Parrying: Good or Bad?

Current Fighting Games Fighting Game Discussion
92

Lol my buddy Tj made that video. We have a small but dedicated 3s community here in Pittsburgh. But yeah he’s a very good parrier, and we’ve had our share of exciting parry comeback moments at our buddies appartment.

In all honesty you don’t have to parry to win in high level 3s. Most high level matches hardly boil down to "parry and then 50% combo :rolleyes: ". I’ve seen very few high level matches that were decided by parries.

Parrying is easy enough on wakeup when you can guess between high and low. But what if he decides to throw? Or do nothing at all? In the heat of a fight, you’ll be hard pressed to parry someone down unless you BAIT them into it, which can be done several ways but is still risky even then.

You cannot win matches just by parrying.** If you think you can expect to lose, alot.

Whoever is saying that all the best char. in 3s are command grab characters must be high. Chun/Duds/Urien/Ken don’t have command grabs. The only char. in the high tier are Yun and Makoto.

**unless you are Aruka, the japanese Ibuki god who parries everything

93

NO SYSTEM DIRECTION WAS USED IN THAT VIDEO, I ain’t a pussy lol! :mad:

94

Hey not dissing you, your parrying was awsome. I’ve never seen parrying like that, but the system direction has a random parrying option so it “could” have been used. But now I know it wasnt just makes it all that better. Actually I found that 8-7-1 more entertaining than daigo’s. It’s just the crowd and circumstances that made it hype. :karate: :tup:

95

oh shit viscant said so so it must be right.

96

I don’t wanna sound like an ass, because I have a lot of respect for your Marvel game, but what do u think is an acceptable mind game? WTF!!!

What??? This is the same in most games, 3d, 2d, heck with parrying or without parrying. You can still do the same things done in ST to some extent, but not exactly the same.

Wtf??? there is still character variety in 3s. Yun is based on rushing down. Chun-li is defensive poking. Hugo is grappling. Ken is rushing down with overheads and pokes.

Mind games differ from game to game and Parrying is the mind game of 3s.

97

Once again, this is exactly what I’m talking about. This is something I’ve been saying for years, but I don’t think people even know the definition of mind games anymore. “I thought you were going to do this but you did that” is a mind game in the same way that Green Eggs and Ham is a book. In other SFs/other 2-D fighting games a distance character will make sacrifices of damage (either for or against) in order to achieve the desired position. In almost all versions of SF2, playing Dhalsim involved a fair amount of getting hit on purpose just to get some kind of other objective. This is not in any game with parries. Why would it be? There’s not even a Dhalsim like character in the game because distance fighting is mostly irrelevant.

Also even in the mid-range game, there are FAR fewer multi-level setups. For example, ST Vega. A lot of the time I’m poking, I’m not trying to get any damage. If you happen to run into something, that’s fine. I’m just trying to move you out of that space. In 3s, this doesn’t exist. Why would you back up? You can’t damage me from back there. What would I gain by you jumping? You still have access to your strongest defensive option in the air and for some characters, you have multiple offensive options in the air also. I gain nothing from moving you. This is why there is no Vega-type character in SF3. He’d be less than useless. These are the types of things that this kind of game eliminates.

Also, even the most basic element of position is useless in this game except for combos. Because fireballs are mostly useless, you can’t really use the stage as a weapon in this kind of game. For example in ST, on Ken’s stage if I have a dominating FB, half the fight for me is trying to put you in the corner and then trying to stand on the dock pillar. By ceding that position to me, you probably lost the round right there. There’s nothing even REMOTELY close to that in any game with a parry. This dumbs the game down tremendously. You no longer have to worry about stopping my drive for position and avoiding this kind of strategy. You no longer have to think about whether or not I’m sacrificing damage for position or going out of my way for some kind of throw/move that will put you in the corner. This strategy is dead.

