And my point is it takes a while and it’s not obvious. It’s not accessible. But it doesn’t matter.
Minecraft also isn’t a fighting game that requires split-second decision making. The game gives you lots of time to plan out strategies on how to survive the next night. You don’t get that kind of time during a match in a fighting game. sure Minecraft may not be the most accessible game, but it’s sure as hell more accessible than fighting games. The game is made to fit your playstyle, you can do whatever you want, while some of the more advanced fighting games like GG pretty much force you to play a certain way if you want to win.
Appearance of accessibility has a lot to do with it, which minecraft has in spades (even more so in the early pre-release version most people bought)… also all the basic things you do (build, dig, hit things) are immensely intuitive and simple.
And seriously, apples and oranges doesn’t begin. FIghting games and exploration games are entirely different beasts.
MMO leveling and mob spawning aren’t very appropriate for fighting games either 
It is accessible because game concepts are slowly revealed through play.
That’s why I don’t believe the answer is “better tutorials”. Analytics regularly show that most players ignore a tutorial if given the option. The answer is to reveal the system gradually through gameplay. A single-player mode that introduced challenges that guided the player through the rules (start off with only allowing normals, then forcing the player to attack low, then introduce one special at a time, play AIs that only safe jump into throw, etc.,) would reinforce concepts stronger than any tutorial could.
Gotta ask, since as far as FG games go that’s a pretty revolutionary idea, do ya think it’d be necessary to actually start at 'push button to attack/"
Ilthuain has proposed this idea at least once in this thread already, lol. I also propose the same idea in the article in my sig
lol it’s easy to forget, sorry >< So much get said, I can’t even remember what I said on the first page 
and now I realize the post count is reaching 800, lol
In my article, I go to the next level and propose an all out Adventure mode, creating an entirely new genre, the Fighting Adventure Hybrid. I posted a thread a few months ago about this and it had some good discussion before it died down
How can fighting games change for the better? By introducing solid games, longevity, keeping things fair between both casual and hardcore players (but still being able to tell the differences of experienced and casual players), easy to play yet tough to master game play, room for creativity, decent graphics, and cool concepts that fans may like at some point… What would be cool is fighting games each came with two discs. One for the game itself and the other for watching hour long movies that relate to the series. Tekken Hybrid sort of did this, but it was with a demo of TTT2 and a up to date version of the first TTT. The movie explains the story line and character backgrounds while the game has the player interact further into the story and make progress. Hell, movies can cause people to WANT to play the fighting games. Tekken 6 had a good idea with Scenario Campaign but it got botched a little due to the nature of the game. Along with movies, there should also be a similar concept - a beat em’ up sort of thing where multiple players can crush their way through levels. Hell, it could turn in to a Super Mario 3 scenario and have race through level and the players can periodically fight each other online, should they run into each other on an overworld map. SNK bosses will show up toward the end of every overworld map and there might be additional challenges in relation to the fighting game mechanics and the players skill…
Yes. First you tell the user how to attack, then you teach them why they attack, and finally when to attack. I could get into a very deep conversation here concerning interest funnels but I’ll keep it short: The more opportunities you have to lose a user before they feel that they are in control, the fewer users you’re going to engage.
The reason fighting games often have a difficult time getting new users compared to other genres is that there are so many complex mechanics that are considered “given”. Players here don’t realize how much phased instruction they’ve already encountered through the natural iteration in the genre. Most of my skill in modern games comes from playing vanilla SF2 at a 7-11 (and skipping class to do so), and new games assume that players know how to block lows, tick throw, control space, and create mixup situations because we have been doing the basics for 20 years. Sometimes games will include these basic concepts in tutorials (which aren’t binding), but they don’t introduce the concepts through play and natural exploration. They give you a brief instruction about the basics and then set you loose with a much bigger toolbox than the average user can possibly understand without a background in the genre.
As far as “revolutionary” is concerned, it’s just trying to bring minimum acceptable accessibility standards to the fighting game genre. Even though it isn’t a popular opinion with fans, my dream for fighting games is one that can turn a Facebook-gaming Zynga mom into someone who occasionally likes to throw down a round or two with her kids. I would be willing to sacrifice all of the sacred cows of the genre to achieve that (even if it was a game that I personally didn’t enjoy).
Can you give examples?
Not in SF4. Play like a dumbass and you can still win.
[media=youtube]OfyfUfP7_gU[/media].
What the fuck does that even mean?
You talk in such a cryptic way that it’s hard to understand your point(s) most of the time.
While not right out of the box, MvC2 is one game that I consider training mode to be essential if you want play at a high level.
Was it intentional?. Most likely not. Was it a bad thing? Nope.
