Is the game really scrubby? I don't think so

MrMazz · February 21, 2011, 3:42am

This game isn’t scubby. The buttons are easy to use and the combos on a basic leve make sense and dont take a lot of technical execution but there is a deep layer of understanding here that we haven’t begun to crack

Kef · February 21, 2011, 3:53am

People were saying this about SF4 when it came out, and sometimes I hear this types of conversations about the game. In SSF4, the complaint was, that a random ultra that out of nowhere worked did 50% without any effort at all, and that could’ve been game for you even if you played a thousand times better. But in no way SSF4 is scrubby, scrubs are gonna get bodied fast. They jump, you anti-air, they get nervous, jump again, you anti-air, you knockdown, you safe jump, they ex something, you combo, you jump again and prepare to block, they random ultra, you win.

It’s the exact same in this game. They mash assist, punish both of the characters like you learned in MVC2 (and now it even hurts more), they random super, punish. No fg game is scrubby IMO.

KarateLincoln · February 21, 2011, 4:41am

The easier a game is to play, the harder it is to beat everyone.
Easier games are more challenging.
Mind blow.

ihateM.O.D.O.K · February 21, 2011, 4:55am

Without trying to sound trollish, the term is pretty vague since people use it basically as a generic derogatory term half the time, but MvC2 IM “feels” pretty random in the context of the phrase most people use. The same could be argued for double snaps. Which is why you’ll see things like… one player almost perfect the opponent, then the next match the other guy almost perfects the first one, even in top level play ( more often in top level play actually, since low level marvel is hella lame )

Sevans · February 21, 2011, 4:55am

One of my biggest problems with this game is how relatively unpunishable several supers are. Many of them are super low risk and very high reward.

That’s why I love Zero’s level 3. It’s like the Hyper Viper Beam of Marvel 3. Did you do some stupid shit? Here, take some damage.

Sylari · February 21, 2011, 5:02am

I can agree with this, some stuff feels way too safe thrown out randomly

Bman · February 21, 2011, 5:13am

Angrynord:

Sure.

sigh

They’re not like Go either. They’re not like any abstract strategy game.

The only real thing fighters have in common with Chess and Go is the concept of controlling space (and the execution of that is different). After that, the analogy falls apart. Notice that Chess and Go are turn based games, which makes them different from fighters at a fundamental level. In a fighting game, if I decide to pressure you, I do not have to wait for your response. I can simply continue to create pressure until you do something about it. If you cannot think of anything to do on the fly, you’re going to be in quite a bit of trouble. In Chess, if I start putting pressure on my opponent, they have the chance to respond every time I make a move. They have a fair allotment of time on every turn (and during my turn as well) to find a way out of their present situation.

Furthermore, they must respond: they do not have the option of doing nothing. Their position must be altered. In a fighting game I can sit in one spot until my opponent forces me to move. If it does not suit him/her to move me, then there I shall remain.

You can’t block attacks in Chess. All you can do is make it in your opponent’s best interest not to attack you. Also, in fighters there are 3 (usually) attacking options: high, low, throw. In chess there is only one way to capture, but a huge variety of ways to attack.

The goal of the games are completely different. In chess I have to checkmate your king by controlling enough space so as to prevent him from moving (i.e. he cannot make a move that will take him out of danger). In Go one also wins by controlling space. In fighters, controlling space is of great benefit, but the goal is to deplete your life bar with attacks. You might have controlled more space than me the entire fight and I can still kill you.

That brings up slippery slope. In chess, when I take a piece from you it diminishes your options. It makes it more difficult to win. I can take out a pawn and suddenly have weakened your entire defense. That would be like me hitting Ryu with a fireball and suddenly he cannot use lp shoryuken anymore for the rest of the game. Only certain attacks have such characteristics (e.g. Dormammu’s 0D3C liberation). See, in fighters, when I damage you with an attack, it does not diminish your ability to win because it removes no tools from you. I can deplete 99% of your life bar and you can still turn the game around and defeat me. Now, the Marvel series does have a slippery slope, but it is one of the few examples in the fighting game world, and its slippery slope is no where close to the one that Chess has.

