I guess we have to start with the question "What makes a good game to you?"
To me, balance, how much fun I have playing it, and how it controls.
Fighting games are games, games are media, media is art.
So, it’s all subjective, really.
But Xes’s idea really rubs me the wrong way.
He seems to think (SEEMS, if I’m wrong, tell me Xes), that if he makes a game that everyone would want to play, or is for everyone, that the game would be good.
The problem with that, is, it’s impossible.
I don’t want my MB to play like SF, because it’s MB.
*looks at what Skullgirls improved at with a honest tutorial that family man Joe would understand after completing this and be able to complete story/arcade on at least on sleepwalker.
Well wouldn’t you love it if Vanguard Princess got the level of skill development that MvC2 got? It doesn’t matter if you or I like MvC2 or 3S, that’s not the point. Rather, it’s that those are the games that got nearly a decade of committed, serious, tournament play.
And seriously, reality check, popularity does win. As far as a games success, and especially its success in the FGC, so much has to do with so many factors that are entirely unrelated to how good a game is (even if we could get a consistent definition of good). With the events (from locals up to Evo) and streams and even what the real top players are playing, what are the games you see? The ones that the community likes to shit all over but that are also new and popular.
and that’s not really surprising. The essence of fighting games is competition. Playing other people.
If you have the worlds ‘best’ game, and nobody plays it, you have nothing.
Conveniently forgetting that the melty blood series was a steaming pile of shit for 90% of it’s life time. I think I’m going to join Ilthuain, and just ignore everything you post from now on.
-People have different taste
-Everyone will have different definition of a good fighting game or what fighting game is good
-Everyone will have a different idea of how to make a fighting game better
-Everyone will have a different idea of what makes a fighting game better
I don’t think the game should be made easier, I think it needs to be explained or taught better
I don’t think having more players is a better game, I think having more good players is a better game
You have games like BB, SCV, MK9* with good stories and all these fun things in but they have small, although strong, competitive scenes. That’s why it’s really irrelevant to me (maybe us) when these games get lame awards or boast about sales. To make a fighting game better, I think it’s more important to convert them into competitors than it is to bait them into buying the game which is why I always mention tutorials, real accessibility.
*those 3 games don’t even have mass appeal lol, Tekken is an outlier to me
The important part is PvP, face to face playing. We need to make more of these players.
Funny that you two mentioned pinball in this respect, what I didn’t know before spending so much time at University Pinball is that you can actually get a pinball back up to the flippers without tilting the machine. It takes some skill and practice but its something that high level players seem to know that regular people playing on the machines don’t. People who are better at pinball not only get more points per ball, they actually get “more balls” using this method. The accessibility of the relaunch feature serves as a save to less skill players but for more skilled players it serves as an extra save, and they are still gaining more out of it that the regular player.
Its the same way that X factor is supposed to be a comeback factor for less skilled players, however high level players have adjusted they’re game to deal/work with X factor while lower skilled players have not. As long as everyone has access to the same tool its always going to benefit the more skill player more.
Wanted to focus in on these parts, by point.
I don’t think games being more accessible (intentional change of phrasing) should be considered an inherently bad thing that ruins their competitive appeal.
I think that good players start as beginning players… and 10x more people trying the game is 10x the chance to get that new good, serious player.
Totally agree, but again, the best way to make them is to get more people to try the game, and then make the game so engaging that they keep playing it.
there’s a lot of back-and-forth going on. Some people propose ways to expand the genre by making it more accessible to newer players, but then others say getting more people into the genre doesn’t automatically make a good game, then we discuss what even makes a good game, and now we’re back to “we need more people playing these games”
I imagine my definition of “a good game” would be out of sync with most of the people who post here. I do not feel comfortable with stating that Game A is better than Game B. I prefer to look at a game’s success, and that requires context. If Game A makes young people happy and making young people happy was the intent, than Game A is successful. If Game B’s intent was to be the most accurate simulation of rail shipping in the Northeastern United States, and it is indeed the most accurate simulation, than Game B was successful, even if it does not appeal to young people like Game A does.
I try to keep my personal preferences out design discussions, unless that is the topic being discussed.
