I seriously disagree that higher execution requirements water down strategy. Having to consider whether you should try for something you can land maybe 50% of the time to close out a match is very pertinent, whether it’s a clutch reversal (yes those actually exist in some games), or simply a harder combo.
I really don’t like this facile attitude that execution is nothing but an artificial barrier. It’s always been very much an aspect of fighting games and one that I actually looked forward to. I think most people don’t like feeling left out because they can’t perform the hardest stuff, but I always saw it as something to strive for. You might improve incrementally, but I’m sure if most of the 09’ers look back now, they’re probably able to land a lot of things they couldn’t even fathom when they first started.
The more important one aspect of gameplay is, the less important every other aspect is. In a game like Pokemon where you just pick out an action from a menu execution is completely a non-issue. Introduce a dexterity component to that formula (maybe get a critical hit by hitting a button with tight timing) and execution becomes a factor. When that happens, strategy automatically becomes less important. The game used to be completely about making the right choices depending on the situation, and now the game is no longer completely about that. It’s the same in any game. The more important execution is, the less important strategy is and vice versa. The example you posited actually illustrates the point. If the game was 100% about strategy then all you would need to do is figure out that you need to perform a combo or reversal. When the execution element is introduced, the strategic element is diminished. It’s no longer just about making the right choices. It is now also about physical dexterity and a willingness to spend a lot of time in training mode practising inputs (the fighting game equivalent of grinding in RPGs).
The fact that you like it has no bearing on the fact that it is an artificial barrier. There’s no technical reason that EWGF should require just-frame input. It’s difficult to do because the designers and developers made it difficult to do. In fact, I don’t see the point of arguing that it’s not an artificial barrier at all, since it obviously is that. The only argument is whether we want artificial barriers in the game at all, and if we do then how high do we want them to be?
You know what else you could strive for? The ability to actually outsmart the opponent. Sure, I can land combos now that I couldn’t land back in 1992, but I can also block mix-ups that I couldn’t block before. I can anticipate jump-ins that I couldn’t anticipate before. I can counter strategies that I couldn’t counter before. I figured out how to do these things by actually playing the game against actual people. For the combos I learned those by grinding them out in training mode.
So what do you want to reward? Hours spent playing the game against people and figuring out ways to beat them or hours spent doing the same sequence of button presses repeatedly in training mode?
Execution is the physical part of the game, related to dexterity, timing and reflexes. Strategy is the mental part of the game, related to thinking and making good decisions. When you make the game less about physical dexterity you are doing the opposite of dumbing it down. You are making it smarter. Conversely, the more important execution is in any given game the dumber it is. In fact, you said so yourself:
You can be a dumbass in MVC2 because it is more about execution. You cannot be a dumbass in ST because it is less about execution. So what does execution do to games? It dumbs them down. According to you.
He changed the subject and he told you that he’s changing the subject:
“The problem is that that’s not really what people mean when they talk about execution in fighting games.” And then goes on to the actual issue about (hard) execution.
Bias or not, at least make sure you read before you start complaining, mr.kaiju combat guy.
Also to all the people who say execution is important- Yes, of course it’s important. Without using your hands you can’t play at all. You are not really saying anything by stating the obvious.
And yes, many games reward extremely hard shit, and players need to learn to do them to win. That’s realty, but the question is about what is wanted for FGs in general.
Good fighting games can be made without anything that’s too hard to execute, so basic solid execution is one thing, but the demand for extreme esoteric execution is a different thing.
Is it really good for a game to design characters like mvc3 viper, who can be used well in a tournament only by like 3 people, and was made this way just for bragging rights (some sort of imaginary honor system, while others just go and actually win the tournament with easier, effective characters) or maybe it will be healthier for the game if all the characters were easy to execute moves and combos, but heavily differ in style of play (and balanced in effectiveness)?
Strategy is the most important in my opinion, but without the execution to back it up it is worthless. You know which move counters here? If you don’t have the execution to follow up that foresight is worthless. You know a combo, but can’t find an opening? Without strategy that combo is worthless. The reason I swapped to arcade stick is to improve my execution so that it would match my strategy. Essentially you won’t win without both so its pointless to take a strict stance. The important thing is to have a mix of both. The separation of importance in the two is a hair’s breadth even at the highest levels of competition.
Again, until execution hits the point of limiting returns.
