Editorial design, you say? You’re required to use paragraphs in editorials, as you should already know, so use them here.
Other than that, TL;DR. Every analogy made about fighting games is pointless. They are what they are and can be compared to so many different games, sports and genres thereof.
Meh it was a good read but you’ve ruined it with your follow up posts.
Now you’re just playing forum slapsies.
True.
Yup. I had some ideas for a followup exchange but your attitude and tone removed any interest I had. A shame because this could’ve been a good topic.
thats exactly one of the dilemmas I face. Eg in 3S I picked Remy and played against a Dudley player who must have spent hours training on combos. I beat him once by destroying his game plan. Yet at the same time I also felt bad because the match would turn out too bland without any Dudley combos. I barely play the game. Just twice a month without training… I know I cant spend that much time on that game to improve my speed and execution, so slower charge characters are better suited to me and I apply what I already know.
When I picked characters that required faster execution, he double perfected me…I thought who cares, lets enjoy the game…
Heres my old man two cents. Fighting games are childs games by definition of the word Game. As a child I learned checkers and then Chess. Chess there is more strategy and grown men take it very seriously throughout the world akin to backgammon, Shogi, Go. That being said Fighting games by comparison have elements of Chess in the set up of certain setups, wall combos, and space control, such as fireball usage, invincible’s. I would say where the chess comparison in my opinion really shines is in the decision making such as in rapid succession. If you watch a chess tourney until it gets really do or die it’s move piece hit clock, move piece hit clock. The players in this time period are gauging the player and his move with a memorized move list in thier heads of what can be a counter or acceptible punish i.e. taking a piece or a set up to eventually win. I would say in that regards it is a chess frame of mind. QUick decision making skills. each piece is a move movements and piece formations go into setups which can lead to victory. On the basic level they are games and fighting games share similar qualities between how each player plays.Let me say that again the PLAYER is doing similar thought process exercises that chess player will use as well. Are fighting game similar to slapsies or what have you the reaction to punish yes so the PLAYER shares similar tendencies. but whiff and punish based on prediction is it. Chess is the strategizing component but is every character black and white? No. Is there a board of movement? Yes are there setups and varying level to what you can do with each character akin to chess pieces? Yes. and is there a set number of options as in both cases? Yes. I wouldn’t say its high speed chess but I would say on a basic level its the most easy/cop-out form of explanation one could use in order to explain how it works. That being said if you say street fight nowadays most people do know what you are saying, but if you can get someone to go down the rabbit hole to enter the competitive side of the fighting games then more of the chess elements come into play, learning a Character in and out, strength weakness, execution, setups. etc. Until some one wants to reach that point however, referring to it as simply streetfighter or kinda like street fighter will do.
That’s the gist of the article.
To reiterate:
Don’t let anyone choose how the game should be played for you, especially if you’re succeeding.
But don’t try to force your ideals upon others either. There’s no such thing as “Street Fighter characters” (a term used often to describe several ST characters with a more grounded game, like Guile and Ryu).
Keep your definitions as simple and open-minded as often, or don’t even define anything at all.
Dudley can be played in a very simple form as well. Sometimes we play a very basic game, we win and then we wonder to ourselves “Did I enjoy this?” or “Was this fair?”. Feeling guilty over the fact that your opponent practiced the game much more than you did is silly.
People choose their own obstacles. Even if the obstacles were chosen for them, never pity them. Admire them if you feel inclined to, but otherwise never pity them, nor should you feel guilty about anything.
On a different note: I could write one or two more articles based on this one, explaining where “guesses” come from, why we make choices, why “reads” are a terrible term (and how the japanese language is so romantic). But overall, I find it unnecessary. I sort of stumbled upon these thoughts out of nowhere and only very recently. If I had read them myself a few years ago, nothing would have changed. Certain concepts can’t be instilled into someone. Most people who read and understood the article already had this sort of perspective beforehand. Those who didn’t, won’t.
You’re damn good with your words and your write-up is fantastic. I disagree that you say that it won’t make you a better player.
I feel like I’ve just had someone explain to me all the questions I’ve asked about this genre of game and answers to everything that’s made me mad about it. I gotta take this all in.
Much obliged, dude.
I like this particular bit:
Got a sense of George Carlin out of this too.
I also understand the point you’re making with Slapsies, and I do agree with it.
TOO LONG DIDNT READ
WHAT HAPPENED TO TALKING ABOUT FIGHTING GAMES
Allow me to weigh in my opinion despite the last reply being nearly a month old.
In game theory, we segment games into two general types - sequential, and simultaneous. I believed that their names fully and comprehensively described the nature of the games until I read the replies in this thread.
A sequential game is one in which a follower chooses his/her best response based on the preceding action, and is unable to act until the preceding action has been chosen and completed. Common examples include trading-card games. A simultaneous game is one in which both, or all, players act simultaneously; being unable to forecast the future, players choose their best responses based on what they predict their opponents’ best responses are. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a textbook example.
Unfortunately, some here have claimed to be able to forecast the future.
If Street Fighter were a sequential game, like chess and trading card games, one player will be arbitrarily chosen to go first, and his/her opponent will be unable to move until the leader’s turn is over. It makes naked jump-ins as equally stupid as leaving a high-value piece naked without protection, because any decent opponent will punish you appropriately in his/her turn.
“But both games are about space,” you may say. Unfortunately, a game being sequential or simultaneous is a fundamental property that heavily influences every other aspect of the game, including strategies, rules and most importantly, outcomes.
If chess were a simultaneous game, where players can move any piece independent of their opponent’s actions (well, unless it’s an illegal move or if the destination is already taken of course), it would become like a real-time strategy game a la Starcraft, and we will begin seeing younger grandmasters who are able to edge out their elders with higher, Korean-level APMs. Because it’s simultaneous, we can even have 2v2 or FFA chess games.
And someone has already made something like that. Check this out:
Is that still the same chess game as you know it? Strategies and formations will change, and suddenly execution plays a larger role. You won’t want to misclick there, but the probabilities of it happening had just skyrocketed.
Street Fighter is thus a simultaneous game - specifically, one that is continuously repeated in each humanly discernible time-frame in the continuous spectrum of time. Humanly discernible because there’s really no point dividing a second into a billion nanosecond-long time-frames when most of them will be filled up with inaction due to our biological limitations. Both players may jump at the same time; or you may choose to throw a fireball while I choose to wait, and, if I’m fast enough to react in the next time-frame, punish with an appropriate move.
“But there are only so many plays your opponent can make,” you say. That’s where the repetition comes in - after every simultaneous game, the options available and pay-offs change. If I had jumped in and you didn’t AA me, I’ll surely jump in once more - my expectation of your best response to a jump in has changed. An opponent’s weaknesses will be continuously exploited time and time again.
Nicely done .
Fantastic write-up, dare I say sticky worthy?