Execution Barrier: Why is this still here?

[Hyper_Inferno]

The problem is that you’re still tying the motion down to balance (even if you say you aren’t), because you’re saying that the move would be too powerful if it weren’t buffered by something else. This is fundamentally different from TAP where you’re sacrificing the ability to use certain buttons during a match. That one has almost nothing to do with the players “chance to fail” the execution of the move.

What you’re basically saying that so-and-so move would be too strong if the motion didn’t need to be buffered or hidden in another action. You’re still tying it to the risk of something else (in this case, a jump) coming out. If you’re a designer, and you think that a move would be too powerful without that risk, then you’re better of redesigning that move in the first place.

Then what’s your opinion on the Sonic Boom motion? There are two key drawbacks involved with the motion from a balancing perspective that I can see that could be worth keeping even if a motion isn’t involved. The time it takes to charge prevents the player from throwing Sonic Boom after Sonic Boom. This first part could be solved like ukyo mentioned earlier by adding a cooldown between being able to use the move repeatedly. The motion itself (holding back) prevents the player from moving forward while charging, unless they happen to have a back+normal move that moves them forward like Guile’s b+lk.

Would you consider either of those restrictions (cooldown, holding back) a worthwhile option to balance a move around, or would you rather eliminate them altogether?

Well a Sonic Boom motion isn’t exactly hard to do now is it. The restriction isn’t that you have a larger chance to mess it up because it has strong properties, as is the case with a 720.

Now what about stepping up the same restrictions and moving to the [4]646 motion or even the [1]319 motion? Those moves carry similar intended restrictions (can’t spam them because of charge, can’t do them while walking forward) and are notably harder to do.

Moves were probably balanced around execution at one point. With balancing around execution, incidental pieces of balance have cropped up as well around those inputs that affect move usage and balance. SRK motion forces a player to stand for the first input (the forward), Sonic Boom requires a back charge, 360 motion doesn’t really care about crossups. In a hypothetical system where the inputs for moves are simplified as much as possible, I’m talking about internalizing the inherent properties of the motions traditionally associated with certain types of moves into the moves themselves since the traditional motion itself wouldn’t exist any more to provide those restrictions. And for some types of moves, I think the restrictions that the input mandated for the move is a worthwhile thing to keep.

Edit: To clarify, yes I realize now I’m balancing around the restrictions that the motion had. What I’m saying is that some of the restrictions that the more complicated motions had are interesting and can still be kept with a simplified motion that reduces the original difficulty of the motion. Of the restrictions that have traditionally been a part of motions some that I think are worth keeping are: forced jumps (720), forced crouch/back (2/4 charge moves), physical input times (double half circle). Some of these can be solved by internalizing the motion restriction into the move itself. Others would require more clever solutions.

Edit edit: To further clarify, one of the functions that motions currently allow is for different properties (mostly startup time) when performing a move at neutral compared to performing a move while buffered. SRK in SFIV start up is 3 frames. But if you want to do a SRK against raw jump in during a completely neutral situation, the startup is actually (time it takes to input the srk) + 3. It’s a small addition, but the point is the move operates differently at neutral compared to when in a bufferable state. In the 720 example, the difference for neutral vs. a bufferable state is a jump. The distinction between the two states may not be worth keeping. However, I think the forced jump is.

Would a super move where the motion is QCF+P, and the entire move is: “jump forward, upon landing do a throw with roughly the same relative damage as a current 720” be acceptable?

[d3v]

The problem is that you’re still tying the motion down to balance (even if you say you aren’t), because you’re saying that the move would be too powerful if it weren’t buffered by something else. This is fundamentally different from TAP where you’re sacrificing the ability to use certain buttons during a match. That one has almost nothing to do with the players “chance to fail” the execution of the move.

