Before somebody decides to come at me with some quote for Sirlin, let us remember that he is trying to design for everybody. His goals are to produce products which are as inclusive as possible. This is a noble goal but it misses sometimes how the real world works. There are many fans of his that can admit to Sirlin having both bad execution and poor strategy when dealing with other game makers (mustard table stage is a straight counter pick). As such what Sirlin offers is a really good guideline for most games. When discussing execution we can only deal with finished products. Regardless of how he feels about them different philosophies went into different games. Some of the design philosophies lead to harder executional game out of necessity rather than a want out of the producers themselves.
So let’s kill point number one: these games require you to physically do things. Invariably all fighting games have this barrier between what you want to do and what you are able to do. We can argue all day on whether or not this is a good design for a game. But the intrinsic problem with the argument is that it doesn’t matter how much a designer tries to avoid its players from having these issues, our abilities create the differences. Not all of us bring the same set of skills into combat (much like in a real fight) and these differences matter (much like in a real fight). Therefore as much as the law makes us equal, the cruelty of biology forces inequality in our physical and mental abilities.
Now that we understand that we come into these games with an inherent physical inequality (which can be mitigated but even amongst high level musicians there are executional differences) the question becomes how much should a player need to succeed? These vary depending on the types of players in a game. If it is low level, they may enjoy the game without needing much. If its mid level, he may need to input device harder to get more out of his character. At a high level it will vary between game (but at this level the player should work to lessening the impact on his play). While a designer may have all of these in mind, he is usually going to target some group depending on what he wants to achieve.
The previous paragraph is somewhat vague, so I will use Guilty Gear as an example. It started fairly simple and then become known (possibly as a dirty rumor) that the game is hard to play execution wise. The real issue with Guilty Gear being hard is the use of Roman Cancels and False Roman Cancels. For those who don’t know, a Roman Cancel (RC) is a cancel which can be performed at any time by hitting three of the attack buttons (sans D) as soon as the move connects; this move uses 50% of your meter. A False Roman Cancel (FRC) is similar to an RC except it can only be used during certain moves, during certain frames of the move; this uses 25% of your meter. RCs are equal for everybody. FRCs get trickier because they open up additional space for the each character. The question now becomes: how would you fix FRCs to be more accessible? The “D” button is not used for RCs in the first place, so maybe one button plus the use of the “D” button would be appropriate.
But in the case of the game, the want to let characters do very specific things with the meter. This is where it gets complicated because the limits to these are not arbitrarily chosen; but it will invariably exclude some people from easily doing it. The character Dizzy can throw an ice spike on the floor (this move is capable of being FRCed). If I FRC this successfully, I get extra frame advantage on hit and can do additional combos; if I miss and get an RC, I can still make the move safe but may not get the combo follow up. There is a very big distinction between keeping a move safe and getting additional frame advantage with a specific time frame. This is the part where we argue about the need for two different types of cancel in the first place. But looking at the game, the implication seems to be the creation of an all around cancel and also have a second one which give the characters more things to work with.
As such design space can create these barriers just by exploring it. In the face of FRCs, the input window is what dictates what they let the characters do. While they can create further technology to make this easier do, the act of putting limitations on the what characters can do creates the execution barrier. FADCs are very similar to roman cancel but with a somewhat loser input window but a harder motion. It is also completely possible to miss that buffer window or input it incorrectly. Sirlin was critical of the motion for FADCs. But the reality is that dashing forward or back works to limit the things which the characters can do. There are more examples of exploring design space by adding motions to it but I won’t go into those (see super jump cancelling).
We know that there are differences between us that create executional differences, we have looked at a couple of examples which show that these may not be arbitrary. The next question is a hard one because NAMCO is head over heels over this stuff: making motions different to help balance. Should this exist? If you’ve played the 3DS version of SSF4 then you know the answer: yes. Guile walking forward while doing Sonic Booms and constantly having charge for flash kick is one of the most unintentionally stupid/funny things in any fighting game. For better or worse Ono answered the question with that game (although it should be mentioned that the one-button moves were not balanced accordingly).