And on the topic of character variety, you completely missed the point. For the sake of argument, let’s say I agree with you. (You’re wrong by the way since 3 of the 4 characters you listed play as semi-grapplers, but again, let’s say for the sake of argument that I agree) These character archetypes are in other 2-D games, but all those other types of characters that can’t be put into a game with a parry are in too. Even pretending I agree with you, that’s less than 1/2 the character variety that shows up even in half-assed 2-D games like CFJ and CvS1. For better games like ST, CvS2, a couple versions of KoF, that’s probably less than 1/3.

As I’ve been saying before, this is why 2-D fighting is mostly dead. Why would you even bother putting out another 2-D fighting game when even the enthusiasts of the game don’t really understand what makes 2-D fighting work.

–Jay Snyder
Viscant@aol.com

98

I guess Remy can be projectile pressure, and Makoto as normal kind.

99

If you’re being sarcastic then I’m amused. If you’re not, then there are even more SF terms that you need to brush up on.

–Jay Snyder
Viscant@aol.com

100

i really disagree with u on fighting for position. with low tier characters like twelve and remy being where u r makes up the majority of there strategy because most of there damage comes from being in range to do stuff to the opponent while safely being far enough away to anticipate them coming through whatever u put up for them in the first place. up side to this is they get hit less often, bad side is they dont do strong damage unless they have bar, or u get a clear anti air.

them being low tier is based on the fact that they dont do gobs of damage from those far ranges (but with patience it makes playing the characters that way the safest form). this makes the player become extra anal about being in position and out of range (making the character a deep ranged type).

parrying wouldnt work in sf2 because the way sf2 plays its so great because the options are so LIMITED. 3rd strike has alot more options so normal strategies that worked in sf2 must evolve to include what the player has access to. i think players themselves r still getting better and the game is actually starting to include what was lost in sf2 at first. the range games r there (walk back and forth distance, dash distance, and full lov throw distance, twelve distance)

the dock pillar is an interesting piece of info, that kind of spacing can also be used in remy’s stage (the pillar in his stage). if remy is at the pillar and the opponent is towards the right corner of the screen thats great position to have a nice lov pattern for someone to fall/jump/dash into towards u.

101

I think the parry as a concept is a fine idea, but that its terribly implemented in 3s.
Its fine to give players a tool to punish someone who repeats a certain attack pattern. The problem in 3s is that you can do anything after a parry. This changed the parry from “punish a repeating pattern” to “guess and see if I win the round”.
The fact that in high level play you can still see people do guess parries on wakeup is a total joke. Its because you can win the round off a parry, which is stupid.

Parries would work if the result of a parry was to do one move afterwards, maybe a sweep, and thats it.

The risk reward on a parry would then be quite low, making them rarely used. But thats the way it should be. Its rare that someone is doing a repeating pattern so obviously that you know what hes going to do.

If someone is mixing things up sufficiently they should not have to worry about parries at all, but instead in 3s they can randomly lose the whole round for no reason.

102

I wasn’t serious.

103

I find it hard to believe 3S is so accepted in this community. Given a choice between 3S and nothing at all, Id have to go empty handed. Thankfully I have a good non casual game to improve on in CVS2 :wgrin:

104

GE&H is a fucking classic :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s a different game. Get over it.

“I thought you were going to do this but you did that” in general is the only mind game there is. Every game is about knowing what your opponent’s character can do, then knowing what your opponent does, knowing his habits, knowing what you can fool him with and then kicking his ass from there.

Taking hits to get into position is a good idea.

However your opponent does not want this to happen, and he would do everything in his power to stop it. So once you are in this position, what does this mean? He clearly didn’t realise that the sequence of events that led up to this would go this way.

Sounds almost like “I thought this would happen, but it didn’t”. Be it barging into your sweet range, getting your opponent in a situation where you can mix up timing for a Denjin without them reversaling on you or just good old fashioned baiting an unsafe move that they were SURE would connect; it’s the same thing. You make it sound like there’s some high level mind game, that will always work on certain people, and never on others, but that would be silly.

