Implying that a lot of people on SRK are liars is probably indicative of why people react negatively to you
Just sayin
Oh I know, but its kind of a tough spot.
If somebody says aesthetics don’t matter to them, they’re lying. Maybe they’re fooling themselves, or maybe they’re trying to impress other people by saying the ‘right’ thing (this forum is kind of harsh on folks that don’t go along)… it kind of doesn’t matter.
The problem is that it’s one of those things that destroys the whole discussion. If people can’t be straight up about what they like, the whole conversation is dead in the water. Especially when its being brought up as an example of ‘how it is’.
So, I’m left with the choice of insulting a bunch of folks and hoping that people get the idea, or just letting the lie stand and make the discussion even more worthless.
How can fighting games change for the better? I think for what they are they are fine. You want massive infusions of talent however, you won’t be getting that with the spread of people you have now. You need more people playing at a serious level (Not quite hardcore but not casual either) then you have more people playing at various levels and leveling up. The fact that the games are complex and have you going against people with significant skill gap some people will get turned off because of the grind. People will only grind if they find it entertaining.
there is a difference between “aesthetics dont matter to me” and “aesthetics are nice but dont matter as much as other things to me.” a lot of people play characters they dont like visually because they wanted a certain sort of rushdown character or something.
additionally, production value/content=/= aesthetics. people think of that shit as story mode and piles and piles of bloom, not “does this appeal to me visually”
The thing is, I’ve had a large number of people, including prominent community names, say directly and specifically “I only see hitboxes”. That’s… well its possible there are a few people out there, but that’s pretty doubtful, lets say.
About the other thing yeah, they’re not exactly the same (and I mentioned it above :p), but they go to the same ends. They’re things that get people to try the game, and they’re things that get people to stay with it a little while longer.
Like Skullgirls, and all the attention given to the ‘hand drawn sprites!!!’, that got just as many people to try it as ‘made by a top FG player’, probably more people.
And you need people to play your game, that’s the most important thing of all. The aesthetic and features get people to try the game, and the aesthetic and gameplay get people to continue after the first week, and the gameplay becomes more and more important ongoing. But it starts with something, either community buzz or aesthetic, that gets you to buy the game and put it into your machine.
you know there are better ways to attract players to a new game rather than shiny graphics. Like I don’t know actually making a fun and competitive game maybe? sfxt is 3d with sf and tekken characters in it. The game is designed to pull in 1st timers but the game is so fucking awful that most people end up dropping it. I didn’t play tobal 2 until the x360\ps3 was released and I played that game longer by myself than I did with sfxt online because of the system mechanics.
look @ DOA and the piece of shit it is with its shiny graphics and nice titty bouncing action. No one touches that shit that really knows fighters. Therefore only scrubs touch it and it will lose its appeal sooner or later. The game being ass is what kills it even though the graphics are usually pretty good
graphics don’t matter, they really don’t for fighters @ least. I would play a stick figure fighting game as long as the game was designed properly and could allow a competitive atmosphere while being a good game. If graphics mattered that much DOA should be outselling capcom by the millions
some puzzle games are absolutely timeless. magic drop 3, tetris attack, puzzle fighter are all very GOOD games with bare minimums in the graphic department but I probably played puzzle fighter longer than I have for sf4, sfxt and any DOA game. The game being good, fun and competitive is what matters most for these types of game where game play is 99% of the game.
The thing is, why not have both? There’s this impression that it’s either/or, and that’s simply not the case.
There’s a lot that goes into what makes people try a particular game
[LIST]
[]Freshness
[]Community hype/promotion
[]Aesthetics
[]Content
[]Name Recognition
[]A demo/promo event that lets you actually try the game, but these are kind of rare
[/LIST]
A really strong/fun engine *keeps people playing,*but that’s a different beast.
The important point is that you need both. If just an engine that people liked was enough, the community would still be focused on the older games. The fact that the tournaments (and population) run MvC3 over MvC2, or SF4 over ST, or T6 over TTT, or MK9 over UMK3, really makes the point stronger than I ever could. Yeah there’s a stubborn minority that prefers to stick to the old games (hell I’m amongst them), but that’s simply not where the community is as a whole.