What you’re basically saying that so-and-so move would be too strong if the motion didn’t need to be buffered or hidden in another action. You’re still tying it to the risk of something else (in this case, a jump) coming out. If you’re a designer, and you think that a move would be too powerful without that risk, then you’re better of redesigning that move in the first place.

Then what’s your opinion on the Sonic Boom motion? There are two key drawbacks involved with the motion from a balancing perspective that I can see that could be worth keeping even if a motion isn’t involved. The time it takes to charge prevents the player from throwing Sonic Boom after Sonic Boom. This first part could be solved like ukyo mentioned earlier by adding a cooldown between being able to use the move repeatedly. The motion itself (holding back) prevents the player from moving forward while charging, unless they happen to have a back+normal move that moves them forward like Guile’s b+lk.

Would you consider either of those restrictions (cooldown, holding back) a worthwhile option to balance a move around, or would you rather eliminate them altogether?

Well a Sonic Boom motion isn’t exactly hard to do now is it. The restriction isn’t that you have a larger chance to mess it up because it has strong properties, as is the case with a 720.

Now what about stepping up the same restrictions and moving to the [4]646 motion or even the [1]319 motion? Those moves carry similar intended restrictions (can’t spam them because of charge, can’t do them while walking forward) and are notably harder to do.

Moves were probably balanced around execution at one point. With balancing around execution, incidental pieces of balance have cropped up as well around those inputs that affect move usage and balance. SRK motion forces a player to stand for the first input (the forward), Sonic Boom requires a back charge, 360 motion doesn’t really care about crossups. In a hypothetical system where the inputs for moves are simplified as much as possible, I’m talking about internalizing the inherent properties of the motions traditionally associated with certain types of moves into the moves themselves since the traditional motion itself wouldn’t exist any more to provide those restrictions. And for some types of moves, I think the restrictions that the input mandated for the move is a worthwhile thing to keep.

Edit: To clarify, yes I realize now I’m balancing around the restrictions that the motion had. What I’m saying is that some of the restrictions that the more complicated motions had are interesting and can still be kept with a simplified motion that reduces the original difficulty of the motion. Of the restrictions that have traditionally been a part of motions some that I think are worth keeping are: forced jumps (720), forced crouch/back (2/4 charge moves), physical input times (double half circle). Some of these can be solved by internalizing the motion restriction into the move itself. Others would require more clever solutions.

Edit edit: To further clarify, one of the functions that motions currently allow is for different properties (mostly startup time) when performing a move at neutral compared to performing a move while buffered. SRK in SFIV start up is 3 frames. But if you want to do a SRK against raw jump in during a completely neutral situation, the startup is actually (time it takes to input the srk) + 3. It’s a small addition, but the point is the move operates differently at neutral compared to when in a bufferable state. In the 720 example, the difference for neutral vs. a bufferable state is a jump. The distinction between the two states may not be worth keeping. However, I think the forced jump is.

Would a super move where the motion is QCF+P, and the entire move is: “jump forward, upon landing do a throw with roughly the same relative damage as a current 720” be acceptable?

Except that you’re not really forced to jump with a 720 if you know how to buffer or kara-cancel it. The restriction of “forced jump” was never a true restriction in the first place as it does not exist at high level play. This is different from a sonic boom motion as there is no way outside of hacking the game that you will be able to throw one out faster than the charge timer allows.

A super that is QCF+P on landing frames is not the same as a 720 because you cannot walk up into it.

Now you could say instead that the super is QCF+P but can only be done during the startup frames of a jab. But at that point, it doesn’t really add anything to the game anymore aside from an arbitrary execution barrier and it doesn’t really balance it in any way because, people will able to simply just pull it out at high level play.

[Hyper_Inferno]

Except that you’re not really forced to jump with a 720 if you know how to buffer or kara-cancel it. The restriction of “forced jump” was never a true restriction in the first place as it does not exist at high level play. This is different from a sonic boom motion as there is no way outside of hacking the game that you will be able to throw one out faster than the charge timer allows.

