was changed, and the fundamentals were entirely different. There's fighting games out there that do this, just as there's different sports that do this.
And while I'm not keen on arguing about StarCraft in terms of fighting games, a limit to queue sizes, earlier, was a hardware restriction. Now you've made it a thing to inhibit newer players from succeeding. It's clear it is a hardware restriction, but the best players can easily get around it by growing familar with hotkeys and the nuances of selecting and deselecting units in the game. In reality, the game of StarCraft and its sequel aren't games where they prohibit new players from playing due to nuances in the rules and tricky matters of control. Suggesting so represents a gross misunderstanding of the genre. Instead, it's all about resource control, fantasy military strategy, and the brutal, incredible speed at which players can control resources and utilize their militias. Top players in games like these reach hundreds of actions per minute. Truly meaningful actions. They build new units, cloak, decloak, attack and move in certain patterns. An unlimited queue selection still doesn't mean much if your opponent can outmaneuver you in all other ways. While the interface does prevent players from acting as quickly as they can think, there's no more accessible and speedy an interface out there at consumer-ready prices, than a keyboard and mouse.
Anyway, the point is, you don't like traditional fighting games because the games have a lot of barriers to entry that have to be practiced in order to be a very skilled player in them. That's fine. No one is making you enjoy the genre. However, their existence isn't forcing the genre to become stale, either. Smash Bros. clearly defies that logic, and there's a vast number of combat-related games out there that do, too. Even Tekken and Soul Calibur don't have quite the same combo-based mechanic. Sonic Battle was released on the GBA using something closer to Smash. Bros.'s engine than most other fighters. Then, there's Power Stone and Ergheiz.
Truthfully, it is a lot like you suggested, though, with your reference to football/soccer. If you add in the ability to use your hands, it becomes another game. What is Virtual On, if not a fighting game where players utilize cockpit controls to fight giant mechs against each other? How about Call of Duty? It's a game where a team of players use guns to fight it out. There's a number of titles out there where players fight against each other in non-fighting game conventional means. Pokemon's another example. We identify games as titles in the fighting game genre mostly because they stick to certain conventions, with combos, small arenas, and special button inputs being some of those. Some games defy the conventions but stick closely enough to the genre to be included, but change enough of the rules, and you have a different genre, just as if you change enough rules in a sport, it really becomes a different sport.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: KDR_11k on February 27, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
Street Fighter and Smash Bros are the mainstream fighting games, the games Broodwars was complaining about were MvC3 and BlazBlue. Pretty sure that especially BB is a fairly niche fighting game. I guess we derailed the thread a bit by talking about SF4 and Starcraft.
Anyway, the Bleach DS games let you use special moves with touchscreen buttons, the only drawback is that moving your thumb over there can take longer than inputting the move.
Oh and speaking of Smash Bros, remember "no C-Stick" rules?
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 27, 2011, 11:34:37 AM
Quote
How much of that stuff is actually in SF4? How many of those millions of people know how to use every system in the game? How many just mash buttons and are proud if they manage to do one hadouken?
Well, SF4 has focus cancels, which are actually *more* complicated than Guilty Gear's roman cancels and similar systems. I can't measure the number of people that know how to do it, but: - You have to learn how to do it to pass trials - I expect every person I play online to know how to use it
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: ShyGuy on February 27, 2011, 11:37:05 AM
Has the whole gaming community gone soft or just NWR?
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 27, 2011, 11:43:25 AM
Has the whole gaming community gone soft or just NWR?
Not me, I'm still an elitist jerk!! But then again I don't really post unless someone puts up the fighting games signal
So I hear Marvel vs Capcom 3 is the bees knees...
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 27, 2011, 11:45:59 AM
Yeah I'm havin' lots of fun with it :cool;
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: SixthAngel on February 28, 2011, 01:17:00 AM
Fighting game fans are never happy so I hope they get ignored. (sorry S-U-P-E-R). They often hate change so much that they complain when a glitch in a game that they could exploit is fixed in the next version.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2011, 01:23:21 PM
I actually like how fighting games work and I'm not even very good at them. Nintendo bends over backwards to make their games more accessible and those games become less and less interesting as a result. It's nice to see a genre of games where they just try to make a great game and if you don't get it, tough ****. Here are the rules, here are the terms. Everyone is in the same boat. Play on our terms or get lost.