I think people really underestimate the importance of fresh blood. It’s the difference between a thriving community and a dying one.
wow apparently, you don’t know jack shit about the fighting game community.
the graphics aren’t making people jump ship. Its the money involved in the scene. If you played mvc2 right now you might MAKE 100$ in a tourney MIGHT. Now, a umvc3 tournament is guaranteed to pay you thousands if you get in the right areas. By learning the new game, you stand to make 10x-20x more money. You might even make more money in a umvc3 tournament by pacing 3rd than you would by winning an mvc2 tourney right now.
thats why games die and its also why new games always replace the old ones
a video game project only gets so much dev time before it has to be released. That means they divide up the time according to what they deem as important and so forth. If you make graphics a less of a priority it means you can give more time to the game itself making it good and you can also use that extra time making sure the net code is god like. A game that looks ugly as shit but plays amazing will stand up to the genre test. If you spend all this extra time on the graphics but have a shitty engine, you get games like DOA that are absolutely terrible fighters. Since companies are all under deadlines, the graphics shouldn’t be a massive priority. Gameplay, net code, graphics in that order and then if you have time, do some other things.
graphics matter for some games like RPG’s and FPS but fighters are about fighting. KOF 98 graphics are good enough to make the perfect fighting game. It doesn’t need to be cutting edge technology when fucking donkey kong still gets play till this day with its massively unimpressive graphics
when I first saw sf4, I thought to myself it was a waste of fucking time to make the game look that way. Not only did the game suck and looked ugly, but the net code was so bad I stopped playing SF all together totally. If they made the graphics less intensive, they would of had more time to tweak the engine and the net code. That’s why graphics don’t really matter, they get in the way of creating good games. Its good if you can do both. Tekken does a pretty good job of creating nice graphics with good game play but I think its too much work for capcom\snk who can’t even get net code right let alone balance. Even though I praised tekken guess what, that game is STILL ass online.
Visuals are extremely important when selling a new game, regardless of genre. This includes selling it as a dollar-investment and as a time-investment, so please don’t start with the “all you care about is the monies!!!” silliness. If there was a free game called “Fight the Hitbox!” where there was no theme or characterization, just moving hitboxes that communicated an incredibly deep and balanced game system, you wouldn’t even see the small community that a polished and slick-looking game like Vanguard Princess has.
People can still play games that look extremely primitive by today’s standards because they were not extremely primitive when they were released. Those games can hold on to users because the initial impression of the game has been overcome and the players appreciate the system and the meaningful choices it gives them. If a new game was released that looked similar to KOF 98, it would have a very difficult time with gathering enough interest to justify leaving a known quantity (the old game) for an unknown one. If a game does not have familiarity, attractive visuals, or distinct and compelling novelty, it won’t grab people like a game that is familiar, attractive, and novel.
Also, taking resources away from an art team and adding more network engineers and gameplay designers won’t necessarily improve net performance or make the gameplay more to your liking.
Who the fuck are you to tell people whether they care or don’t care about what a game looks like? If the game looked like total shit to me but the gameplay was good, then I wouldn’t give a fuck what the game looked like. Sure, I would like it more if the game didn’t look like total ass but I’m not going to stop playing said game or say it’s bad just because it doesn’t look like a Leonardo da Vinci painting.
Let’s get this straight:
You seem to always be speaking from a casual player’s POV, while I am always speaking from a competitive player’s POV. From a competitive standpoint, aesthetics and production values are generally placed pretty low a player’s list of reasons as to why x game is good or bad. By this, I mean that as long as the graphics don’t look like a pile of dog shit, then that should be enough for the competitive player. It doesn’t have to look like a work of art or anything. The majority of competitive players care about mechanics/gameplay a lot more than production values or aesthetics.
Let’s say the game looked like shit but they gameplay/mechanics were top notch. I believe that you can still objectively say that x game is good or bad, based soley on the gampeplay/mechanics. Sure, the graphics or amount of content isn’t that good but the game itself is good. To a competitive player, that’s really all that matters.