NAMCO is the biggest oddball when it comes to executional requirements because they love them just frames. In T6 Mishimas (Heihachi, Kazuya, Jin) have a move that when performed under the proper condition grants them extra benefits (namely frame advantage and damage). This is where the argument of strategy versus execution begins to get problematic because people with execution have a clear advantage over those who do not. People with good execution have access to better punishes, more or better versions of set ups, and additional movement options with their character. In the realm of decision making the people with execution have more options from which to choose. They do not necessarily have access to better decision making. A couple of examples for your considerations: Marlin Pie can’t block and Dieminion can. Marlin Pie has insanely good execution; but hard to do is hard to do. Marlin Pie has insanely bad defense. While he has some great set ups with Viper in MvC3, he has (or had since his defense has gotten significantly better) a penchant for touching buttons. Its almost like he can’t help himself. Even though he could kill people if he touched them, he would make some very poor decisions which would cost him matches. Dieminion is almost the polar opposite because he wins almost entirely on strategy (although he does have good execution). I love watching Dieminion play because it is the lamest, most meticulous thing happening in AE12. Guile is somewhat limited in the ways he can punish people’s mistake. Although Dieminion in MvC3 is a whole different beast because his team isn’t exactly all that great (although he plays it well) and he sometimes misses combos or just can’t convert. So while he has a set strategy in the game, he can’t execute it to its fullest at time. Dieminion in MvC3 shoes that tangled relationship that strategy vs having the execution to do said strategy creates in fighting games. Marlin Pie has all the execution in the world but sometimes his strategic decisions fall short.
Revisiting the just frame we get into some issues when dealing with the general population. Like all gamer communities, fighting game players have a variety of voices directly and indirectly demanding things. The truth is that the major companies will try and cater to as many people as possible. Sometimes it works, other times it just ruins the overall experience. Take Kazuya versus C.Viper. I can play Kazuya almost with no problem without having to do that just frame move. The rest of the moves are easy to do and I only miss out on some pressure two and some crazy max punishes. But for the most part Kazuya’s gameplay does not require you to do that move constantly. C.Viper on the other hand is a broken character. Unless you can do a lot of the cancels, you really shouldn’t bother touching her. The majority of her high level play focuses on doing motions which are not required from the rest of the cast. The worse thing about Viper is that for the majority of players, she just might as well not be there. In the time I can grind some of her basic things, I can grind about 10 other characters and get my start with those. This is bad. Some compare her to a Guilty Gear character but the reality is that in Guilty Gear you have those characters inside a frame under which these things make sense.
The hardest part about Viper is the one thing that Sirlin kinda misses about the variety of game: not all of them are designed for everybody. I have insanely bad execution. I know that when I look at Fate/Stay Night Unlimited Codes, that game was just not made for me. To some extent you could argue that Guilty Gear was not made for me either. Viper is a little bit more pervasive because she was included in a game marketed towards beginners. But let’s face it, there is a place for game that requires you to tiger knee your normals because there is a small niche market for them. Much of the fighting comes from people who can’t reconcile the fact that some games weren’t meant for their hands. If you look at the place where these games are released, you’d understand why the executional requirements are up there: most of their target audience has already spent thousands of hours working their hands into something fanciful. When you release a hard executional game into that environment, is not a big a deal as releasing it into one where people aren’t used to constant hard motions. Similarly these games push gamers to higher level. Some people like sky diving, others like making a stick sound like a type writer. Wanting to argue away the fun these people have with their games is silly those experiences are important explorations into the genre. Ono’s one button moves as well as Guilty Gear’s RC and FRC give us details about the nature of design and questions about the limits of human ability. Games benefit from being unequal because this way they are able to hook people into the genre as a whole with different things.
So the harsh truths of this debate is that you need execution of some kind to enter the game, you need to create strategy to put yourself in a winning position and then you go back to execution to fulfill that strategy. In a good 90% of games playing smart creates the opening to hit buttons (although MvC3 lets you hit more buttons than most games for ridiculous decisions made in the game but you still shouldn’t be hitting buttons). Not all games are for you; accept the game and push yourself or go find something more comfortable (I do both of these depending). Developers shouldn’t really take a giant dump on some games for shits and giggles (Fuck a Viper, all this does is make sure that people don’t’ get to learn the match up).
TL; DR:
1)They are games which require mechanical inputs.
2) In some cases, the motions do help balance the moves.
3) The person with the better execution (regardless of the game) has the most options.
4) Having control over a majority of options does not mean making the best decisions.
5) Sirlin’s point of view will always be to make the games as accessible as possible to facilitate the enjoyment of as many people as possible and to increase the importance of decision making.
6) Not all fighting games are designed for everybody.
7) As players our job we can only play; we may have the power to edit but what gets played competitively is the official product.
8) Viper is the thing we should avoid; making characters unique little flowers that are significantly hard to execute than what is baselined from the rest of the cast makes it so that it gets touched less and fewer people have access to learning the match up. Just stick the character in a game full of characters similar to it.
P.S. stop arguing over this shit. Unless you want to make a game, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from it. Nothing.