A super that is QCF+P on landing frames is not the same as a 720 because you cannot walk up into it.

Now you could say instead that the super is QCF+P but can only be done during the startup frames of a jab. But at that point, it doesn’t really add anything to the game anymore aside from an arbitrary execution barrier and it doesn’t really balance it in any way because, people will able to simply just pull it out at high level play.

Even if the jump restriction doesn’t actually exist at the highest levels of play for the 720 and is not a true restriction, I highly believe that at some point in development the 720 was balanced around the idea that jumping would have to be a big part of the balancing of the move. The fact that once people are able to consistently do it standing and it becomes such a crazy powerful move means to me that there’s no way the developers intended standing 720 to be the “default” power level of it. If they did, then I have mistakenly assumed that a jump restriction was ever intended to exist in any way shape or form. (This is why I chose the 720 over the 360 for my example, because developers have made more noticeable efforts to reduce the chances of jumping during a 360 in later games.) But why can’t the jump restriction exist and why can’t moves be balanced around it?

What I’m really asking with the QCF+P jump-throw move example is “Could such a move exist and be balanced?” As a starting point for tuning damage, I use the relative damage of a 720 as a rough guiding point because I believe that damage level is appropriate for a move that’s supposed to have these inherent risks even if the 720 doesn’t at the highest level of play. It doesn’t have to be a jump-(land)-throw either. It could be a jump-(land)-fireball, jump-(land)-slide, jump-(land)-body tackle. Cammy’s hooligan combination->throw is actually a sort of example of this. It’s not a great move, but the concept is still relatively the same.

TL;DR
Me: 720 has interesting properties in its difficult motion, which are worth keeping
d3v: That’s still balancing around execution
Me: You’re right, but what if the execution was removed and the properties were retained (forced jump)?
d3v: Forced jump isn’t an actual property of the 720 (provides video proof .)
Me: Even if forced jump isn’t an actual property of the 720, could it be a property of a future move using the damage of a 720 as a baseline and then further balanced around that?

As an aside, are there any videos of people doing standing 1080s in Arcana Heart of Yatagarasu (or 1440/1800)? At some point, forced jump really does become a factor for 360 rotations and I’m curious to see how far people have managed to get.

[ilitirit]

What happens when you make SPDs easier:

Eduardo Perez (PR_Balrog)

[d3v]

Except that you’re not really forced to jump with a 720 if you know how to buffer or kara-cancel it. The restriction of “forced jump” was never a true restriction in the first place as it does not exist at high level play. This is different from a sonic boom motion as there is no way outside of hacking the game that you will be able to throw one out faster than the charge timer allows.

A super that is QCF+P on landing frames is not the same as a 720 because you cannot walk up into it.

Now you could say instead that the super is QCF+P but can only be done during the startup frames of a jab. But at that point, it doesn’t really add anything to the game anymore aside from an arbitrary execution barrier and it doesn’t really balance it in any way because, people will able to simply just pull it out at high level play.

Even if the jump restriction doesn’t actually exist at the highest levels of play for the 720 and is not a true restriction, I highly believe that at some point in development the 720 was balanced around the idea that jumping would have to be a big part of the balancing of the move. The fact that once people are able to consistently do it standing and it becomes such a crazy powerful move means to me that there’s no way the developers intended standing 720 to be the “default” power level of it. If they did, then I have mistakenly assumed that a jump restriction was ever intended to exist in any way shape or form. (This is why I chose the 720 over the 360 for my example, because developers have made more noticeable efforts to reduce the chances of jumping during a 360 in later games.) But why can’t the jump restriction exist and why can’t moves be balanced around it?

But the point is we are talking about the highest level of play, which is where the game’s true balance is found.