There is also the matter of dexterity. None is required to play Chess. Hell, chess doesn’t even require a board. The board is just convenient. In fighting games however, dexterity is a fundamental requirement of the game. In chess I can execute a sound tactic every time I get the chance with zero mistakes, simply because I just lift a piece and move it to a new location. In a fighting game I will likely have to press the buttons fairly quickly while wiggling the stick, all the while being extremely precise, sometimes to the point of having a timing window of a mere 1/60th of a second.

The most striking difference is this though: Fighters aren’t strategy games. Rushdown and zoning are strategies. Your mix-ups? Those are tactics. Your footsies? Those are tactics. There is very little strategy involved in fighters. It’s all tactics. In chess though, strategy reigns supreme. When I throw a low forward in Street Fighter, I do not have to think about how that move will affect the game a minute from now, because it has no effect. In chess, me moving a pawn can have ramifications 30 or 40 moves down the line that I need to consider when I make that move. That’s strategy. Now, tactics are very important as well in chess, but good strategy is how you win the game. Go is even MORE strategic than chess, so it is so far from fighters that you even mentioning it is silly.

I guess people in the community want to think fighters are just as complex and mentally challenging as chess, but sorry guys, they’re just not. Don’t get me wrong, fighters ARE thought provoking and complex and all that jazz, but they’re just not on the same level as chess. Appreciate that they do reward thinking, but appreciate that they reward a different kind of thinking. Fighters reward real time tactical insight. Chess rewards deep strategic planning as well as tactical thinking. They’re vastly different, and the community really needs to stop trying to reach for something that isn’t there. Appreciate and celebrate your game for what it is.

TLDR version: Chess is turn-based and strategic with tactical elements, whereas fighters are real-time and more or less completely tactical. Chess requires no dexterity.

Yeah, I’ve always been sick of that comparison as well.

Rhio2k · February 21, 2011, 5:19am

I found something scrubby: players who pick sent and ironman and spam unibeam assist with sent’s beam attack. Fuckin’ annoying and effective.

Jaiyiorck_ix · February 21, 2011, 5:36am

Not to be a MvC3 apologist, what game doesn’t have something that would make scrubs bitch and moan? Theres cheap shit in just about every game I can think of. Is X Factor op? Probably, but (and this is my opinion) if you take the game seriously you’ll find a way to counter it or something to nullify it’s effectiveness. It’s still what? Week 1? Don’t be a bitchy scrub. Just play the game. Discover some new technology people, look at JWong, dude saw how strong Sent is. What did he do? He found himself a strat to beat that character. He won that WNF tourney without using Sent, he used characters people wrote off(prematurely, ironic eh?). He played the game and beat some ass. Yeah it’s JWong but c’mon, he didn’t take the easy path. He didn’t bitch until Capcom conceded to his complaints. He put in the work and blew them bitches up.

So if X Factor is kicking your ass are you just gonna bitch or are you gonna strategize to beat it? I know it’s really really powerful but it’s not like you don’t have access to it too. Sorry for the rant but the community’s constant bitching gets irritating. It’s a game, what do you do in games to win? Strategize. How? Think! Whoa no way! Just nerf it! Yeah that’s the way! >__________>

Mizkreant · February 21, 2011, 5:48am

Should execution skill factor into the difficulty of a fighting game? I don’t buy the arguments for it. Let’s say game X has easy execution of moves and combos. As long as everything is reasonably balanced and not overpowered, I don’t see a problem. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that innovation of strategies would happen faster? As new tactics were discovered, everyone would have a chance of executing them, everyone would have to deal with those tactics, making it more likely that someone would figure out a counter to them. In most fighting games, high level strategy is reserved for an elite cadre of players who can execute them. Someone with average execution skill may know how to counter a certain tactic, but simply can’t do it because of the execution barrier. Is the elite player really better in that instance?

SynikaL · February 21, 2011, 6:12am

Angrynord:

Sure.

sigh

They’re not like Go either. They’re not like any abstract strategy game.

