Its a great thing because when you live in a town that doesnt play fighting games except yourself,your internet sucks and people on shoryuken wont even help you to learn what canceling is…it makes it easier to not be a scrub.
cancelling is when you cancel one move into another move
I got your back
or sometimes you cancel the move into nothing. Makoto hayate cancels. she just changes her mind. women, always changing their mind.
Remember, we are not talking about becoming a pro and developing superfast reflexes and speed through hours of grinding and know all the matchups or even pay in the arcades waiting in long queues.
we are talking about the entry level of fighters. fighters and beat em ups were popular for a reason. most of the times they were fun rather than competitive, not bothering with stats.
Whereas now one will have completely different mind set if one is going to enter into fighters.
I tried on MAME this oldie. even though it goes on infinitely, it is very fun!
I dont think I’ve seen that type of fun in newer fighters.
Smash is freaking great. I’m not tourney level good at Melee by any stretch of the imagination, but I can play and not feel like I’m crippled the way I’d feel playing a traditional modern fighter. The basic game just feels a lot more complete than AE. The execution is there, but it’s not needed for the game to feel complete.
Power Stone did a good job getting things right for a casual audience. The game was easy to pick up and still allowed for a lot of flashy moments even before you really start to understand the mechanics of the game in a little more depth. It also is a very good stepping stone to other fighters, much like the first Samurai Shodown, because the game is all about spacing and zoning out the opponent. This lets new comers be able to focus on fundamental aspects of fighting game mechanics without getting sidetracked by flashy game specific additions.
I don’t think there is a more entry level fighting game than SF2 WW and the first time I saw that game there were at least 10-15 other people there and I had to push my way in to even get a view of the screen. If you lost even on the first day the game showed up there was a 15+ minute wait.
No one was pro, no one knew move names, everyone pronounced half the characters’ names incorrectly and it was still competitive on day one. Fighting games got popular because they were competitive, and didn’t get uncompetitive until they hit consoles and people could choose to not leave the house and not play anyone that they didn’t want to. The people who cry so much about online are people who came about in the time where you could lock yourself in your room and not have to face anyone else, now people are able to invade their house via the internet and remind them that they aren’t as good as they think.
Basically fighting games were always popular because they were competitive; however they are only fun to a large section of people when those people can rig who they compete against.
BTW easy to pick up hard to master, as much as people like to throw it around, is a bit of an illusion in fighting games due to the offense to defense imbalance of the average low level player. Check out the scrub quotes thread, the characters that drive most people away from the game in the beginning are the character that are easy to pick up. Its not complaining about complex setups and frame traps. Its Deathstroke and Capos and Ken constantly doing shoryukens. The average player can’t block or move worth a damn, so unless you risk hurting their feeling by telling them that no amount of making the game easier is going to help.
you are correct regarding the consolization of arcades and this did not affect just fighting games. Even shmups are now regarded as a niche genre.
though I admit, I put more coins on beat-em-ups rather than fighters back in the day. but it still was exciting to watch people playing the game perfectly. You learned quite a lot from that.
Ironic that now MMORPGs became so popular in net cafes. A genre that a few decades ago was limited to a few hardcore computer gaming enthusiasts. If this is the main gaming venture of a lot of people when they go out, no surprise that fighters wouldnt be so popular. a MMORPG compared to a fighter is like day and night. still this form of entertainment is much cheaper than how arcades have become. No way I am spending 1 Euro to play Metal Slug 2 in arcades. I am far better playing at home with the arcade stick. Better spend 5 Euro and play for 4 hours on a net cafe.
But is it true, gaming habits have changed. New trends appeared: eg character customization in fighters and other games. Like I’d care.
In the US, SC has always had a small community after 2’s life was over. After each new game was released it would peak for a small while and then die down again within a year or so. The Tekken scene is known to be insular and hostile in many regions (Just ask an old-timer about Jinmaster’s antics or “Save that shit for nationals”), and didn’t have adequate netcode until TTT2 was released. Furthermore, the games themselves are very difficult to get into competitively due to their design, far moreso than SC or VF.
Anyways, to get back on topic, there’s a place for both. People have varying preferences, justified or no. Ideally there would just be games/characters for everybody and that’d be that, but the fact is this is already a niche genre, and many players don’t have the luxury of playing the games they like the most locally, assuming they even have access to a scene to begin with.
i would to say that i was an mvc2 player and a very vocal hater of mvc3 when it first came out. i see a lot of people saying that umvc3 is easy, but the only truly easy thing about the game is dying.
re: jedpossum’s list
you mentioned umvc3 in relation to this so i’d figure i’d answer based on that. i think you’re pretty spot on with sf4 and maybe some other games though.
