LMAO
links will always exist as long as there are differences between the frames of recovery and hit stun
That’s boring as shit.
But going out of the way to have a game be HEAVILY link based, have special cancels only on links, say you’re game is beginner friendly, have a wide varieity of link based trials, and NEVER FUCKING EXPLAIN A LINK EVER OR HOW YOUR CANCEL SYSTEM WORKS is pretty fucking stupid.
Which is exactly why I asked that question.There are always people that want to complain that “1-frame links are too hard” as though it’s an objective fact. But they never have a good way to differentiate between “too hard” and “easy enough,” except what feels right to them, i.e., opinion.
The only difference between a chain and a link is where the window for inputting your next move is. I could easily make a game with 1-frame cancel windows if I wanted to. So again, when does it become “too hard”?
So you’re invalidating all the monkey’s time and effort learning how to execute because you don’t think its impressive?
The question isn’t valid. No, actually, that’s not fair: the question is oversimplifying. If that was your intent in asking it, that’s all fine and whatnot, but just because there’s no objective measurement on “too hard” doesn’t mean a developer can’t ask the question “why is this as hard as it is, and does it strictly HAVE to be?”
I remember listening to Sirlin on a podcast, and he answered a similar question by saying (and I’m paraphrasing here) it’s not that there is some dexterity check, it’s that the dexterity check goes beyond what is necessary to ensure a particular action is fair. I think Mike Z. said something similar. God those two make me man moist. Also Dr. B.
I get why Dudley has half circle motions instead of quarter circles on some of his moves; they might be just a tad too good otherwise. And, obvious example, charge motion moves can generally have less startup/recovery because the motion takes more time (a QCF Sonic Boom would be monstrously broken). But when Dhalsim had a QCF+P move and a HCF+P move, that was stupid and dumb and other words for dumb. Mike Z. even has an elegant solution here, where a HCF will force recognition of the QCF move over a DP move. That’s brilliant.
Anywho, re: tataki’s post on chaining vs. links, yeah you could make a 1-frame chain window, but that’s more an FRC than a chain now. “Chaining” implies “cancellable on hit/block,” so his example is still valid.
That’s different than saying “1-frame links are too hard and shouldn’t be in games,” which is to what the question is directed.
Also, I think a perfectly reasonable answer to that question is “it’s this hard because that makes it fun.” I don’t know if you would disagree with that, but there are certainly some posters that seem to.
Mike Z is a smart dude, and I really like almost everything he has to say about fighting games, even if I don’t like his game all that much.
I don’t buy it. You can’t reasonably say something is too hard only because it’s a link. I could make a game with a 100-frame link if I wanted to. Chains are easier because the window is larger, not because they’re chains.
If you keep the discussion grounded it makes sense. Only in fantasy land will there be a fighting game with a move that gives +100 frame advantage. In practice chains are generally easier than links.
Which brings me back again to “how big does the window have to be before it’s easy enough?” Whether some combo is a link or a chain isn’t really relevant.
Honestly the easy answer is there should be a buffer window for all button inputs, the size of which should be figured out by analysis and playability testing, not by us randomly throwing out numbers.
Of course we don’t know specifically to the frame, but there’s a lot of things we don’t know specifically. That’s why you have people test your game… its a lot more than just finding glitches.
Basically, he plays the most executionally heavy character in the game A. Pat in. SCV in a game that has a low execution barrier. A character made for those who like playing executionally high characters. Yeah…
I find difficult things fun to an extent, and tend to, in single player games, play at the hardest difficulty and scale back if it’s too much. So I get the “it’s hard and the fact it’s hard makes this fun for me” position, I really do. But catering to that position in competitive multiplayer games produces games like Starcraft, where you MUST pass a certain actions-per-minute threshhold to even get to “the real game.”
Starcraft couldn’t be Sirlin-ized, so to speak, without completely overhauling the game.
But let’s say, oh I dunno, SF4 had a 4-frame link buffer, where inputing a normal 4 frames or less before the move finished made that normal come out at the soonest possible frame. Would the game really change that much? It’s already pretty link-happy; I’m really, really sure the only result would be more players finally able to get to “the real game.”