I LIKE that a lot. I like that attitude. I hate it when TV shows or movies or bands always look at who isn't a customer. How do I make THEM like me? Fighting games don't give a ****. They have confidence in themselves. They exist for their own fans and customers and don't compromise the experience to include people who don't give a **** in the first place. If you're whining about the complexities of fighting game controls, you don't give a ****, so fighting game should not accomodate you.
If you want to use a sport analogy I'll point out that NO sport worth a **** compromises itself to accomodate whiners who aren't good at it right away. I suck at golf. Golf doesn't change itself to allow me to be good at it. I have to work at it if I want to be good. No one expects the sport to change for me. Every sport requires some core fundamentals that one may not immediately pick up in a second. If anyone complained that swinging a bat in baseball was too hard and they should change it everyone who laugh at such a ridiculous suggestion. But with videogames it is perfectly okay to make such a request?
This is how real life works in EVERYTHING. You want to play an instrument? Gotta learn. You want to know how to read and write? Gotta learn. Want to work in a trade? Gotta learn.
I had the same argument when all this non-gamer **** came up. All this talk about changing the controls and changing the games and this and that. Why should an entire interest change itself, at the risk of turning off the existing fans, to accomodate people who are not willing to make the slightest effort to try?
Fighting games are what they are and don't try to please people that don't want them to be themselves. I admire that. I agree new things could be done and completely new types of fighting games could be made. There's nothing stopping someone from doing that. But I can say the same thing about every genre and many of them tend to stagnate.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: SixthAngel on February 28, 2011, 09:10:26 PM
I LIKE that a lot. I like that attitude. I hate it when TV shows or movies or bands always look at who isn't a customer. How do I make THEM like me? Fighting games don't give a ****. They have confidence in themselves. They exist for their own fans and customers and don't compromise the experience to include people who don't give a **** in the first place. If you're whining about the complexities of fighting game controls, you don't give a ****, so fighting game should not accomodate you.
You've got a point but you are talking about individual movies and bands, not entire genres. There are movies and music that aim at big fans and others that aim at a broader audience in all kinds of genres, while outside of Smash the fighting game genre doesn't have much right now for a large group of people. We need a new Power Stone
I would like to point out that Brood even has a complaint similar to yours but in the opposite direction becauase they changed the sequel to BlazBlue to appeal to a different group of people. If whining because a game is becoming more accessable is acceptable it seems to me its perfectly fine to complain that a game is actually becoming less so. They looked at a group of people and said "How do I make them like me?" leaving Brood behind.
If you want to use a sport analogy I'll point out that NO sport worth a **** compromises itself to accomodate whiners who aren't good at it right away. I suck at golf. Golf doesn't change itself to allow me to be good at it. I have to work at it if I want to be good. No one expects the sport to change for me.
Minigolf. "Lesser" versions of sports and games are constantly being made and played because the original is too difficult for most people. Look at the basketball games horse and 21. I used to play these games with friends because I was so much better than them at basketball. These games eliminated giant skill sections allowing them to compete and play a game that they wouldn't have otherwise.
I had the same argument when all this non-gamer **** came up. All this talk about changing the controls and changing the games and this and that. Why should an entire interest change itself, at the risk of turning off the existing fans, to accomodate people who are not willing to make the slightest effort to try?
That's because you always see it as changing what is already there instead of adding something new like it usually is. They can and do make new games without destroying the ones they make now.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Luigi Dude on February 28, 2011, 09:54:51 PM
I actually like how fighting games work and I'm not even very good at them. Nintendo bends over backwards to make their games more accessible and those games become less and less interesting as a result. It's nice to see a genre of games where they just try to make a great game and if you don't get it, tough ****. Here are the rules, here are the terms. Everyone is in the same boat. Play on our terms or get lost.
And this is the attitude that turned the 2D fighting genre from a successful mainstream genre in the 90's, to a small niche genre in the 2000's. Hell, the only reason Street Fighter 4 became so popular is because Capcom pulled a Nintendo and made the game less complex then Street Fighter 3 in order to appeal to the casual Street Fighter 2 fans that left the series over a decade ago. If Street Fighter 4 had been a continuation of Street Fighter 3 instead of a return to Street Fighter 2, it would have been lucky to sell 25% of what it ended up selling.
