Not disagreeing with these, but your reasonings as to why these came to be are flawed.
So what, things are different because we have online play? It’s no different than playing other people off of the internet. To me, you’re just saying that people who thought they were the best get creamed by others because they didn’t explore the game enough shouldn’t suffer. As I said before, if someone can do it, it’s doable. It’s up to the individual if he or she has enough patience to practice in order to be the best if they so choose. That’s not how life works.
Are you sure it didn’t have to do with a lack of interest? Maybe some people got tired of it. Not to mention that the decline also coincides with the rise of 3D gaming which created a gigantic misconception regarding fighting games. Unless you can provide me with explicit evidence that additions were what caused the sales decline, I can only take it with a grain of salt.
I suggest you also get your facts straight on all this. Parries are an exclusive to Street Fighter III. The most parrying you have in SFIV is Gouken’s parry and Focus Attacks.
Yet you still have those kind of BnB combos in SFIV. The input for that combo isn’t also too hard as I see online scrubs pulling it off ALL THE TIME. Besides, it’s not like Sirlin is the god of game design.
You had to learn to do motions back then. It’s not like SFII has specials accessible with just one button. I understand the need for accessibility, but you’re going the wrong way about this.
You’re advocating for easy to master. There’s are some problems with this:
The skill gap is narrowed big time. There’s nothing wrong with having barriers so long as they can be overcome with the minimum required.
Everyone is at the same level. Is this what you want? A competitive environment that is totally oxymornic because of this?
Less of an incentive to play. Half the fun is discovering what you can do. That’s one of the reasons I got sick of Brawl: Not much for me to do that wasn’t a glitch exploit.
TVC is the most simplisic VS. game every created. Capcom went out of it’s way to make that game easy to pick up and play. And as if it wasn’t easy enough, they added a wiimote option to give you Smash Bros. style commands for all your moves.
If you’re trying to argue the complexity of recent Capcom fighting games, TVC is not an example you want to use.
This is like the President of the United States telling the nation what it’s like to be a poor person.
First, there have been four successful assessable fighting games. They were Street Fighter 2 and the three Super Smash Brothers games. Since Street Fighter 2, fighting games have gotten more difficult and have not removed the barrier to entry. One reason why people flocked to Smash was because the moves were easier to preform. Tatsunoko vs Capcom falls into the same boat as other fighting games. It is far from easy to play, just easier then other fighting games like SF4.
The reason Baroque is a bad mechanic is it is one the game revolves around and requires a certain level of precision. It only requires you to press two buttons, but you have to be doing some kind of attack. Outside the fact that it extends combos, most new players would not understand it’s benefits. You also can’t do it on command. It only happens when you are attacked. Even then, it only last as long as your new combo goes. This may be troublesome for new players as they may not have the precision to keep a combo going, and they may not know what moves will keep it going. And it takes away red health. They would see that as a bad thing and not use it. But, it still gives veteran fighters a huge advantage over the weaker players, and they will either get better (which is rare) or quit. Seeing from the trend of fighting games today, quitting seems like what is going on.
It also bad in that only a small portion of the userbase will take full advantage of it. In fact, weaker players may do it by accident, and since it has a negative consequence, it may not be beneficial for them. And it gives the few players who can use it a huge advantage over the other. It is in this case that the mechanic should be thrown out. It’s not adding enough fun and adding too much frustration. This is true of half of the features in Tatsunoko vs Capcom. (Don;t get me wrong, I think the game is awesome, but it has some serious flaws that will keep players out).
@Kuma:I’ll reply to your post eventually. Give me time.
So L-cancelling has become just about second nature to me and is making the game more enjoyable. But I despise losing a rush because level 9 computer chooses to always know what you’re going to do. Yes I learn against the computer. Anyone care to show me how Falco’s grab, shine, jump spike shine blah blah blah combo is supposed to look?
Falco’s combos on fast-fallers and floaties are largely the same but require different jump heights.
I would suggest not grabbing as much with Falco as you might with Fox since Falco doesn’t really get much of out his grab bombo-wise if the opponent DIs properly. If not, you can uthrow shine into aerial (dair if at low percents) or uthrow uair.
On spacies you wavedash out of your shine, follow their DI and shffl a dair, waveshine again, repeat etc. until about 50-ish% when they start getting knocked over by the dair. Comboing from there is VERY character/DI dependent so that should be for you to explore.