What I’m really asking with the QCF+P jump-throw move example is “Could such a move exist and be balanced?” As a starting point for tuning damage, I use the relative damage of a 720 as a rough guiding point because I believe that damage level is appropriate for a move that’s supposed to have these inherent risks even if the 720 doesn’t at the highest level of play. It doesn’t have to be a jump-(land)-throw either. It could be a jump-(land)-fireball, jump-(land)-slide, jump-(land)-body tackle. Cammy’s hooligan combination->throw is actually a sort of example of this. It’s not a great move, but the concept is still relatively the same.

In this case you really need to ask yourself this, is “what purpose does a move that only comes out during the landing frames of a jump serve?” What value is there in having the player jump before they can pull a certain move off? If the answer is “because the move would be too strong otherwise” then you need to rethink how the move is balanced.

[BB_Hoody]

@d3v OK d3v so how would you design a move with the properties of a SPD or some other powerful move like Darkness Illusions/Raging Demons or the game in a way they could be given more simple inputs without such restrictions while still keeping said move fair? Because I’d hate to see such moves go away all together for accessibility sake.

[d3v]

@d3v OK d3v so how would you design a move with the properties of a SPD or some other powerful move like Darkness Illusions/Raging Demons or the game in a way they could be given more simple inputs without such restrictions while still keeping said move fair? Because I’d hate to see such moves go away all together for accessibility sake.

You make the move “fair” in the first place without relying on the difficulty of the input to “balance” it.

Of course, that’s if the move in question needs “balancing” at all. Look at SFIV, we know that people can walk up SDP/walk up 720 and bust a Raging Demon out quite easily, but these aren’t exactly broken. Zangief isn’t exactly top tier and what makes Akuma good isn’t his Raging Demon.

[BB_Hoody]

@d3v OK d3v so how would you design a move with the properties of a SPD or some other powerful move like Darkness Illusions/Raging Demons or the game in a way they could be given more simple inputs without such restrictions while still keeping said move fair? Because I’d hate to see such moves go away all together for accessibility sake.

You make the move “fair” in the first place without relying on the difficulty of the input to “balance” it.

Of course, that’s if the move in question needs “balancing” at all. Look at SFIV, we know that people can walk up SDP/walk up 720 and bust a Raging Demon out quite easily, but these aren’t exactly broken. Zangief isn’t exactly top tier and what makes Akuma good isn’t his Raging Demon.

So are you saying simplified inputs for moves like SPDs and raging demons wouldn’t be gamebreaking in SF4? Like lets just give Zangief and Hugo HCF for their SPDs and a QCF+ 3punch buttons for Akuma’s raging demon?

[d3v]

@d3v OK d3v so how would you design a move with the properties of a SPD or some other powerful move like Darkness Illusions/Raging Demons or the game in a way they could be given more simple inputs without such restrictions while still keeping said move fair? Because I’d hate to see such moves go away all together for accessibility sake.

You make the move “fair” in the first place without relying on the difficulty of the input to “balance” it.

Of course, that’s if the move in question needs “balancing” at all. Look at SFIV, we know that people can walk up SDP/walk up 720 and bust a Raging Demon out quite easily, but these aren’t exactly broken. Zangief isn’t exactly top tier and what makes Akuma good isn’t his Raging Demon.

So are you saying simplified inputs for moves like SPDs and raging demons wouldn’t be gamebreaking in SF4? Like lets just give Zangief and Hugo HCF for their SPDs and a QCF+ 3punch buttons for Akuma’s raging demon?

This implies that it’s the input of those moves that keeps those characters from being too good in the game, when we know that the top players for those character can pull those moves off at will.

A game’s balance is always measured at the highest levels of play, and we’ve already seen that at those levels, these inputs don’t really matter as much as you think they do. You don’t linger in SnakeEyez face and think “it’s fine if he has SPD because it’s too hard for him to do anyway”. No, you do you best not to give him that opening.

[BB_Hoody]

@d3v someone should make a moded version of USFIV like Project M with simplified inputs for all moves. No 360 motions, button sequences or double motions. The most complex it can get is a half circle motion. And see how that works. I’d really like to see that. Also has anyone ever asked Capcom why is it that they choose to have these inputs for moves instead of making them more simple? Or any fighting game dev in general?