The fighting genre is the perfect example of what happens when you end up developing games soley for the most hardcore 10% of your audience and as a result, screw over the other 90%. This is why I'm glad Nintendo and many other companies don't have this kind of attitude because it would basically kill the entire industry in the long run.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: that Baby guy on February 28, 2011, 10:00:05 PM
Fighting games are a complete genre, yes, but not all of them follow the rules you're complaining about. Smash Bros. has already been named in this thread. There's a massive number of games with rules similar to fighting games, but that have changes that alter the fundamentals.
As you denoted, the lesser versions of Fighting games with simplified combos and special attacks are dull. They don't really change how the game operates, they just make attacking pretty colorless and repetitive for most experienced gamers who aren't too familiar with traditional fighters. That's probably similar to how the guys that go on the driving range and would love to play nine or eighteen holes any given day feel about mini-golf, too. And c'mon. HORSE is just a lame game, and we both know it.
Dumbing down the rules can create something anyone can play, but it's only fun when the game was designed for simplicity from the ground-up. HORSE is entertaining for a little while, but once you really get the hang of the real thing, if you're a basketball person, HORSE really won't tide you over. Same with mini-golf, and bowling with bumpers. Same with flag football. The reality is, we're applying a double-standard to fighters than we do to sports because people are more familiar with fighters, and they're broadcast to a smaller range of viewers.
That said, fighting games and tournaments are growing in popularity as they continue to grow in complexities with advanced skills, combos, and move inputs. There are top players emerging out there who are becoming familiar names to people interested. I say let it, and in time, more fulfilling simple versions of fighting games will make it out there, just like there are minigolf courses and youth-sized footballs. I don't think accessibility will be an issue at all, in the future.
And for the record, the fighting game genre likely died down from over-saturization and market segmentation. Just like there's only one major basketball league, and how people show most interest in the MLB, the genre needs to have a figurehead that represents it, rather than many brands. In the fighting genre, there were a wide variety of titles all with one type of gameplay and similar characters. It's too hard to compete in a market full of clones that cannibalize each others' business. The genre would be fine with a flagship line of titles, and lesser, simplified versions of the flagship to appeal to people who like the competition but can't play at the top level. That's better than a few new King of the Fighters, Street Fighters, Mortal Kombats, Vs. Series, and Soul Caliburs, when no individual game stands out much higher than the rest.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: lolmonade on February 28, 2011, 10:02:03 PM
If you want to use a sport analogy I'll point out that NO sport worth a **** compromises itself to accomodate whiners who aren't good at it right away. I suck at golf. Golf doesn't change itself to allow me to be good at it. I have to work at it if I want to be good. No one expects the sport to change for me. Every sport requires some core fundamentals that one may not immediately pick up in a second. If anyone complained that swinging a bat in baseball was too hard and they should change it everyone who laugh at such a ridiculous suggestion. But with videogames it is perfectly okay to make such a request?
You make some good points, and as a fighting fan, I'm not going to dispute the merits of the game having a decent learning curve.
I just don't think the sports analogy works well. Sports have already reached critical mass. People wanting to change the rules of sports like you mention would be laughed out because they are an institution with history and for the most part set rules.
Fighting games are a re-emerging market after being stagnant for a few years. Companies like Capcom have strayed away from the more complex systems such as Street Fighter 3 because it scared away the casual market that will buy the game to play with friends, but will never truly be good at them. While loyal, the hardcore market for fighting games (or any genre, for that matter) isn't a large enough group for most companies to cater to completely unless it is relatively cheap to do (example being the PS3/Xbox 360 port of MvC2).
I would say the Street Fighter IVs and MvC3s of this world are a good compromise. Letting the casual player jump in and enjoy the flashiness of MvC3 and seeing the crazy moves they can pull off. But there will be a definite ceiling of where all the professional level players reside that the casual player will never penetrate. It also gives Capcom the opportunity to make concessions to more casual players while paying lip service to the more serious players who were fond of the prior games.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: that Baby guy on February 28, 2011, 10:13:31 PM
If you want to use a sport analogy I'll point out that NO sport worth a **** compromises itself to accomodate whiners who aren't good at it right away. I suck at golf. Golf doesn't change itself to allow me to be good at it. I have to work at it if I want to be good. No one expects the sport to change for me. Every sport requires some core fundamentals that one may not immediately pick up in a second. If anyone complained that swinging a bat in baseball was too hard and they should change it everyone who laugh at such a ridiculous suggestion. But with videogames it is perfectly okay to make such a request?