It’s totally subjective, which is why it’s helpful to narrow your focus and stop speaking in absolutes. There are people here who appear to be suggesting that games that contain beginner-friendly mechanics are “not good” for higher level play, when it appears to be that some higher level players do enjoy the game and these games have a healthy competitive scene. It’s okay to not enjoy a game, but that doesn’t make the game a “bad” game, it makes it a game that you personally don’t enjoy.
For example, I do not enjoy SF4, but it is a very successful game that many people at various levels of skill and devotion do appear to enjoy. It would not be accurate for me to describe it as a “bad game” simply because I prefer playing other games.
I don’t believe the argument was “everyone would want to play” (if it was, that’s incredibly unrealistic), but there is nothing wrong with trying to widen the user base and appealing to a diverse audience.
Ultra, too actually. And now that I think of it, offensive bursting is really the same thing as well. It’s an inherent problem with these huge custom-designed comeback mechanics.
To me it seems like the central question of this entire thread has been;
Can you make an accessible game with casual appeal that also has deep, complex high level play?
The default community position seems to be ‘no, you can’t, and it doesn’t matter anwyays’… so the conversation falls into the same two parts.
[LIST=1]
[]Is a game being accessible and having mass appeal imporant?
[]Does having a game be accessible or adding extra content detract from developing good core gameplay?
[/LIST]
I believe it is, especially in a game where other players provide the most important content. A game that relies on its competitive elements is far more reliant on fostering a strong a wide following than a game that is primarily single-player. No matter how enthusiastic I am about a multiplayer game, it’s only playable when I have people to play it with.
No. “Good core gameplay” is amazingly subjective and is essentially reliant on design philosophy, iteration, and execution. A game could have heavily iterated and flawlessly executed gameplay but not jive with a player’s desired outcomes due to design philosophy, and there are not good/bad design philosophies, just different goals.
Heh that is kind of what I’m saying, I’m gonna sit down and take the effort and see if I can express my thoughts differently without tripping myself up.
Having a game that gets more play and a more dedicated community doesn’t automatically make it good, but just about automatically improves it. I’m not a fan of MvC2, but it’s a better game than it would have been if MvC3 had been released 2 years later.
A wider playerbase has 2 positive effects.
[LIST=1]
[]the gameplay gets developed and improved, it drives a higher top skill level
[]there are more people to play against.
[/LIST]
That second point is especially important. A game’s success feeds itself. I compare it to when I stopped going to arcades. I was still dedicated to the games, but whenever I went to the local arcade, the place was empty and there was nobody to play against. I used to be a way more serious ‘hardcore’ player than I am now, but the *lack of players *made me quit, and I’ve never managed to get back into it the way I was back then.
So yeah, it’s not a case of everyone liking every game, that’s not gonna happen, people have preferences and taste. But, a game being more popular is certainly a good thing… and I think its entirely achievable without sacrificing the higher levels of play.
I’m not a gambling man, trying to figure out what new players want and hope they change to good players sounds way too risky and it might alienate loyal fans or hurt the brand while not appealing to new players.
I figure the safest assumption is everyone knows what type of fighter they enjoy, so the market is already segmented. The goal for me is to make more of those players that like the game better, confident and want to test themselves vs real people. This process can be fun and have some tangible in game reward/achievement but the result should they’re better, confident and want to play other people.
I was going to mention ultras also but I got lazy and I think X factor proved the point
Here is where past game knowledge comes into play, If I start playing a new game that has a burst (defensive or offensive) in it my Guilty gear is going to kick in and I’m going to want to know what benefits burst has in this game. what are the benefits of baiting burst, when to bait burst, how not to get baited, and how to weigh the pros and cons of whether I should burst as it pertains to my meter and the amount of time/rounds left.
All of this is in my head on day one due to a completely different game, and there’s nothing that any current “New game X” is doing about that in terms of leveling the playing field. Every non original function in a fighting game, including comeback factors, benefits experienced player more because they already have strategies uses and countermeasures for them from previous games that new players don’t, because of this you can’t build a level playing field into the game. The only real way to level out the playing field is to level out the knowledge and experience, and since there is no real substitute for experience the best a developer can hope to do is to level out the knowledge as best they can.
I don’t care if you hate 3S or MvC2, and I couldn’t give a shit if you like a series that reached HnK levels of retardedness in it’s early stages.
It’s your fucking attitude that offends me, so have fun playing Vanguard Princess all by yourself and with shin akuma (I couldn’t get the damn thing to work on my laptop, anyway). Damn hipster…