There’s a point past which you lose nearly all progress from improving execution, both because the advantage you get from that improvement is minor, and because the work to get that improvement is much greater.
Beyond that, high execution is often emergent. MvC2 is an example of that. All the base tools are exceptionally easy and low-execution, especially for the standards of the time (button dashes, no double roll for supers), but players developed those low difficulty tools into extremely high execution techniques… and that’s basically inevitable.
For the guy who brought up Pokemon and the like…the game isn’t about execution in the first place so introducing that reduces strategy for that game for sure. Fighting games are built around performing moves by doing certain commands so strategy is built around that for those games.
I have no idea if any of you guys are even arguing the same thing because each of you are arguing at least 3 different meanings to execution. I mean, is MvC2 the hardest game execution wise or the easiest? Pick which meaning because MvC2 can be both in regards to what you mean by “execution”. Pretty sure easing up one facet of execution is what lead it to be hard in the other facet.
I’m not even sure what the execution removes/reduces strategy thing means. Can this even be used as a catch all? I understand the context Sirlin used because that’s how I feel about SF4 (this difficult links gives you 200 dmg, if you can’t do it, enjoy 40) but are you able to say that is always the case? I’m pretty sure there’s a curve involved or something where one being too high could possibly affect the other.
And I hope no one thinks ukyo’s pokemon example is any good. Execution is more than buttons and even if the critical hit thing were true, it would shift emphasis on abilities that lower attack power, lower accuracy, lower defense, do something so they get less turns like paralyze, sleep, etc. on the opponent and increase your attack power, defense, accuracy, etc. for yourself. He should’ve said it would create a split in those who can and those who can’t, which, even then, can lead to more paths to the same goal.
It’s annoying seeing some people arguing their opinion is right on when execution is “too damn high”. Every game isn’t Fate Codes and if that’s the game they want to make/play/enjoy, so what? Play/demand a game with a lower one. It’s a matter of taste/preference.
point one, As said right above, MvC2 has emergent execution. Any individual piece is low execution, but high level play is extremely high execution.
point two, ‘strategy’ is problematic there, but there are situations where you can rely on execution to make it so you don’t really need to think much in a game. The example would be Zero in mid-level MvC3 play. If you’ve got your execution down to do LL’s and get conversions as you need them, you need to react and use judgement a lot less. That is a perfect example of what people are usually talking about with that.
point three, don’t know jack about Pokemon, too old.
point four, because putting unreasonable or arbitrary barriers hurts the genre and the scene. Most of us don’t want to be back in the situation where if you weren’t in a major city, you were playing alone.
I’ve been reading your argument through this thread and I feel like this is a very lame duck argument. You (and Tataki) essentially want there to be no characters with a high execution barrier at all. On the contrary, both kinds of characters can exist in a game. Believe or not, there are people out there who enjoy characters with very high execution barriers and you can make characters in a game that appeal to them. You can also make very low execution characters to appeal to people who hate execution barriers. On top of that, you can gasp make characters that fall inbetween.
A great example of a game like this is Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure. JBA has characters with the highest execution barrier you might ever see in a game (Dio, Ice), characters with extraordinarily low barrier (B. Pol, Abdul), and one’s that are in between (Chaka, Polneraff).
Dio has one of the highest execution barriers in existence. His BnB alone has negative edging, walk cancel, two 2 frame links, a one frame link, and some tricky shiz that you have to be able to do precisely with the joystick. Abdul on the other hand, doesn’t even really have combos at all. He just has really good moves and is very good at controlling space. Both characters in the game are good, in fact Abdul is considered to be one of the best characters in the game and both appeal to different kinds of players. Players who are execution junkies will love Dio, while players who enjoy their gameplay to revolve around strategic thinking and strategic thinking only will love Abdul.
I feel like you are taking a black and white approach to this, when in fact there are many grays.
About Jojo’s. First time I played it I got absolutely stand raped by a Jotaro doing 20 seconds combos. I was thinking goddamn I need execution to play this game. Then later I got raped by a standless Kakyoin who ticked thrown me constantly. Talking to him that day made me realize he played that strategy because it really pissed off other players since it’s hard to tech in that game and I tried it for a bit and it didn’t even seem that hard to execute. I believe that having room for both is ideal and having the player pick their poison.