The only people who use production values or aesthetics as a major reason. to determine whether x game is good or bad are casual players. Speaking from a competitive player’s POV, those people are idiots. **All I’m saying is that production values and aesthetics should never and will never be the main nor a major reason for determining whether x game is good or bad. **Even on a casual level, you can still objectively say that x game is good or bad, based solely on the gameplay/mechanics.
You have every right to be on this site but please remember, you are on SRK, a site dedicated to both competitive and non-competitive hardcore players. You are an outsider here, as far as mentality goes. Keep that in mind.
Even something as subjective as “x game is better than y game”, you can still still objectively determine/say which game is better.
Generally speaking, a fighting game’s predecessor is usually worse than it’s successor. Not to mention that there is always that pinnacle game(s) in a series which is considered by the majority to be the best one(s).
[LIST]
[]ST > WW
[]A2/A3 > A1
[]Vampire Savior 1 > VS2
[]KOF '98 > 94-97
[]SamSho 2 > 1/3/4/5
[]3S > NG/2I
[]CvS2 > CvS1
[]MvC2 > the rest of the versus series
[/LIST]
etc.
The only time I’d like to believe where the subject of “x game is better than y game” becomes subjective is if both games are good. For example:
[LIST]
[]HF or ST
[]KOF '98 or 2002
[]Soul Calibur 1 or 2
[]or even just comparing two good games from different franchises (ie - Garou vs. 3S)
[/LIST]
etc.
Each pairing of games are both good, so it’s hard to objectively determine which game is good and which game is bad. This is where it becomes subjective.
Speak for yourself. I don’t have anyone to play ST with because everyone in my city is playing nothing but the new games. No one plays Classic Mode on HDR and I can’t get GGPO to work. So my only option is playing the CPU on the hardest difficulty. Given the fact that I am using the ST CPU as a last resort, I am rather enjoying myself, even though the CPU is cheap as fuck and I’m losing to CPU only bullshit. Given my current situation and options, I think the ST CPU is a suitable replacement for human competition. I am using the ST CPU to train for EVO and the ST Tournament of Legends. At least it knows what the fuck it’s doing compared to pretty much every other fighting game AI.
I play the games that I love because I like to play them, not because there is a plethora of people to play with. On the flipside, there are lots of people who hate the new games but they play them anyways because everyone else is playing them.
^
you say that becuase your standard is sf2, which looks decent. Play akatsuki bliztkampf, and your eyes my hurt from the sheer ugly you have to look at constantly. I tried, i did, but it’s impossible. Shouttouts to akatsuki bliztkampf players who could look at that shit and play effectively
Well even if I grant you that, you’re in a vanishingly small minority… and its in your best interest to cater at least somewhat to the people that do.
I really don’t want to be insulting or calling people out, but 9/10ths of the time people that say things like that just aren’t seeing things as they are. The human mind simply isn’t wired that way.
No you don’t understand my position at all. I’m a serious player that understands that drawing in new/casual players is key to making things better for everyone.
It doesn’t matter if appearances should matter, they do matter. You need to get that idea if nothing else. The serious players *need *the fresh blood, the new players, the casuals, whateverthefuck you want to call them. What makes you or I specifically buy something matters very very little in the big picture. The key is making as good a game as possible in every way.
Well we’ve talked some upthread about how the pinnacle is picked, I believe that there are a number of factors that are just as important, if not moreso than the objective quality of the game, but that discussion is a dry socket at this point, we’re just not gonna agree.
That being said, there are some points that I agree with. Series generally, if not always get better over various iterations. That only makes sense, because they can tune the systems and clean them up.
That being said, comparing 2 good games is a deathtrap as far as forum discussions go. Not only is it pointless (say the good ol ST/3S argument, or Anime Games vs Capcom games), but it actively balkanizes the community. When faced with opposition, especially dedicated opposition, its human nature to double down and become an extremist yourself. Most of these games are quite enjoyable, that’s the important point.