[Hyper_Inferno]

What I’m really asking with the QCF+P jump-throw move example is “Could such a move exist and be balanced?” As a starting point for tuning damage, I use the relative damage of a 720 as a rough guiding point because I believe that damage level is appropriate for a move that’s supposed to have these inherent risks even if the 720 doesn’t at the highest level of play. It doesn’t have to be a jump-(land)-throw either. It could be a jump-(land)-fireball, jump-(land)-slide, jump-(land)-body tackle. Cammy’s hooligan combination->throw is actually a sort of example of this. It’s not a great move, but the concept is still relatively the same.

In this case you really need to ask yourself this, is “what purpose does a move that only comes out during the landing frames of a jump serve?” What value is there in having the player jump before they can pull a certain move off? If the answer is “because the move would be too strong otherwise” then you need to rethink how the move is balanced.

I guess the issue I’m having is that I don’t see how that is any different than:

In this case you really need to ask yourself this, is “what purpose does a move that only comes out [after charging for x amount of frames] serve?” What value is there in having the player [charge] before they can pull a certain move off? If the answer is “because the move would be too strong otherwise” then you need to rethink how the move is balanced.

@d3v someone should make a moded version of USFIV like Project M with simplified inputs for all moves. No 360 motions, button sequences or double motions. The most complex it can get is a half circle motion. And see how that works. I’d really like to see that. Also has anyone ever asked Capcom why is it that they choose to have these inputs for moves instead of making them more simple? Or any fighting game dev in general?

It’s probably tradition more than anything else. In SF1, the motions were probably just there as secret codes to make the player feel awesome when they did the special moves. In SF2, they carried those motions over, and made the most of the new characters’ motions reflect the type of attack that they did. Lots of fast kicks/punches = Lightning Legs/Hundred Hand Slap = multiple p/k inputs. Body torpedoing vertically or horizontally across the screen = Blanka Ball, Sumo Headbutt, Flash Kick = charge input [4]6 or [2]8. Giant spinny grab = SPD = 360 motion. At that point in time, I’m not entirely sure if Capcom was anywhere near thinking about making the game competitively balanced, since you even had a random chance of just throwing out a special instead of doing a normal in the early iterations of SF2.

[DoctaMario]

Guys guys guys! I HAVE THE SOLUTION! All we gotta do is tell Capcom and every other fighting game Dev to just make all characters charge characters! Problem solved! You’re welcome, if you need me, I’ll be at the bar! DoctaMario, OUT!

[d3v]

What I’m really asking with the QCF+P jump-throw move example is “Could such a move exist and be balanced?” As a starting point for tuning damage, I use the relative damage of a 720 as a rough guiding point because I believe that damage level is appropriate for a move that’s supposed to have these inherent risks even if the 720 doesn’t at the highest level of play. It doesn’t have to be a jump-(land)-throw either. It could be a jump-(land)-fireball, jump-(land)-slide, jump-(land)-body tackle. Cammy’s hooligan combination->throw is actually a sort of example of this. It’s not a great move, but the concept is still relatively the same.

In this case you really need to ask yourself this, is “what purpose does a move that only comes out during the landing frames of a jump serve?” What value is there in having the player jump before they can pull a certain move off? If the answer is “because the move would be too strong otherwise” then you need to rethink how the move is balanced.

I guess the issue I’m having is that I don’t see how that is any different than:

In this case you really need to ask yourself this, is “what purpose does a move that only comes out [after charging for x amount of frames] serve?” What value is there in having the player [charge] before they can pull a certain move off? If the answer is “because the move would be too strong otherwise” then you need to rethink how the move is balanced.

