smacks head I agree 100% with you, but I also didn’t say what I meant. Those should have been two different paragraphs. My bad.
I meant, fighting games in general should not have complex input, but I don’t think current fighting games should change. I think a simplified control scheme will help the FGC get bigger by being more newbie-friendly.
But, if you want the FGC bigger, it wouldn’t make sense to alienate the base we already have by radically changing things in current fighting game series.
I also agree that it’s nonsensical to change the general control scheme from iteration to iteration since the initial installment now has some recognition by the control scheme. It’s part of the game’s identity, even if new elements and touches are added or removed.
@Infil
I get your points and see the efficacy of them. I understand that controls are the way they are with purpose now. I see there’s a lot of thought in them NOW. Yet, I still don’t know if I agree that all of the nuances of the control schemes we have now were on purpose when they were first made up.
I see they (the controls) do add a lot of depth, but aren’t you curious what direction things would have ended up with different controls? Try not to think of the pitfalls that would exist if the current engine just had a different control scheme; rather, what alterations would have been made to accommodate the control scheme at hand. I think that’s how SF and all fighters progressed (but SF in particular since most games take from them).
Also, I don’t think this is derailing the thread. I’m defending my statement saying that it wasn’t scrubby but coming from a thought-out place, even if I’m wrong (which is likely).
Couldn’t resist? Are you going to say this is not a textbook definition of hypocritical? Be honest and explain how responding when you said you wouldn’t is not hypocritical.
I’m not trying to be a jerk, but if you say you’re done and respond, it really makes what you say bear less weight - especially if it’s the second time. Do strongly consider that. Be someone whose words always hold value.
Second, when I push your statements to their logical end, you see their absurdity and complain “that’s not what I said exactly, even though that’s the consequence of what I said,” all the while (incorrectly) doing the same to me. It doesn’t have any logical consistency.
For example, “All I’m saying is that the execution involved is part of what makes Street Fighter the game it is. If you change that too much, you aren’t playing Street Fighter anymore” is being hypocritical of your statement “This is blatantly putting words in my mouth.” (even though the qualifier “basically” is the opposite of “blantantly,” but that’s another story). Let’s keep this quote in mind for later when you say SF is an “obvious” conclusion when I demand actual proof.
False and artificial are two different things. It’s a straw man argument, putting the burden of proof on me when I haven’t made any claims. Are you aware of what you are arguing against? I’ve never said to remove execution. When I challenged you to quote me before (and we’ll get to that), you failed to do so. Who is putting words in whose mouth?
I have, however, said the assignments are unrelated to the actual move. If you can show why QCF is hadoken and not QCB, then please, elaborate how one has a stronger relation with the move. Then we’ll be on the same page. If you have a beef with me saying “SSB is in the right direction,” then we can talk about that too. But I did not say “removal” of anything, ever. I’m sorry, but here’s where you either MUST provide proof of me saying your “execution” must be removed from SF, or your whole war against the straw man will be exposed. This is just one of those points that really needs proof or it looks like you are just arguing with yourself.
Realize that defining your “dichotomy,” saying what is tactic and what is execution, does reveal their semantic role in your mind, but fails to demonstrate their argumentative value. If anything, it’s showing a greater deviation from what I said and closer relation to your straw man.
Now, informal fallacy (aka your straw man)? What? No, I’m saying you are using confirmation bias: interpreting information in a way that creates preference for your argument. Tactics and Execution is just one (albeit strange) way to create an A-B list. Again, your breakdown is not invalid, just meaningless because all it does it make it seem you are correct without providing any support. You have to first show how this is a useful separation for our conversation.
[LIST]
[]Are you separating the game aspects that I was talking about? No, we see that more clearly now that you have given Ryu’s fireball as an example.
[]Then you have to show that I called for the removal of one in SF. Did I? No, and you couldn’t find me saying so either, a simple quote.
[*]Finally, I’ve never made the claim that you can have one without the other, nor have I said someone should do so.
[/LIST]
ALL burden of proof lies with you.
One last thing here: what you end up describing as an informal fallacy is not an informal fallacy… You are also using dichotomy wrong, so please stop using it. “I’m talking about a broader subject here that includes both” & “Execution is physically acting on your tactics” with dichotomy makes things confusing. Just an FYI.
Okay, remember the quote I told you to keep in mind?
You cannot complain that I’m making logical conclusion when you are making larger extrapolations. It is hypocritical, especially when you are stretching even farther than I am. This leap is not logical, especially since both threads are not in the “SF” section but in “Fighting Games.” The fact that SF has a whole section unto itself implies this section excludes SF unless stated otherwise. Instead, it’s about fighting games or fighting games in general.
This is why your “dichotomy” is so dangerous. It leads to false conclusions like this one. The game is only easier in the execution department. You cannot extrapolate this further than that without compounding variables. Easier how? Wouldn’t it be harder now that even new players can do tougher moves? No? Because smarter players will still persevere? Who knows. You can’t really say. You even admit that the two are intertwined (so it’s not a dichotomy), one requiring some semblance of the other.
This is, of course, ignoring that I wasn’t talking about SF in the first place.
I have no clue. You don’t see the point of what in the context of fighting games?
I hope it’s clear now what part of that quote I was referring to.
Yes, I used STFU because you kept contradicting yourself and then doing the same thing I was doing. It made no sense, and you using words wrong really makes things harder. I think it’s better to keep things simple instead of going into fancy words.