Then you’re the minority. Plenty of people taking part in major tournaments have said the same thing, hell Schoulz said it above. Most of the good players go where the competition is, either because they mainly wanna play other good players, or because that’s where the prize money is. That’s the reality of the scene. You and I are if anything stubborn holdouts, and that’s fine, there’s room for us, but that’s not the future of the community.
And I have no beef with that at all, people should absolutely play the games they enjoy. Still, as you say, plenty (I’d say a vast majority) of people play the new games because that’s where the bodies are. That’s the reality of the FGC.
In general there's always going to be the niche for people dedicated to the old games they love. These people are the heart of the community... they're often local organizers, they're active in the community of their perspective games, they're the constant presence in the community.
The thing is, there's also plenty of room for the other people as well, the people that started playing with SF4, or MK, or MvC3, or hell just the people who watch streams. They're the pot monsters that keep the prizes high, they're the bodies that make smaller city weeklies more than 3 guys meeting in some basement. They are just as important to the community as the people who have been playing ST since the mid-90s.
So, its important to understand what draws those people in, what gets them to try out that game that will then hopefully grabs them with its gameplay and turns them into serious players.
**Nobody is saying that you should sacrifice gameplay for that, but you have to understand why its an important part of keeping the community healthy.**
And again, its not zero sum. It’s utterly idiotic to think that superior art or sound automatically detracts from gameplay balance and netcode. Every developer that’s worth mentioning (even as small as Reverge) has different teams working on different aspects of the game simultaneously. For all the publishers we’re talking about (with the possible exception of Reverge) they have simultaneous teams working on all of the following:
[LIST]
[]Gameplay Design
[]Graphics engine
[]Art (sometimes seperate concept art/modeling/animation/stages/etc)
[]Sound
[]Menus/UI
[]Netplay/matchmaking
[*]Singleplayer/bonus content
[/LIST]
It’s not an issue of time at all, if anything its an issue of money investment.
This argument is as old as the scene it self it feels like sometimes. Easier versus harder execution for accessibility. The real answer is the company often will just do whatever is more profitable for the most part (except snk which goes under support a certain style of play). There is no winning it IMO, you cannot fuse the two ideas of “Casual” (hate this word as a descriptor of people who play fighters not as serious as others) / Accessibility and “Hardcore” (this one too) / Technicality. Trying to sell that idea turns into this war every time. LOL
Make an approachable games for newer players and make more technical games for more seasoned players. When the newer player is comfortable they can “graduate” to the technical game. The best marriage of that possible is probably a game that supported both through easier access of moves/strategies and techniques but that was not the standard for tournament play. A fighter with training wheels if you will, something that you could play and learn the ropes, then play in the “big time” when you were ready. It has been tried before with easy modes, etc, but I still think this could be done another way.
Possibly a seperate version that had different frame data, explanations on screen of various tactics, tutorials (or maybe an active tutorial? like as you are playing so you can jump right in and start playing / learning?). Remapping of commands like the OP suggested, extended buffer windows. When you figure out the general jist of the game, you can bridge the gap from learning in the “hard” mode training that would inform you of the changes (if you made it to this point you obviously care) and tips on transition. With a little training time, you could be ready to play the people that have been playing the more technical version of the game in a short while. Idunno sounds way too idealistic now that I have read over the idea 
Oh and you trippin lol
Come on, man.
Maybe, just maybe, aestehtics DON’T matter to some.
They matter to me, outside of fighting games.
But in one, I honestly couldn’t give enough shits for a toilet.
If aesthetics mattered to everyone, NO ONE would still play MVC2 (Seriously, that thing looks like ass, you can even see just how bad the pixels are done on some stages when there are huge black holes in the middle of the screen)
I ABSOULUTLEY HATE the way MBAACC looks, yet I still play it.
It’s not like I’m saying its the only factor, I’m saying it’s a factor. One of many.
And I guess I’m saying its more important to most people than they think.
It’s like a really hot chick (or dude). One of the things you see about exceptionally attractive people is that just about everyone treats them better, and most people don’t even realize they’re doing it… and most people don’t like to think of themselves as doing it, but we all do.