Because, unlike something like a 360, or a raging demon input, you cannot mitigate the charge time with practice whatsoever. There is no point whatsoever where a player is able to actually reduce that charge time through skill or practice. They may be doing other things, pressing other buttons, but the fact remains that they still have to hold back. The restriction on the move is timing and not risk - that’s the fundamental difference that you are missing.

Moreover, charge moves aren’t just for “balance” (because face it, we’ve had games where a character with a charge projectile can match a character with a motion projectile shot per shot). The charge however also gives the character unique properties which help make them play differently from a motion character. Whether to make the character a more defensive one, or to give them a different rhythm for their offense compared to a motion character.

Also, I already gave you a way out with my last reply to you. If you can find an actual, non-balance related reason why a move should be available only on a characters landing frames, then go for it.

[Hyper_Inferno]

Because, unlike something like a 360, or a raging demon input, you cannot mitigate the charge time with practice whatsoever. There is no point whatsoever where a player is able to actually reduce that charge time through skill or practice. They may be doing other things, pressing other buttons, but the fact remains that they still have to hold back. The restriction on the move is timing and not risk - that’s the fundamental difference that you are missing.

Moreover, charge moves aren’t just for “balance” (because face it, we’ve had games where a character with a charge projectile can match a character with a motion projectile shot per shot). The charge however also gives the character unique properties which help make them play differently from a motion character. Whether to make the character a more defensive one, or to give them a different rhythm for their offense compared to a motion character.

Also, I already gave you a way out with my last reply to you. If you can find an actual, non-balance related reason why a move should be available only on a characters landing frames, then go for it.

For the hypothetical landing frame move:

Because, unlike something like a 360, or a raging demon input, you cannot mitigate the [forced jump] with practice whatsoever. There is no point whatsoever where a player is able to actually reduce that [forced jump] through skill or practice. They may be doing other things, pressing other buttons, but the fact remains that they still have to [jump].

I get the point of why timing itself may not be a risk, but that’s a cooldown/charge time thing. That exists for plenty of moves outside of charge inputs. The afore mentioned TAP. BB has Lambda’s gravity wells, Rachel’s wind/frog. Faust has to wait until his previous item has hit the floor before chucking another. Captain America has to wait for his shield to come back to him. Ryu isn’t allowed to have more than one fireball on the screen at once in some iterations. But charge time isn’t the only thing that separates charge inputs from motion inputs, there’s also the restriction that you’re locked into holding a direction (that can be masked through other things).

I would consider holding back (or any direction) a restriction based on risk (as well as timing). Because for most characters with a charge move, once you start charging back, your options to continue to move forward are now limited to any command back + normals you might have that move you forward or holding back during a neutral/forward jump. Most characters in games don’t have a system mechanic in place to allow for dash forward sonic boom (3S charge partitioning as an example which does allow this) which is an inherent restriction in the charge input that just doesn’t exist for a QCF motion. Every time you start charging a [4], you’re running the risk of the opponent capitalizing on the fact that your character has greatly limited their own movement options and will start to push your character toward the corner.

As another example, take Vega’s Ultra 1. If you want to go through a fireball, you’ve gotta stay in the defensive crouch for a little less than a second before you can do it. If you want to advance on your opponent, your only options to do so while retaining that charge are c.hk or a single shot at dash forward Ultra 1. Now, the entire [1]319/7 motion is probably excessive to force a player to take that penalty to charge the move, but the movement restriction penalty itself seems to me like an acceptable balancing aspect of the move. And I would consider a “negative” movement restriction (forced movement) to be another aspect that a move could be balanced around.

If you don’t consider forced/restricted movement to be a worthwhile balancing tool, then I’m just going to have to agree to disagree with you.

There’s at least one game that I know of that uses 46 motions (well, actually 464), but doesn’t require a charge, and I wouldn’t consider those as restrictions based on input because they can be pulled out at an instant’s notice if necessary.

Edit: This is part of why Chun’s super glitch in SF2 is probably so good. It lets you advance forward while retaining the threat of the super when the input itself clearly was built to prevent exactly that from occurring.