You make some good points, and as a fighting fan, I'm not going to dispute the merits of the game having a decent learning curve.
I just don't think the sports analogy works well. Sports have already reached critical mass. People wanting to change the rules of sports like you mention would be laughed out because they are an institution with history and for the most part set rules.
Fighting games are a re-emerging market after being stagnant for a few years. Companies like Capcom have strayed away from the more complex systems such as Street Fighter 3 because it scared away the casual market that will buy the game to play with friends, but will never truly be good at them. While loyal, the hardcore market for fighting games (or any genre, for that matter) isn't a large enough group for most companies to cater to completely unless it is relatively cheap to do (example being the PS3/Xbox 360 port of MvC2).
I would say the Street Fighter IVs and MvC3s of this world are a good compromise. Letting the casual player jump in and enjoy the flashiness of MvC3 and seeing the crazy moves they can pull off. But there will be a definite ceiling of where all the professional level players reside that the casual player will never penetrate. It also gives Capcom the opportunity to make concessions to more casual players while paying lip service to the more serious players who were fond of the prior games.
Rules of sports change all the time. There's changes to how the clock works, what's legal, what's not allowed, use of performance enhancers, how many games are played, how a team reaches the playoff bracket, and so much more. Rule changes are a part of sport. The fundamentals of the game, however, don't change quite as swiftly, though. Still, if you were to look at American Football today and compare it to football twenty or thirty years ago, a lot of things would have changed, but on a small scale. Likewise, newer fighting games are working on small-scale tweaks to make a game that functions better on a competitive level, while still allowing people to go "Throw the ol' Hyper Combo" around. Personally, I believe the next step to advancing the fighting game movement is to make a more expensive title that's developed for use in a competitive circuit, which would actually reduce how many people would play it. The more expensive competitive title would be followed by a less expensive version of the game for general consumer use, but a few features might be switched, as would character balance, so characters would be less balanced, but more in line with the power suggested a character has in his or her background.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: lolmonade on February 28, 2011, 10:25:56 PM
If you want to use a sport analogy I'll point out that NO sport worth a **** compromises itself to accomodate whiners who aren't good at it right away. I suck at golf. Golf doesn't change itself to allow me to be good at it. I have to work at it if I want to be good. No one expects the sport to change for me. Every sport requires some core fundamentals that one may not immediately pick up in a second. If anyone complained that swinging a bat in baseball was too hard and they should change it everyone who laugh at such a ridiculous suggestion. But with videogames it is perfectly okay to make such a request?
You make some good points, and as a fighting fan, I'm not going to dispute the merits of the game having a decent learning curve.
I just don't think the sports analogy works well. Sports have already reached critical mass. People wanting to change the rules of sports like you mention would be laughed out because they are an institution with history and for the most part set rules.
Fighting games are a re-emerging market after being stagnant for a few years. Companies like Capcom have strayed away from the more complex systems such as Street Fighter 3 because it scared away the casual market that will buy the game to play with friends, but will never truly be good at them. While loyal, the hardcore market for fighting games (or any genre, for that matter) isn't a large enough group for most companies to cater to completely unless it is relatively cheap to do (example being the PS3/Xbox 360 port of MvC2).
I would say the Street Fighter IVs and MvC3s of this world are a good compromise. Letting the casual player jump in and enjoy the flashiness of MvC3 and seeing the crazy moves they can pull off. But there will be a definite ceiling of where all the professional level players reside that the casual player will never penetrate. It also gives Capcom the opportunity to make concessions to more casual players while paying lip service to the more serious players who were fond of the prior games.