Games are the same way. It can be a subtle effect sometimes, but it’s always there.
And not to say that we treat people entirely based on their appearance, of course not… but it’s a subtle positive influence that in general makes us friendlier towards and predisposed to like someone we find attractive… or a game we find attractive. (edit: with the advantage that we don’t get jealous of a game the way we might to somebody that’s prettier than us :p)
Here’s the thing, Xes:
This thread is specifically about how to make fighting games better, not about how to make the scene bigger.
The solution is really simple:
a) If you want fighting games to be better, then stop making scrub-friendly games and go back to making games like the old ones. The best games are the ones that aren’t geared towards casuals.
or
b) Keep making scrub-friendly games and have the quality of fighting games deteriorate but the size of the community will increase.
So really, it’s a no-brainer if you want to make the games themselves better.
Whatchu’ talkin’ 'bout? Looks fine to me.
Huh? It’s true, VS1 (aka DS3) > VS2 (which was never released outside of Japan). I know I said predecessors were generally worse than successors but that isn’t always the case. So if you wanna get technical, then VS1 > DS1. I’m not really sure about VS1 > DS2 because some people say DS2 is good or even better than VS1. I don’t know much about DS2 so I can’t really say anything about it.
EDIT: I’m pretty sure it was Vampire Hunter (aka DS2) but I’m not sure if it was VH or VH2. I get the JPN/USA titles mixed up.
I’d counter by saying that the games themselves get better by getting played.
I was hesitant to go back to the example because it always pisses people off, but the perfect example of this is MvC2, which if you put it down on paper started off as an absolutely atrocious game. By people playing it, exploring it, being dedicated to it, they took a piece of shovelware and made it awesome.
In my heart of hearts I also think some games are better than others, but any game that is worth playing will be vastly improved by having more people play it. Depth will emerge if people have the motivation to find it.
And that’s the reason I spend so much time focusing on this divisive ‘why do we like these particular games?’ bullcrap. I honestly believe that turning a fighting game into a great fighting game is in the hands of us, the players. The problem is that the whole system works much better based on the strength of the community.
I think the truly great, old games are actually quite casual friendly in their base form. To use the straightforward example, the SF2 games are actually extremely simple and accessible in how they work and are designed to play. The only thing the modern games have that are more casual friendly are wider buffers and certain move shortcuts, which are minor compared to the tendency to layer on subsystems and special cases. Games in general have been getting less accessible rather than more over the last 20 years.Night warriors, Vamipire Hunter, Vampire Savior, Vampire Savior 2 / Vampire Hunter 2, of those vampire savior is really still played “competitively”. There are some off Vampire Hunter tournaments here and there though but, it seems to be generally accepted that Vampire Savior is the best game of the series. Vampire Savior 2 had some frame data changes, certain specifics removed resulting in a flatter experience in comparison (so, I am told, I only play VS on a “serious basis”). Vampire Hunter 2 had characters from VS removed and replaced with donvan, hutzil andddddddddd pyron I believe? Kinda spacing at the moment, I don’t recall anyone playing that either competitively because of the character removals and again flat playing experience.
Either way just playin’ man lol
There’s only one thing wrong with this.
MVC2 IS A BAD GAME.
Is it fun, sure, but it’s a broken pile of garbage that to this day baffles me how it was played competitively.
And SF4 is just as casual accessible as 2, with invincible backdashes, input leniency, ultras, stupid srks and more.
The only mechanic that goes past the tried and true of 2 is Focus Attack, and even then, are FAs really that hard to grasp?
About your first part, I hope you don’t mind getting cancer, because you’re gonna need to wear your asbestos hood after that.
About the last part, think of it this way. SF4 has (and SF2 doesn’t have) 2 super bars, dashing (which SF2 doesn’t have at all), intentionally designed link chains with sometimes wonky mechanics, ex moves, focus hit absorbing (and ex moves with armor), armor breaking moves, crumples, and focus cancelling.
The most accessible of accessible ‘newschool’ games is many times more complex and has many more engine elements than its original predecessor.