The only real thing fighters have in common with Chess and Go is the concept of controlling space (and the execution of that is different). After that, the analogy falls apart. Notice that Chess and Go are turn based games, which makes them different from fighters at a fundamental level. In a fighting game, if I decide to pressure you, I do not have to wait for your response. I can simply continue to create pressure until you do something about it. If you cannot think of anything to do on the fly, you’re going to be in quite a bit of trouble. In Chess, if I start putting pressure on my opponent, they have the chance to respond every time I make a move. They have a fair allotment of time on every turn (and during my turn as well) to find a way out of their present situation.

Furthermore, they must respond: they do not have the option of doing nothing. Their position must be altered. In a fighting game I can sit in one spot until my opponent forces me to move. If it does not suit him/her to move me, then there I shall remain.

You can’t block attacks in Chess. All you can do is make it in your opponent’s best interest not to attack you. Also, in fighters there are 3 (usually) attacking options: high, low, throw. In chess there is only one way to capture, but a huge variety of ways to attack.

The goal of the games are completely different. In chess I have to checkmate your king by controlling enough space so as to prevent him from moving (i.e. he cannot make a move that will take him out of danger). In Go one also wins by controlling space. In fighters, controlling space is of great benefit, but the goal is to deplete your life bar with attacks. You might have controlled more space than me the entire fight and I can still kill you.

That brings up slippery slope. In chess, when I take a piece from you it diminishes your options. It makes it more difficult to win. I can take out a pawn and suddenly have weakened your entire defense. That would be like me hitting Ryu with a fireball and suddenly he cannot use lp shoryuken anymore for the rest of the game. Only certain attacks have such characteristics (e.g. Dormammu’s 0D3C liberation). See, in fighters, when I damage you with an attack, it does not diminish your ability to win because it removes no tools from you. I can deplete 99% of your life bar and you can still turn the game around and defeat me. Now, the Marvel series does have a slippery slope, but it is one of the few examples in the fighting game world, and its slippery slope is no where close to the one that Chess has.

There is also the matter of dexterity. None is required to play Chess. Hell, chess doesn’t even require a board. The board is just convenient. In fighting games however, dexterity is a fundamental requirement of the game. In chess I can execute a sound tactic every time I get the chance with zero mistakes, simply because I just lift a piece and move it to a new location. In a fighting game I will likely have to press the buttons fairly quickly while wiggling the stick, all the while being extremely precise, sometimes to the point of having a timing window of a mere 1/60th of a second.

The most striking difference is this though: Fighters aren’t strategy games. Rushdown and zoning are strategies. Your mix-ups? Those are tactics. Your footsies? Those are tactics. There is very little strategy involved in fighters. It’s all tactics. In chess though, strategy reigns supreme. When I throw a low forward in Street Fighter, I do not have to think about how that move will affect the game a minute from now, because it has no effect. In chess, me moving a pawn can have ramifications 30 or 40 moves down the line that I need to consider when I make that move. That’s strategy. Now, tactics are very important as well in chess, but good strategy is how you win the game. Go is even MORE strategic than chess, so it is so far from fighters that you even mentioning it is silly.

I guess people in the community want to think fighters are just as complex and mentally challenging as chess, but sorry guys, they’re just not. Don’t get me wrong, fighters ARE thought provoking and complex and all that jazz, but they’re just not on the same level as chess. Appreciate that they do reward thinking, but appreciate that they reward a different kind of thinking. Fighters reward real time tactical insight. Chess rewards deep strategic planning as well as tactical thinking. They’re vastly different, and the community really needs to stop trying to reach for something that isn’t there. Appreciate and celebrate your game for what it is.

TLDR version: Chess is turn-based and strategic with tactical elements, whereas fighters are real-time and more or less completely tactical. Chess requires no dexterity.

This post is excellent. Thank you for this.

I’ve actually ordered a chess set through Amazon a few days back because I wanted to become more knowledgable about the game - largely so I could articulately smash this superficial comparison the FG community seems to want to cling to so ardently. I always saw the comparison as gossamer cries for approval disguised as fighting game philosophy. You just saved me a lot of time and effort. I’ve nominated this post for the front page, because that’s where this belongs.