Rules of sports change all the time. There's changes to how the clock works, what's legal, what's not allowed, use of performance enhancers, how many games are played, how a team reaches the playoff bracket, and so much more. Rule changes are a part of sport. The fundamentals of the game, however, don't change quite as swiftly, though. Still, if you were to look at American Football today and compare it to football twenty or thirty years ago, a lot of things would have changed, but on a small scale. Likewise, newer fighting games are working on small-scale tweaks to make a game that functions better on a competitive level, while still allowing people to go "Throw the ol' Hyper Combo" around. Personally, I believe the next step to advancing the fighting game movement is to make a more expensive title that's developed for use in a competitive circuit, which would actually reduce how many people would play it. The more expensive competitive title would be followed by a less expensive version of the game for general consumer use, but a few features might be switched, as would character balance, so characters would be less balanced, but more in line with the power suggested a character has in his or her background.
Fair enough. I'll openly admit that I don't follow the seemingly minute changes in rules & regulations in sports, but the core concept of them stays pretty similar as far as I'm aware.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that fight game professionals have already received what will probably be the closest thing to a highly competitive game in Street Fighter III: Third Strike. Companies' main objectives are to get as much as the potential market to purchase their product, and the majority of the time, making a game that is highly technical with a stiff learning curve will scare away potential customers, therefore lowering the sales and the likelihood that they'll cater specifically to hardcore fans in the future.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Ian Sane on March 01, 2011, 12:12:42 PM
Quote
You've got a point but you are talking about individual movies and bands, not entire genres. There are movies and music that aim at big fans and others that aim at a broader audience in all kinds of genres, while outside of Smash the fighting game genre doesn't have much right now for a large group of people.
That makes sense about it being the entire genre. The thing is who is to stop someone from making a different type of fighting game? There is no barrier there. But should Capcom, SNK, Sega, Namco or any other big player in the fighting game field change? Should there be changes made to the existing franchises? I say to leave Street Fighter alone and let it be Street Fighter and if someone wants to make something more accessible, then go for it.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 01, 2011, 04:06:21 PM
Quote
I guess what I'm trying to say is that fight game professionals have already received what will probably be the closest thing to a highly competitive game in Street Fighter III: Third Strike.
Hrm. Care to explain why you picked 3S?
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: lolmonade on March 01, 2011, 04:47:05 PM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that fight game professionals have already received what will probably be the closest thing to a highly competitive game in Street Fighter III: Third Strike.
Hrm. Care to explain why you picked 3S?
Because that's the only version of Street Fighter III I own, so I can't really state an opinion of the other ones :P: , but I will also say I thoroughly enjoyed Street Fighter Alpha 3...I still have the PS1 Disc somewhere.
On a side note, I wish they would release another Guilty Gear.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: broodwars on March 01, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
On a side note, I wish they would release another Guilty Gear.
BlazBlue is pretty much the successor to Guilty Gear. It uses something similar to that series' combat system, has a similar art aestheic, and supposedly similar tone.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 01, 2011, 05:20:41 PM
Quote
Because that's the only version of Street Fighter III I own
I was gonna say it's a bad choice for being the best "highly competitive game" since it's pretty unbalanced (Chun Li wins all the major tournaments). Just because a game is hard to play doesn't really figure into whether or not it's a good competitive game.
Quote
BlazBlue is pretty much the successor to Guilty Gear. It uses something similar to that series' combat system, has a similar art aestheic, and supposedly similar tone.
It's also not nearly as good!
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: broodwars on March 01, 2011, 05:23:12 PM
BlazBlue is pretty much the successor to Guilty Gear. It uses something similar to that series' combat system, has a similar art aestheic, and supposedly similar tone.
It's also not nearly as good!
Besides my own problems with Arc System Works making Continuum Shift less accessible, what's the problem with BlazBlue? I rather enjoyed the first game, despite the incomprehensible storyline.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 01, 2011, 07:25:21 PM
Guilty Gear ^Core was pretty much perfect in terms of balance and design, BlazBlue had a lot of issues like a bad throw system and barfy character balance. Maybe they tightened it up in CS, but I don't really know anyone who plays that game seriously.
Check out the EVO2k9 Guilty Gear finals, really good matches and a wide variety of characters (6 different ones in the top 8 I believe)
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: broodwars on March 01, 2011, 08:08:09 PM
Yeah, V-13 is pretty frickin' cheap in Calamity Trigger. She's pretty much the "Sentinel" of the game, and she was supposedly extremely toned down in Continuum Shift (along with Rachel and the parasite guy).