[DoctaMario]

The problem I see with the jump frames thing is that, if I’m understanding it right, you’re trading one form of execution (the motion) for another (the timing at which a simpler motion is done.) Personally, a more complex motion makes more sense to me than "do this motion as your character’s landing frames are active, unless of course it’s super lenient.

I know I’ve said this before but SF4 Volt is a good example of super simple inputs that don’t really detract from the game’s meta much. One button Supers & Ultras are definitely OP but not as much when everyone’s got one. I know games need some kind of executional requirements but I feel like a lot of games have the ones they have because “that’s how SF2 did it.”

[d3v]

Honestly, if I were to do something that only came out during landing frames, it wouldn’t be some super grab or anything like that. Rather I’d have be some sort of mobility option, like an invincible slide or roll with no pushbox that can go past the opponent, so it can be used for meaty mixups on jump in.

[BB_Hoody]

Hey I had a thought. Has anyone noticed how the FPS genre has a lot of more casual friendly shooters like COD, Halo, Borderlands, where as more technical shooters like Counter Strike, or Rainbow Six are more rare? Well it seems with fighters it’s the opposite. Other than Smash and Playstation All Stars, there really aren’t any decent casually friendly fighters where one could just jump in and pick it up in minutes. Maybe that’s why the average gamer avoids fighters. Not to say we should do away with more technical fighters. But the genre isn’t gonna get the mainstream attention it had in the 90’s with the vast majority of them requiring a afternoon of training before you can actually know what you’re doing.

[blufang]

Well that was the great thing about the 90s, even though fighters would still take a long time to master, you could pick most up and start playing very quickly.

While there is more input leniency at the same time fighters have gotten more systems, more combocentric, and much harder for people to jump in. Remember most gamers are casual players, they just want to play, there are few options for those folk nowadays.

[BB_Hoody]

@blufang

Exactly my point. We tend to forget the competitive player is the minority, and yet most fighters cater to this minority. Maybe the execution barrier doesn’t need to go. Maybe we just need more casual friendly fighters like Smash that don’t have it. In smash there’s no meter management, no motions for executing moves, etc. While there are advanced stuff like Melee’s wave dashing and L canceling, this stuff isn’t required to learn for casual play. Where as in more traditional fighters, a casual player has to spend some time in training just to master basic stuff so that they can know what they’re doing. That kills accessibility and makes a game niche by default. Games like SF, MK and MVC over come this niche through legacy and iconic characters. But fighters like Guilty Gear, Darkstalkers, DOA, Virtua Fighter etc don’t have that luxury. Maybe if we had more casually friendly fighters for people to start with. They’d maybe gravitate eventually to more complex ones.

[keo-bas]

there really aren’t any decent casually friendly fighters where one could just jump in and pick it up in minutes.

so where gonna act like these didn’t exist

[details=Spoiler]
KI3
Naruto ultimate ninja
Saint seiya Brave soldiers
MvC origins
Dark stalker resurrection
SF2hd remix
Tekken Revolution
Dive kick
Battle Fantasia
soul calibure 2
Neo geo station (SS1/AoF/FF/WH)
jojo bizar all star battle
Aqua pazza
Dead or Alive 5 last round
Mortal kombat collection

Hod on I havent even touch importer and nitch shit yet
Chaos Code
Dark Awake
Shin Kohime
Denki fighting climax
J-star victory
and my all time favorite
Fuqing Phantom Breaker.

Oh man this just the console lets not forget pc.
Melty
Umineko
Akasuki
Yatagarasu
Vangaurd princess
heck lets throw the thousands of emulated fighter for good measures[/details]
Man i haven’t even touch the Handhelds or Nintendo stuff yet. or you know the older generation stuff.

Im not trying to be antagonistic but don’t start saying these game don’t exist when their been here for the longest but one reason for another people ignore it.