If you want videos, I suggest watching some professional Falcos play, like Mango, Axe, DaShizWiz, Forward, Dr. PP, etc.
Also, playing against LV. 9 computers is just about the worst thing you can do, as the level 9 DIs terrible to combos, making him much too easy. Also, he powershields every hit and other absurd things. Play against the level 1 computer or the level 5 computer, as these have better combo DI (or no DI). The best way to play an actual person though, but that should be obvious.
Keep in mind Falco is the second most technically strenuous character in the game, even arguably the most, so it will take awhile before a person can combo with a high proficiency.
Wrong. When Smash 64 got updates prior to its release, (similar to Brawl’s Smash Dojo) z-cancelling was mentioned on its official site. L-Cancelling was a huge part of both games from a competitive standpoint.
Ohh okay so this glitch do exactly who I told the guy on the ZSS IRC, that its probably going to be some stupid tight timing you can’t just buffer, and even if someone did master it, it wouldn’t even be as revolutionary as though for a variety of reasons. Also has anyone nailed down on how to do it yet…
Does brawl still have retardedly ambiguous hitboxes to the point that you can’t play footsies? Then there’s the lack of hitstun on most characters attacks so you can’t combo, the retarded amount of damage required to kill a player on the huge stages,no L canceling to continue combos, and the fear to ground-rush down due to tripping. Seriously, if these problems alone were looked into Brawl would be a great game.
I still think Smash 64 was the best in the franchise in my opinion. It’s the only one that played remotely close to a real fighter.
Yeah, I remember reading it in the manual. It’s a great mechanic that provides an opportunity for an opponent to punish your mistake, if you don’t cancel. Added plenty of debt to the game.
I’m thinking a lot of the people who like to hate on previous smash versions weren’t very good at them and didn’t really understand and appreciate the amount of depth the games had. Melee was in need of some serious character buffs though.
As I said earlier, while the uses are beneficial, there’s never a reason to not L Cancel. It’s more of unnecessary barrier. If there was another way to make combos outside of this, it might be tossed aside.
No other fighting game requires manual input to reduce lag on aerial attacks (to the best of my understanding, no other fighting game even imposes lag on its aerials). L-Cancel, while satisfying to perform, is a redundancy when viewed from the traditional perspective - but, only from this perspective.
By “real” I assume you mean “traditional”. Still, the comment implies there’s some type of inherent value in a fighting game adhering to traditional concepts; which isn’t rational and impedes progress in the genre.
There’s plenty of avenues for fighting games to explore, but because of vocal traditionalists, innovation may never see the light of day.
Out of curiosity because I never play them, but has there been any major innovations to the FPS genre as of late? If not, fighting games are not the only ones who need to make progress.
Anyway, you could interpret what he said as something else entirely. A fighting game, IMO, has some sense of seriousness to the game, no funny business like random outcome moves, random tripping, or the like as a means of “having a laugh with friends” which in my opinion doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.
SSB was the only one to have this despite its comical atmosphere. It also had its share of combos and stages weren’t all that gamebreaking. It did a good job of being a fighting game while still being very different from the rest.
Melee added random outcomes, but just for one move for Peach and Luigi and some dangerous stages. Other than those, it was a good improvement over the original. Then Brawl pretty much gave the finger to competitive play by removing a lot of the hitstun and taking the “comical” additions in Melee to a higher level to where the only way to actually enjoy the game is only the way the designers wanted.
The only FPS series I pay attention to is Halo. The regenerating shield mechanic was considered a pretty big deal back then - of course, that was almost a decade ago. The FPS genre is definitely another that could use a breath of fresh air, and I doubt it would be as hard.
You make it sound as though your interpretation of the Smash series were not completely subjective. I personally find the original to be much more silly than Melee, with Melee feeling more like the traditional fighter. I really think it’s dependent on how much personal dedication you had with each game, that engineers that perspective.
Mind you that I said IMO before I went into depth. It was intended to be subjective. As for the personal dedication, I played Melee and the original like crazy. Melee, in retrospect, could have only been better by better balancing and maybe the removal of those random moves. I actually approached the two games more or less as just fighting games, not necessarily traditional or whatever as I really didn’t know the difference back then. As such, I’ve always preferred one on one matches which I think the first two did a decent job on.
Brawl on the other hand, kept me nowhere near as captivated then Street Fighter IV caught me on the rebound so to speak.