-
What happened to being able to select actual mechanics you want to use in a fighter?
do you mean grooves? not sure what this question is supposed to be -
What happened to being able to have an interesting move set for a character?
this one is pretty subjective. personally i think there are a lot of interesting movesets in umvc3. and there are definitely a wide variety of playstyles for both between different characters and also within 1 character. rayray’s magneto is very different from joker’s magneto which is very different from fchamp’s which is very different from fanatiq which is very different from roachking’s mag… and so on. they all have pretty different movement and moves they use in what situation, and incoming setups. i feel like if you can’t see the difference in players you just don’t play the game and aren’t looking for it. i know every sasquatch or qbee player looks the same to me, but i think that is just me not knowing about vsav enough. -
What happened to the speed of the games not just how quick a KO can happen but the time you need on reactions have been slowed down to a crawl?
what human can react to umvc3? -
What happened to the ability to move?
again, this really doesn’t apply to umvc3. the mobility in that game is better than the large portion of old games. -
What happened to multiple supers?
doesn’t apply -
What happened to training mode where it is devoted to ?
not sure what this question is supposed to mean. people spend hours on umvc3 training mode and still have plenty of room to grow, even the best of the best players. -
On top of that why is it 1 frame links when even ST doesn’t depend on them to making a player good?
it is absolutely really terribly stupid that jill’s command grab can only be combo’d off of with a 1-frame link for no reason, i agree. that’s the only intended 1-frame link i know about. -
Why when is there is an update or patch it usually dealing with nerfs?
wasn’t really true with umvc3, look at morrigan and doom -
Why are hit boxes so retarded when it ruins the neutral game?
i can see this one. i don’t think it ruins the neutral game though. but yes, it definitely would be better with some significant work. -
Why is there a priority engine on attacks?
if you mean projectiles i don’t think it hurts the game. in some ways it is a good thing, pretty frustrating in mvc2 to have 3 projectiles eaten by 1 beam. it was sort of neat that storm’s typhoon in mvc2 passed through everything and ate whole supers though
re: chun’s back fierce
chun’s back fierce has a good hitbox for the game, but it isn’t absolutely insane like yall are implying. a huge part of that move’s retardedness is the 7 frame startup, 8 active frames, and only 10 frames of recovery. all these factors is what makes it that dumb. 8 active frames with an above average hitbox is real strong in most games. if you want to compare, ken’s low forward is 6/4/17 which is more total frames and less active and only 1 frame faster startup and then on top of that the priority system. in fact, looking at ken’s frames, he doesn’t have a single move with 8 or more active frames except jump short. his low strong only has 3. correct me if i’m wrong, but ken is usually thought of as having very good normals. i definitely see where jed is coming from seeing that hitbox and being very unimpressed.
re: red orchestra
’The way that players instantly accelerate when they move, they don’t build up speed. “The weapons really don’t have a lot of power” [in RO2]. They’re all very weak. The way they handle… They’re like: “I hate Red Orchestra, I can’t play it.” Well, why? “Because the guy doesn’t move like he does in Call of Duty. Call of Duty has great movement.” Why is it great? “Because it just is, I just like the way it works.” So you don’t like the momentum system in Red Orchestra? “Yeah, it sucks, it’s clunky, it’s terrible.” Well, why? “It’s just because I’m used to this.”'
are you serious, this guy made a game where even cod players were saying the movement is clunky??? holy fuckin shit
i hate what cod has made fpses be but that’s ridiculous
re: gg iad
gg iad is definitely hard for some people when you first start. i had to practice it for a good month when i was first learning the game to be able to do it in matches at all. just because some things are easy for you in particular doesn’t mean you should assume they are just as easy for everyone. maybe they could have some slight improvement in the input leniency for it like how p4a or bb has. however i don’t support the idea of putting button dashes. i like button dashing better but it isn’t the right fit for every game.
re: 'Too many people want fighters to reward you for getting hit. '
who the hell actually wants this
“Easy fighting games”, I always thought that was an oxymoron. If you can’t place top 3 in majors, the game isn’t easy. What are peoples definitions of easy and difficult when it comes to fighters?
I had the same problem when I started MB which doesn’t have 96 shortcut but has 2 button dashes. It took me a while to get used to it in matches but now I can play both games easily. Some things are hard not just in matches but in practice mode as well, and those are the things I consider really hard. All the rest are just habits and simple muscle memory, not much dexterity.
Bullshit. That’s like saying if you’re not MVP in the NBA you don’t know how to play basketball.
To me, checkers is like an easy fighting game. It’s pretty simple to understand and pick up, yet there’s a bit of strategy behind it. Chess is a more game difficult to pick up game because there are more moves and more things to remember. It’s a simplistic analogy, but…well, I’m drinking so deal with it. I’d say SF2 pre HF, early Fatal Fury, the first couple Samurai Shodown games, and MK1 were pretty easy to pick up and play. Once fighters started getting popular and the devs started throwing tons of stuff in there things got difficult.