That’s daft. It’s all about executives rubbing themselves with huge sacks of cash. They’re not prima-donnas who think “Well! If they’re not going to UNDERSTAND OUR PAIN WE PUT INTO THIS GAME then we won’t make it!” They wonder if people will buy it, and buying something does not preclude understanding it.

By your own logic infact, you say this lack of understanding is causing people to enjoy 3s more, and therefore that would make the game sell better.

105

Yang is pretty much a Rolento-type character.

106

Sigh. Once again I said I wasn’t going to go into much detail in this thread because the amounts of ignorance are so high. I’m going to try and make this a summary as much as I possibly can. But a vast majority of the territory we’re covering is like…basic premise of how 2-D fighters are played. If you don’t understand some of this then short of drawing you a primer of the past 15 years, I’m really not sure how to make you understand.

But let’s start with Everdred:
You basically answered your post for me. The reason characters like Remy and 12 aren’t in serious contention is because the aspects they’re designed to take advantage of are completely out of play in the game. That’s not entirely fair as 12 wouldn’t be a good character in any version of SF ever, that’s just bad character design. But when you’re fighting for position, what good does it do when
a) The position you’re in is not advantageous in terms of damage dealing potential
b) They don’t have to cede that position at all because of parry
This is the fundamental problem I’ve been talking about and you basically agree.

Also if you think a Remy trap and any kind of ST style trap are even close to the same thing, please watch the B4 ST tape. There are numerous examples of Ryu or Sagat vs. Balrog when they fight him even at the expense of damage/better combos to earn a position and then slaughter him with very little he can do. Remy can do nothing anywhere’s near that because of how dominating the parry is.

BillyKane:
You can’t possibly be serious. I mean…just wow. Other than low forward qcf+p x3, the characters have almost nothing in common. I don’t think you thought this through at all.

Now for ElCarpeto:
"“I thought you were going to do this but you did that” in general is the only mind game there is. Every game is about knowing what your opponent’s character can do, then knowing what your opponent does, knowing his habits, knowing what you can fool him with and then kicking his ass from there."

no. No. NO.
Please read what I posted. You don’t even know what mind games are. That’s only marginally acceptable as a mind game (and the lowest possible level) and for you to think that’s all there is to it? Just…no. This is exactly what I’m talking about. You don’t even know what this term means and you’re trying to argue about it? Just wow.

“Sounds almost like “I thought this would happen, but it didn’t”. Be it barging into your sweet range, getting your opponent in a situation where you can mix up timing for a Denjin without them reversaling on you or just good old fashioned baiting an unsafe move that they were SURE would connect; it’s the same thing. You make it sound like there’s some high level mind game, that will always work on certain people, and never on others, but that would be silly.”

No. It’s NOT the same thing. In fact these different levels of mind games are not even in the same family. Baiting out something with a certain series of actions/inactions changes depending upon the depth of the setup. People overuse a chess analogy but it’s relevant here. In chess you can make a move to make them make a move to make this happen and that happen, then you gain an advantage, be it a piece or position or whatever. But that’s many moves in advance. Older 2-D fighting games like ST had multi levelled setups much like this. 3s has nothing even remotely close to that because the parry dumbs it down. You can’t have multi levelled setups because the parry will be there at any point in a defensive sequence. And not only is it an option, it’s very often the BEST option. I find it really disappointing that you don’t understand this.

“That’s daft. It’s all about executives rubbing themselves with huge sacks of cash. They’re not prima-donnas who think “Well! If they’re not going to UNDERSTAND OUR PAIN WE PUT INTO THIS GAME then we won’t make it!” They wonder if people will buy it, and buying something does not preclude understanding it.”