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Stogi on March 04, 2011, 08:30:11 PM
I just want to jump in here and say I've always loved fighting games. SSF2 Turbo was my **** and same with MvC2.
That said, I think fighting games have become too fast. I like to play methodically and attack when I have the least risk of retaliation. That's how real fighting works. But in these games, almost always the person who is the most aggressive wins. And that's not how fighting works.
If I were to design a game, I would make each blow hurt that much more so people become wary of losing health. I would also make it more realistic and lessen the fantastical moves. Players would have moves, but they would be toned down. And each move wouldn't have a strong, medium, or weak. It would just be the move. For example, Ryu's shoruyken (the jumping uppercut) would still be there but it would look like his weak uppercut, but with the recovery of his medium uppercut. If you connect, it's deadly. Every move in my fighting game would be incredibly easy to pull off, and every characters move set would be executed the same.
I've always wanted a more slow pace methodical and I thought SF4 brought that back for the most part, but it's still just a bit too quick.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: ymeegod on March 04, 2011, 09:47:16 PM
"To preface this, while I enjoy watching them I confess I'm terrible at Fighting Games. No matter how much I practice and how hard I try, the skill to execute the elaborate contortions of the control stick and pressing the various buttons just eludes me. I'm familiar with the typical "Haduoken"-style movement"
Have you played any of them on the WII? It's one thing Nintendo did was make sure everyone can play there games and Super Smash Brothers is a great example of this and Capcom followed suite with TVC. Want to do a special move? Hold Down 1 button and pick a direction it's that easy--and for an Ultra attack all you have to do is shake? My 5 year-old nephew can play it even.
My only gripe about TVC was why did Capcom pick some Japanese show that us Americans don't have a clue about? It was have been killer if it went with Nintendo vrs Capcom--now there's a game I'm willing to buy.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: broodwars on March 04, 2011, 10:10:23 PM
Have you played any of them on the WII? It's one thing Nintendo did was make sure everyone can play there games and Super Smash Brothers is a great example of this and Capcom followed suite with TVC. Want to do a special move? Hold Down 1 button and pick a direction it's that easy--and for an Ultra attack all you have to do is shake? My 5 year-old nephew can play it even.
No, aside from Smash Bros. I really haven't played a Wii fighter. Tatsunoko vs. Capcom was tempting for a while, but that roster just kills any interest I would have. I was born in the early 80s and grew up mainly in the 90s, so I never watched Battle for the Planets (though I did watch Robotech when it was re-ran on Cartoon Network). Pretty much none of the fighters on the Tatsunoko side interest me, simply because I've never seen the shows they came from and 80s TV animation has aged so badly that it's realistically too late to watch them now.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: ThePerm on March 05, 2011, 02:59:30 PM
the fighting genre has always been one I've enjoyed probably more than others. People wonder how I kick their ass in Wii Sports Bowling. Thats always been one drawback to being a Nintendo fan, the genre has never been as robustly represented as in the other systems. My favorite 3 fighting games are Soul Calibur 2, Mortal Kombat 4, and Smash Bros. Melee. All of which have similar learning curves and lend themselves to tournaments.
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: Morari on March 05, 2011, 03:45:15 PM
I just want to jump in here and say I've always loved fighting games. SSF2 Turbo was my **** and same with MvC2.
That said, I think fighting games have become too fast. .... But in these games, almost always the person who is the most aggressive wins. .... I've always wanted a more slow pace methodical and I thought SF4 brought that back for the most part, but it's still just a bit too quick.
wat
SF4 is the turtliest game since Killer Instinct!
Title: Re: Accessiblity and the Fighting Game Genre
Post by: lolmonade on March 06, 2011, 03:02:40 AM
I just want to jump in here and say I've always loved fighting games. SSF2 Turbo was my **** and same with MvC2.
That said, I think fighting games have become too fast. .... But in these games, almost always the person who is the most aggressive wins. .... I've always wanted a more slow pace methodical and I thought SF4 brought that back for the most part, but it's still just a bit too quick.
wat
SF4 is the turtliest game since Killer Instinct!
I have to agree with you on this. I had the most success in Street Fighter 4 by being conservative and waiting for the opponent to make a stupid mistake to counter attack.