Y’all have to remember that difficult to the FG community and difficult to the general populace are two different things. To us, Guilty Gear is difficult, but we can wrap our minds around it, while trying to explain that game to someone who only plays Call Of Duty is like trying to explain nuclear theory to a third grader.
You took the wrong jist away from what I said. But it’s good you bring up B-Ball. If you’re not an NBA MVP and current Champion, then you shouldn’t claim the sport is easy. Nothing is “easy” unless you’re the best! There is a difference between a simple game and an easy game.
Tic Tak Toe and Pong are simple games, but only one is easy. It’s clear we have different defs on the term easy. When I see or hear the word, I think of using minimal effort to succeed.
I see what you’re saying, but I still disagree. Just because you’re the best at something doesn’t mean it’s easy and just because you’re not winning every tournament doesn’t mean whatever it is is super hard. I’m sure there are still aspects of bball that LeBron has a tough time with, just like I’m sure there are things about Third Strike that Kuroda doesn’t get right all the time. It’s about putting the time in. If you’re the best at something, it means you’ve put the time in to be the best. It doesn’t really reflect how easy or hard the game in question is.
I see easy as being something that’s relatively simple to pick up, play and understand. SF2WW was a pretty good pick up and play kind of game, which is part of the reason why it got so popular. It was pretty easy to understand, there weren’t a ton of subsystems you had to know about to be able to play effectively. Whereas a game like Guilty Gear has a lot more to it. I mean, yeah you can just pick it up and mash out some attacks (actually I’d say it’s a lot more pick up and play than people think) but to be truly effective, you really have to put in the time and understand everything about it. But yeah, we seem to have different definitions of “easy.”
I personally believe that it’s best for an FG to remain simply on the outside, but retain a lot of depth on the inside.
The more you have to think about wrangling with the controls, the less you can think about the actual fight. FGs are about predicting and reacting to your opponent, not dealing with obtuse mechanics.
Would Chess be better if the pieces attacked you everytime you tried to touch one? No, the reason it’s loved is because it’s all about tactics and has simple rules. You can learn how to play chess in one day. But it’ll take you years, maybe even DECADES, to truly MASTER it.
That’s how an FG should be. Of course, it must retain some challenge. Dumb things down too much and you lose the ability to have depth. But go too far and you have something that no one wants to play. Contrary to most gamers’ beliefs, a game is not good if it takes 8 months to do even the most basic thing in it.
I find it funny how it’s okay to say Power Stone is good but isn’t okay to say Smash is awesome. Also, Bhjaddhos’ post, a million times over.
Just gonna chime in to say that a game should never be “harder” to play on purpose, but it should never sacrifice depth or superior gameplay for the sake of being “easier” to play.
Still waiting on this fighting game that’s never existed that’s to hard for beginners.
Keits is busy making it.
I think a game having simple rules that gets very deep at higher levels (such as ST) due to how those simple rules interact isn’t any better or worse than a game with complex rules (such as Accent Core) that achieves a similar level of depth at high level. They are two different approaches, equally valid since how steep the learning curve is is not as important as the potential skill limits the game has.
Simplifying execution in some cases makes sense if it adds depth on new ways to compensate. For example, chains are objectively a simpler combo method than linking on paper. But when they interact with other mechanics such as jump cancelling, Roman Cancels and other particularities of chains themselves you get depth in a different way. Or maybe MvC2, which simplifies the control system in a way by removing the medium strength attack buttons but in return it gives the vastly expanded assist system.
Now, what games such as SFIV are doing is different. They simplify things for the sake of simplification, to supposedly cater to casuals (who I bet you all my money are completely oblivious to these simplifications and can’t tell SFIV apart from ST system wise besides new moves/systems) and give nothing to compensate for that. And what a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that lowering execution all across the board without adapting the game system to compensate for that has negative effects on depth.
When you lower the execution for throw techs and reversals you aren’t simply making throw techs and reversals easier, in a vacuum. You are also affecting rushdown, since now throws are not such a good way to break defenses and meaties are not as effective. When you make the game slower, it’s easier to judge distances and react, simplifying the ground game and also making things more defensive since you have more time to react. When you make your inputs loose and give generous buffering times, you are not just making it “easier” for newcomers, you are also allowing tons of option selects that dumb the strategy/thinking/reaction aspects of the game down terribly. Etcetera. SFIV gives nothing to compensate for all those changes.
tl;dr: simplifying some things if you are going to compensate in other ways/adding options can give good results. Just plainly dumbing things down is a terrible idea, and mostly irrelevant when it comes to attracting casuals.