==============================================================
Concerning Execution, I hold it in the highest regard. To me, it’s the single most important aspect of fighting games.
[LIST]
[]Execution is like the sun - everything revolves around it.
[]**Execution is doing what you want when you want. **
[/LIST]
Fighting games are 50% Strategy and 50% Execution. However, when a player has **BOTH **good Strategy and Execution, Execution becomes more important. If a player knows exactly when to do something, then actually doing it becomes the most important part.
In the end, Execution wins games.
XF cancels being put in to copy roman cancels (or possible baroque cancels from TvC)
FADC>Ultra in SF4
Please, try to play one of the really great players and see what happens.
Hint: You’ll lose. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
It means that the games are great because you can play them right away, but that they also continuously reward improving your skills. Your skills can progress almost infinitely. Yes, even in games like SF4.
OK that’s a pretty good one; the individual pieces in MvC2 are easy, but it does take a fair amount of work to put them together meaningfully.
I’m not arguing against that at all. My point is that in any game that’s a traditional fighting game at all, people will find high execution elements. You don’t have to shovel execution down peoples throats, they’ll make it happen themselves.
When a game’s being made, its a whole different situation. As a designer you can’t predict everything the players are going to come up with, sure, but for each system or move or whatever, they need to think 'what do I gain or lose by making this move this difficult or easy to do?" Moves being difficult to do isn’t a virtue in of itself… and they’re often treated that way in these kinds of discussions.
~~
In general, I"m not arguing against execution, I’m arguing against arbitrary barriers. Execution in of itself is more like the wind. It’s just… there.
Come on, Shin, IF actually knows what he’s doing, he’s just the world’s best troll.
Difficult moves allows less room for error. Difficult can mean the motion itself or the size of the input window. Compare ST and SF4 DPs. By having stricter ST input windows, you eliminate accidental inputs.
Having more lenient inputs and bigger inputs windows like SF4 allows more room for error & accidental inputs. In my eyes, SF4’s lenient inputs & bigger input windows are more of a hindrance.
List examples, please.
So all games are great?
That sounds like a “better tutorial” to me.
Pushing four buttons at the same time is an “arbitrary barrier”?
Two things I find confusing about this argument:
First, what constitutes an “arbitrary barrier”? How do we know, when designing a game, whether we have included one? Are 1f links okay? TK SJCs? 12f input windows? I’m going to have to jump on the please provide examples bandwagon here.
Second, why is “high execution” desirable only as an emergent quality? Let’s say we designed and released a successful game. Over the course of tournament play an arbitrary, “high-execution” strategy, which is good but does not break the game, develops. Eventually, we develop another game in the same genre. Are we not allowed to include that “high-execution” strategy from our old game because it would now be an intentional design decision?
I have no idea what game or games Xes or Illthuian are rallying against. I don’t even think it exists tbh.
I just want 2D MvC again 
Tutorials will never be “better tutorials” until they are given to you by Mr. Miyagi Z.
[media=youtube]MuqyyKm7gIY[/media]
Why do these threads always become about execution? Oh, hi Xes. IIthuain. Long time
I’ve had a change of heart, I think what FGs need to really is a way to engage the player. There is no particular way to strip out the elements and have that fix everything without instilling an actual desire to play in the person. The problem I find is that the advent of online play has left players in a vacuum. They’re by themselves playing against letters on a screen. Thats why there’s so much hate mail. That’s why there’s so much internet scrubbery/backlash. People are stuck thinking they know best when really they’re just groping in the dark. Tutorials are an…adaquate way of getting someone into FGs but they’re insufficient. They fail to teach ADAPTATION which is the core. Simply a fault of the medium, SGs and VF are varying levels of robu - ok SGs doesn’t even cover all its own systems but ok whatever! /railing on it. Its besides the point, the goal of getting FGs into the limelight should be community building.
So my ideas from before were:
A) Get rid of single ranked. Its just a competitive outlet that people can use before they’re competitive. It just breeds resentment for the most part. Maybe reinstate it once you have played so and so many player matches.
B) Add in a community of some kind. My best belief is that this should be done through “clans”[haven’t played online games since D2, does it show? D: ) Maybe have a ranked based on THAT instead forcing people to communially improve or suffer more direly than have to type out ‘u gay’ 50 times.
C) Implement some kinda mentor-tutor thing. That would be freakin’ sweet and would really draw upon the whole asian beard stroking that these games invoke anyway. Could throw points onto that too etc etc
D) and of course replays etc etc. More than one would be nice.
These games feed on themselves, but all we have is viewable content. The more feedback that a player can recieve the less alone they’ll feel in an environment that is by definition hostile - the more they’ll find a reason to care. My 2 cents.