Now what does this thread think of something like DFO? You can hotkey all your moves or make your own manual command. It has a competitive (in Korea). There are random elements such as miss and status effects but players are consistent that skill matters. I have to say a lot of the game is knowing about your spacing and your strategy in a matchup, though stuff like the Monk infinite was patched out, which was an execution thing once that hit you.
It’s also not an artificial barrier just because you don’t like it. There are some people that really love throwing around “artificial/arbitrary barrier” without actually defining what that means.
Both are important. You need strategy to get openings. You need execution to make the most out of those openings.
A game with neither that would only focus on one would be boring. Getting a read on an opponent is satisfying. Capitalizing off that read with the optimal combo is as equally satisfying.
Both aspects add depth rather than detract from it.
Here, you’re just foisting your personal preferences on others. Some people like practicing. Some people like grinding out the hard stuff. There are 50 something characters in that game, all varying in execution levels, yet all are viable. That is diversity.That is good designing.
Viper is intentionally execution heavy for those who like to play such characters. Even then, she can be played in a basic manner, which, if you’ve been paying attention to MvC3 streams, is what most Vipers who are doing well at the exception of Marlinpie are doing. You can get by with a basic Viper, but you can also grind it out and unlock her harder stuff which offers higher rewards.
since viper is so complex, she can literally be played for quite a while before getting stale if not forever. Imagine if the whole game was full of wesker\sentinel characters. Those characters have 0 depth. Once you know how to play them, you know how to play them and there is nothing you can do to make them better. wesker\sentinel haven’t really evolved past month 1 of vanilla, that is BAD design. Might as well be playing karate champ.
I personally wish every character was as deep as morrigan\viper. The game would be better. The simple mode characters like sent\wesker have no where to go. As the game progresses their place is kind of finite unless glitches are discovered. This means characters like morrigan\viper can literally evolve forever as long as the game is around. much like strider\spiral from mvc2. Those characters had so much deep technique that in 10 years, no one got close to the master level. That’s the deep design developers should aim for.
is xes still saying execution is an arbitrary barrier? even though james chen just released a massive article describing what execution does for fighting games? which I’m sure is based on our countless arguments about the topic. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks I guess. Even if its one from one of the oldest members on the board who has lived in the strongest area since the beginning but he most not know what he’s talking about…srk.com!!! we da bestest!!
You clearly missed the post where I said a game could take a few, or more specifically the bit about games being robust.
High execution barrier characters, if intentional, are designed for the benefit of a small micro-minority of players to the detriment of all the great majority. Of course having a few in doesn’t ruin the game, but it’s still kind of a waste.
In addition, there are some specific design challenges to high execution barrier characters, where you either have to make the character the same reward for higher execution/effort (and thus a worse character), or you increase the reward for the higher execution, and risk messing up balance. Again, there’s always some leeway, but it’s definitely a tightrope walk. If you make the reward for the execution character too high, you’re once again making that particular style of play a requirement. Just to be clear, I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that it’s a lot harder
Just a quick aside here, if you think I might be presenting something as black and white, that's pretty much guaranteed to be a mistake. I'm a very strong believer in that shades of grey bullshit.
easy to define though, its an arbitrary or artificial barrier if its hard just for the sake of being hard.
A few notes though:
[LIST]
[]Once again, its on a scale, some basic layers of execution are always needed.
[]Accidental execution barriers can’t apply, intent is the key for that pieced of the discussion
[*]There are almost no such barriers in modern fighting games, its something designers know is bad.
[/LIST]
Chen’s primary characteristics are being a nice guy and getting things wrong. That article is no exception.
Edit:
We don’t want to waste the chance though. With the exception of the intentional links (and arguably fadc) SF4 is pretty much a definition of trying to do what we’re talking about here. Yeah there were some missteps, but they had the right ideas in general, and it worked.
fucking daigo could say execution is great for fighting games and you would still ignore his opinion and try to discredit him somehow. James Chen has lived in a power scene all his life. That simply isn’t his general opinion by playing by himself in wyoming for 20 years. That his player opinion based on his play AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, talking to top players in his region about fighters. Its basically an accumulated opinion of his area in a nutshell from his perspective. **I find it funny you can discredit his opinion even though he’s actually been a tournament player in a god like scene where as you are just a forum troll and we can’t discredit you? oh the irony… **
these topics basically boil down to how good your are as a player. You can tell who has experience and who doesn’t by the quality of their post. You can also tell which people are theory fighters.