And let’s pretend that change was made in Super SF4 2012 PLUTONIUM EDITION. That doesn’t stop anyone looking for a dexterity test from hitting the same links (barring other character changes). So this player can still do what they’ve been doing… but what if they can’t have fun now that others can reproduce the same results with less effort? Hey, you can only feel what you feel, but I don’t think any designer needs to appeal to that subset of gamer.
That’s fair, but while we’re on the topic of Skullgirls, the next patch is making the chain window bigger, so it feels more like Marvel. Mechanically this won’t change the game at all; it will merely make chaining easier. I’m going to go out and say this makes the game objectively better, and as such, opinions of those who liked the chain window – which will still allow them to combo precisely how they always have been – matter much, much less.
Then let’s classify all possible actions relying on a timed button press in an X-frame window as the same thing (making up a word for this: glubarp). We cannot objectively claim any value for X is more or less correct, but we can aspire to make X as large as reasonably possible without affecting the game, the way Skullgirls’ new chains will work. Or make all glubarps 1-frame, and keep the strategy available only to the people who have no issues with 1-frame glubarps.
No one ever said that. No one. People like to respond to claims they made up on their own for some reason…
If it’s about Sirlin then he only said that in the long run, people with just enough execution, but top strategy, win vs people with the best execution but who are not the best at the decision making.
For you it may be boring. For me the interest in the game will come from the decision making and interesting situations.
99% of the times, chains are much easier than links, but technically give the same effect. (other than the rare meaty scenarios which I mentioned)
Edit: Wait no, scratch that, I made a mistake because I totally forgot that chains are actually BETTER in the tactical sense because you must commit to at least the 2nd hit, and cannot hitconfirm off of 1 hit alone, which links enable. (3S chun’s c.mk late cancel window is a rare thing and doesn’t happen in fighting games usually)
So the consensus has pretty much been that they are both equally important, some people just like one or prefer one to the other…basically opinion.
Of course it’s opinion. The important part is how you describe and work out that opinion… that can be educational and fun at the same time!
So what the point of arguing constantly about something that people already have their mind set on. Most of us have played these games long enough that our opinion has already been set in stone pretty much.
the best part is that he keeps arguing about a theoretical game where the execution barriers are so hard that displease everyone, but already admitted that there is no game like that on real life -_____-
Without hard execution how can I do AMERICAN resets? I’m a natural at them.
The thing that bothers me the most is that ukyo, tataki, specs, AND xes are treating execution like it’s an either or kind of thing. You can have low execution characters and high execution characters BOTH exist in the SAME game. Just like there are charge characters and non-charge characters.
Edit: Also, how dumb would it sound if I decided not to play ST because Guile exists. Oh I really want to play Guile, but he’s a charge character and I don’t like charge characters. Even though there are 15 other characters, I’m going to ignore their existence and not play the game.
Forum discussions. :\
The purpose of that line of questioning is not to find out what size buffer (or whatever) is appropriate, but to illustrate that it’s a subjective choice. It depends on personal opinion and the goals of your project.
To be clear, I’m not saying high-execution is inherently better either. It just makes for a different game. One of the cool things about fighting games, though, is that you can make some easy characters and some hard characters, and appeal to a bunch of different players, without making the game itself physically difficult.
See above. It would certainly be appropriate for a game that’s supposed to be newbie-friendly.
I won’t argue with that, but “make the chain system more like Marvel” is a much more concrete (and objectively achievable) goal than “make the game better.”
Also, I’m definitely going to give the game another shot when the patch drops.
Yes.
It’s like some people like games that test different things!
Doesn’t actually answer the question.
Tataki already answered this
You’re constructing the argument you want to go against and then arguing against that.
My opinion is subject to change personally, fool that I am (and you might not believe me), but I read all this stuff, and take it into consideration.
Example: You’ll notice I’ve not mentioned SPDs once in this discussion. Hecatom knows why 
Anyways… the discussion in of itself can be entertaining and interesting. Not all of us are idealogues who value winning the argument over all things.