A lot of people here focus only on execution. But “accessible” also encompasses complexity and "stuff I need to learn / remember."
For this reason, I often think even supposedly “simplified” games like P4U and BBCT are much harder to get into than older games like ST and KOF98, due to the large number of specific mechanics, comboes and other stuff to learn.
The amount of headspace required for games like ST and KOF98 is much smaller. You can focus on perfecting your fundamentals without having to worry about remembering too much stuff.
Thats why, even tho some might consider ST and KOF98 to be “harder” games, I consider them very accessible.
If using SF4 as an example, it’s not so much the input shortcuts that’s the main problem but rather Capcom dramatically reduced the amount of blockstun in comparison to past games. There’s very little true block strings in SF4 so this often has the effect of encouraging defending players to mash out specials while guarding as it’s very likely whatever normal they’re blocking has little to no frame advantage for the attacker – larger gaps in offense allowing it to be easier to reversal out of pressure situations combined with easier inputs, there ya go. Of course you can bait it out blah blah, but that’s besides the point.
I’ve been out of 3S for a very, very long time, but - I was of the understanding there is no “priority” system in 3S. Isn’t Chun’s HP godliness simply due to her hit/hurtboxes rather than additional programming?
"Things were not always like they are today in the genre. Those pretzel motions I was talking about? Those were originally hidden moves. They had controller motions which would not normally be performed in regular play for the novelty of the player having to look for the moves themselves. The advanced techniques that certain modern fans of the genre consider to define it? Those were once completely non existent. Canceling originated in Street Fighter II was a glitch. Extensive comboing, also first available in Street Fighter II? That was also an accident. Hit detection and hitboxes were completely different in early fighters as well. Even hit levels and blocking were once not a part of the genre, and when they were invented there were still games that did not have them. Diversity? Once there weren’t any sacred cows in fighters. Designers tried many different approaches to the genre. After certain elements became popular there were still just as many alternatives as there were fighters with the more “modern” gameplay elements.
Then Street Fighter II happened. Most modern fans of fighters consider the template this game popularized and standardized to be the definition of “fighting game”, often not even realizing there were dozens of games before it. It’s kind of difficult to imagine today, but SFII sold millions and millions and millions. It is among the highest selling games ever, and the series is Capcom’s third highest selling after Resident Evil and Mega Man. Developers began attempting to cash in on this game and many fighters were made in a fairly brief period. There are about seventy five fighters for SNES/Super Famicom alone, it being the dominant console during the genre’s peak in popularity.
So, again, what happened? How did we go from that to where it currently is? Well, designers forgot why people played fighters to begin with.
Eventually the “point” became about things like comboing and other techniques, which, like I said, began as accidents. It was advanced players who found these things. Nobody else was really good enough to do them very well or even cared. What did attract people was the basic gameplay."
…
Most fans of fighters seem to believe that “in the beginning there was Street Fighter II”. Hopefully this write up will show you that that statement isn’t true. Familiarizing myself with this forgotten part of the genre’s history has given me proper perspective on how to judge post SFII games. These games show that not only is SFII not the be-all-end-all innovator that it is often perceived to be, but that most of the genre’s defining innovations happened before SFII was ever made. Most people still judge the genre with a belief to the contrary, dismissing this fighter or that fighter as SFII cash-ins. In reality, SFII and most other fighters with similar design are based on ideas and innovations that preceded their era. In fact, the genre has become less innovative since SFII. At least there are still a few fighters - again, Super Smash Bros. Melee, along with the recent Gamecube Naruto titles, that are doing things a bit differently and making this dying genre more accessible.
but Chuns moves are so good mostly because of insane hitboxes. imo its more frustrating when her moves work in spite of this priority system eg. meaty b.HP trading with wakeup srk, c.lp stuffing the startup of med/heavy moves. I think its one of the final factors considered when resolving the outcome of a move as I’ve only really noticed it as a factor once in a blue moon when someone gets grabbed out of a super. maybe its coming into player more often than I realize it but I’ve always thought trades were resolved generally logically in 3s.
@Jedpossum Then you don’t play 3S if you don’t see a problem with her. Not that I want to make this into a 3S thread but there’s a lot of things about Chun that in addition to her hitboxes that make her good.
I think it would be an interesting exercise to recreate a match played by two strong players, and find out how many times hitboxes intersect and when the priority engine resolves it. My instinct is “not often.”
When I’m playing against a good Chun, I’m not worried about trades and the priority engine. I’m worried about walking into her normals, or having my startup frames stuffed. Her back fierce stays out there forever. Her good buttons are also really hard to counterpoke because by the time and spacing that your startup frames won’t get clipped, your window for counterpoking is not huge. this is a bigger deal with her low forward than either fierce button but it’s there with the fierces too. I’m not nearly as afraid of other characters strong normals.
Speaking as a somewhat casual, unskilled player it’s a two-edged sword.
I’ll use SF4 as an example. As much flak as it got for being “dumbed down and easy” it’s basically the game that revived the fight game genre, love it or hate it, it injected new life into your hobby. It’s easy to become an elitist and say that a game need to be hardcore with unforgiving mechanics, difficult timing for combos, etc. but a game needs mass appeal if it’s going to succeed and many people don’t want their fighting games to become a second job. So I would say that a fighting game being easy is a good thing, approachability is important to keeping a game popular and bringing in more challengers is never a bad thing.
However, while I do think a fighting game being easy is a good thing, there is the problem of making it too easy. Fighting games absolutely need depth in order to continue to function after their inception, otherwise players will become bored and it drops off in tournaments/online play.
So in the end, approachable and easy to pick up, while having deep mechanics past the surface is, in my opinion, obviously the best. It’s difficult to pull off and often games will lean towards one or the other so if I had to pick I’d take a leaning towards “Easy” simply because I’m a baddie.
Chun is lucky that mediums and lights automatically lose to heavies instead of trading.
Yun is lucky Genei Jin gives all his buttons the priority of a super.
Hit-boxes get nerfed in every generation. They tried to change that with MvC3 and SFxT but they just failed horribly. You can’t just change hit-boxes in a vacuum. SFII came across a good balance of hit-boxes, movement speed, block-stun and pushback almost completely by accident. A modern game with SFII (or any similarly older title’s) hit-boxes that don’t take into account other factors just doesn’t play right IMO.
Seriously, were Tekken/Soul Calibur that unpopular in North America? I was born in a Post-Soviet country and I remember MANY casuals loving the Tekken series and this was before I became seriously interested in fighting games. And now I’m having difficulty finding more than 3 players who want to play TTT2 competitively in my town, because the players prefer SSF4, UMvC3 and/or MK9 (Especially casuals).
As for the topic, fighting games should be easy to play, but difficult to master and ALSO have a good tutorial (Like the ones in Skullgirls or Blazblue CSE), not some stupid trials list that has combos which are not even that practical in a real match.
