Why does chain combo being easy mean that a fighting game is shallow? Nobody here would dare call Tekken/Soul Calibur/VF5/etc shallow because they don’t have links. That would be stupid.
People talk about how Tekken has easy combos, but…nobody instantly wins in Tekken because you have good combos. The game isn’t about combos, it’s about pure fundamentals. Same shit with SC, you will get outplayed if you only look for combos. It’s purely catered to smarter players that want to outthink their oppotent than do some cool combos.
I swear people talk about how to do combos rather than playing the game.
Wrong example of “chains.” Chains are basically, allowing :lp: to cancel into :mp: or :mk: which can then be cancelled into :hp: or :hk: or some variation thereof.
I realize this is a gross oversimlification, but my gripe with chains is this: In say, Street Fighter II, a well-rounded character like Ryu will use all his normals, depending on positioning, how open his opponent is, and whether or not he’s trying to stuff his opponent’s probable action. If these things are right, this can lead to a combo. In games that rely heavily on chains (or combos in general, really), there tends to be a reliance on trying to land the same combo over and over. It simplifies the gameplay while adding extra steps.
Chain actually allow for more variety in the long run since there’s more freedom to experiment and discover newer, better combos. With links, there’s less room for discovery and, in competitive play, you tend to get limited since people tend to use the safer combos (aka the ones with easier links).
LMAO
how clear is that you have not played seriously the games with chains
normals are equally important on games with chains that in games like sf (the ones that are well done of course)
i would dare to say that probably more important, since the risk of eating heavy damage is bigger on this games, specially if the normals have diferent propierties if you land a counter hit
and what the fuck is this shit of doing the same combo over and over, do you knwo what is a BNB, is the same thing in games like sfii and 3s, every player would always try to capitalize their damage, and the best way of doing it its with your bnbs and their variants depending of what normal did you use to start them
and btw, combos are not the end of the spectrum of these game, if you only see combos, and more importantly think that they simplify the gameplay compared to older games, you are totally wrong
Chains can allow(depending on game/character design) great flexibility in pressure, frametraps, where you can extend pressure, etc, so I think they’re fantastic. I dont really care if a game is combo heavy or not, I can deal with either, I care more about pressure potential.
Chains can skew rewards sometimes, but that’s my only real concern with them. Otherwise, i dont feel like they necessarily have a negative impact on neutral or whatever. It depends on the game you want to make.
Keep chains that aren’t like mvc3 and their good.People who don’t like chains have been introduced to them by MvC3, which are fucking stupid due to everything being guaranteed without spacing…
I can’t even think of a game where combos only involve simple chains and have no difficult execution at all. Maybe MvC3, depending on the character, but even that is a stretch.
Even if there was a game like that, it’s not like easy execution inherently hurts a game by itself. If a new player can beat you just because the combos are easy, you probably weren’t that good in the first place.
what you’ve described in bold are fundamental layers that happen in ALL fighting games whether or not its link or chain based. It even transcends into the 3d fighters
see the thing about an opinion like this is that you have to play multiple fighting games @ high levels to get a good understanding of how situations play out. If you can’t do that, any opinion you form will simply be an uninformed opinion. I actually play both link\chain based fighting games, for yearsssss, so I can discern the differences n the systems very easily.
almost 30 seconds go by before anyone lands chain combo and the first chain combo landed was established off a mind game layer. The whole time prior to that its using normals to your advantage given the situation, zoning with normals\projectiles, reading opponents probable actions and trying to get an advantageous mind game off it and there is a shit load of spacing and defense going on.
when there are 2 people of the same skill in a chain game, it plays out like a “normal” match would. However when there is a skill gap between players, its very likely someone will get raped and people think that its the chain games fault when in fact its the players for not having enough tools to play properly.
In SF4, its very hard to blow someone up because of the all the engine mechanics that limit the players so matches are often more diluted than they should be. look @ VS, it does everything SF does then adds so many more mechanics over it. If SF didn’t suck ass, it would be vampire savior.
Wow, someone has never played iron man before.
Edit:
I might have just misunderstood your post.Oh wells.
This an old as thread. And I love how this post talks about people not liking chains due to MvC3 when MvC3 wasn’t even out when this thread questioning chains was made.
After playing SFIV series online and eating countless mashed reversal DPs/SPDs/supers/Ultras because of dropping 1- and 2-frame links (that are REQUIRED for any kind of damage), I’m all for chains.