The only seed of objection I can fathom is your relative dismissal of fighting game strategy - but you may be able to easily supplant this.

Why can’t I view fighting games as a highly variable and dynamic strategy game? Surely overriding strategies govern those successful in fighting game matchups at high levels - tactics are merely the elements of a strategy put into action and cannot exist in a vacuum. A strategy is what you fathom and a tactic is what you do - the strategy put into action. SSF4 Viper’s Burn Kick mixups are indeed a powerful tactic for her, but her eagerness to implement this tactic without the reigns of sound strategy will get her killed.

Also, I don’t think fighting games are nearly as competitive as the players seem think they are relative to other competitive outlets (such as chess). The player base is relatively small and young (in terms of historical continuity). Thus, it is very possible that a player can emphasize (and I must emphasize the word “emphasize”) tactics over strategy and succeed - but I do not believe this is of any fault due to the nature of fighting games. I just don’t believe the level of competition is there, yet.

NissanZaxima · February 21, 2011, 6:51am

People are so worried about what other people think of the game they play these days it is retarded. I think this game is definately a lot scrubbier than a lot of fighting games out there but who cares? This game is fun and that is what should count. The whole “my game is better/more skillful than yours” mentality in the community these days is hysterical. Play the games you enjoy and have fun with and don’t worry about these elitist attitudes that poison the fighting game community as a whole. At the end of the day, most fighting games have the same concept. You select character(s), you are given certain tools/mechanics the game has provided for you, and you try to get your opponents life bar down to zero with your character’s tools and the tools that the game offers you.

So in short, yes this game is scrubbier than a lot but that shouldn’t matter. Ignore people who shit on the game you play because in all likelihood they are a *** to begin with.

specs · February 21, 2011, 7:06am

The problem with this train of thought is that it’s invalid. Unless you’re amongst this game’s best players, you aren’t going to have a fair shot of beating just anybody with a couple hours practice.

Less prevalent execution barriers aren’t “scrubby.” Save that word for when it’s deserved: people who watch a top player’s video on YouTube, attempt to emulate the technique without understanding the basics behind it, then lose and bitch and moan about it. “Scrubby” is NOT getting the execution down on an easy execution game.

NissanZaxima · February 21, 2011, 7:11am

“Scrub” is a state of mind and not a certain level of skill.

Hecatom · February 21, 2011, 7:21am

true, you can have players that are descent at execution and skill level play, but they cant overpass their scrubby metallity when they get zoned or they keep losing to keep away tactics

Bomberman3000 · February 21, 2011, 7:25am

tell that to the majority of the dumbasses that keep popping up in the Gamefaqs MvC3 boards…

NissanZaxima · February 21, 2011, 7:32am

I use to post there but I have given up on that place. For the few decent posters there are 100 bad ones. It is pointless to explain anything to anyone over there. They live in a land of everyone should play fair and use these characters or play like this blah blah blah.

Bomberman3000 · February 21, 2011, 7:42am

Shit…tell me about it.

On the first page of the PS3 MvC3 board, I would say at one point about 2/3rds of the topics there were either whining about Sentinel, whining about “spam” or both.

NissanZaxima · February 21, 2011, 7:54am

Pretty much. Instead of trying to figure out a way to beat/counter something they all unite in one place (GFaqs) and whine to each other and tell one another “Yea man don’t worry those players aren’t good they just use cheap tactics” to cope for them being bad and not trying to really learn the game and get better.

Whenever I try and post and explain they need to stop being babies and learn to counter things I get modded for trolling. It really is a place where srub mentalities can unite and jerk each other off.

Waste_of_Flesh · February 21, 2011, 8:58am

On the topic of people whining, there was a guy at IGN who created a thread just to rant about how the community ruined the game and he sold it because of that. I tried to tell him that he needs to adjust his tactics against strong zoning teams…but he didn’t want to hear any of that. lol.