No. There isn’t an audience for 2-D fighting anymore simply because even the people who would be most likely to buy it (people here) don’t understand the principles of the genre and what makes the games tick. Like we’ve discovered through this 100+ post thread, even the most basic element of 2-D fighting “mind games” is something that almost nobody here understands on anything more than an elementary level. If you can’t understand the difference between sophisticated mind games and basic ones, how are you going to understand what makes a good fighting game? How are you going to want to play a different game if you don’t understand what makes it tick? A lot of people will never play another 2-D SF style game because they think “it’s all the same” as before. The minor differences in mind games and what’s possible are what give each game their individual flavor. If the players aren’t sophisticated enough to understand and differentiate different mind games, then there is no purpose to making another game.
As we’ve seen by this thread, even people who claim to be serious fans of SF no longer seem capable of understanding the mental aspect behind the game. That is why this genre of fighting is dead.

–Jay Snyder
Viscant@aol.com

107

Steve’s been able to do that since Tekken 4, but I assume you, like a lot of other players, completely skipped that game. The only reason Steve can do that is because Namco though it would be cool if Steve, as a boxer, could do that. And IIRC, he can’t do anything about Bryan’s gutpunch followup instead of the Mach Breaker.

108

Is this really a good thing, or a desirable game feature? Taking hits on purpose for position only? Is that really all there is to good Street Fighter? Is a game where everyone fights in one predetermined role (Projectile user, poker, Dhalsim-range, a mix of projectiles and pokes, rush-down) really that good, or the only acceptable future for a fighting game?

I can see what your point in your posts has been. To sum it up, you’re saying:

“Parry is too dominate. It prevents me from setting someone up in an inescapable lynch-pin, like chess. And it gives two or three characters with a superior move-set supreme domincance over the other characters without such a thing.”

I agree with you. SF3 isn’t chess, nor is it exceptionally balanced when you get excellent technicians behind the characters. There’s one thing I also hate about the over-used chess analogies. Beyond using it to simply prove to outsiders that Street Fighter actually takes brains to play competitively, it’s still a rather poor analogy. Street Fighter isn’t chess, especially SF3, and it never should be chess. Because no matter what kind of clothing you give it, it’ll always just be a very poor version of chess.

Parry adds a grittiness to Street Fighter that, in my opinion, is absent from the other games. Projectiles aren’t the focus of the day, nor are long-range pokes, or taking hits to the face just to get in position to win. Parry is that scary, random element that can totally wreck the best laid plans. Some people always complain that if Daigo hadn’t parried all of that Chun Li super in the much watched match, he wouldn’t have won. They’re right. Personally, I’m glad that’s the truth. Hate to see another game where only the strategy is part of the battle.

Sure, SF3 certainly didn’t do things perfectly, and it really didn’t do it right until 3rd Strike. And heck, there might be an even better system out there waiting to be created for SF that’ll trump parry.

Some say that parry levels the playing field, making all the characters semi-grapplers, all fighting close range. Good. That’s what makes it an appealing Street Fighter game. Nothing irked me more than watching Guile use Sonic Boom and Flash Kick setups all day long when I was kid. It was beatable, to be sure, with my fireball/uppercut combo that was essentially of the same mind, but it was a very different game back then. I loved it, but I grew tired of it, and never really sought to become the best at it. Too much like chess.

Parry gets rid of that stuff. I’ll admit, it’s not all good. But it isn’t nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Mind games do not always a good game make.

109

The man in the gay Village People vest wins thread.

110

I was all set to respond to this post, then I read such gems as:
“SF3 isn’t chess, nor is it exceptionally balanced when you get excellent technicians behind the characters”
“Mind games do not always a good game make”
“Parry is that scary, random element that can totally wreck the best laid plans”
“Some say that parry levels the playing field, making all the characters semi-grapplers, all fighting close range. Good.”

I figured that responding to this post in detail would probably make my head explode. You just admitted that you don’t like 2-D gaming. Is it any wonder this genre is dead?

–Jay Snyder
Viscant@aol.com

111

2D Fighters arent for you then? :confused: