Was referring to commands more then control- look at some of the HSDMs in 2k2…
Some were easy, some ridiculous- and how good the DM was to the motion had no correlation.
97 had ok control, 98-2k good
The only KOFs with really dodgy controls to me were 96 and 03.
Ok let’s draw the line then. Of course what maybe hard for you, could be medium for someone else, and vice versa. But I think overall this might help with the direction of the thread:
Idiot Easy-f,b,u,d,pressing one button plus a direction
Easy-qcf,qcb,dp,hcb,hcf, pressing one button plus these motions, ff, bb, dd, uu motions, charge motions
Medium-doing any of the above motions with two or more buttons, buffering Idiot easy motions after or before easy motions, 360s and buffered 360s,Iron Man infinite
Hard-720s, Chem love FRC(no dash), Raging Storms with Geese, Instant Air dashing, Triangle jumping, Tekken Wavedashing, tking easy/medium movements (game specific), charge partitioning
Expert/Advanced/top tier-Tekken Lightdashing, Chem love FRC~iad combos, 1 frame 720s, ROM infinites
Combo Vid/Unreliable in matches- 6xewgf combos in tekken, 3x rocket punch combos w/ sent, multiple Chemlove FRCs(4 or more),
Impossible/Godmode-KYSG combo videos
Of course this is my subjective opinion. I think execution becomes a problem when you take a character like ino, in a game like guilty gear, where her main move (Chemical Love FRC) for her BnB combos takes a considerable amount of time to learn, where as if she doesn’t use this move, she becomes total and utter crap. ONLY with this move is she competetive. This is somewhat ridiculous, especially when you have characters like Jam/Sol/Slayer/Potemkin who get equivalent damage with infinitely less effort and practice time.
In addition, I think top tier characters should be harder to use execution wise (i.e. GGAC Eddie, TTT Mishimas) than lower tier characters. Easy execution top tiers (T4 Jin, T5 SNBF, GGXX/ sol, 3s chun li) shouldn’t be in any game at all.
So, thoughts?
I fail to see how easier execution makes for more mindgames or whatever. Where are the people arguing that 1-frame reversal timing makes a game less deep?
Also I find it pretty stupid to talk about fighting games like they’re all about “strategy/tactics.” Even RTS has execution requirements to compete. Real fighting has execution requirements to compete. Strategy/tactics isn’t just you thinking about how to win, you have to make it happen still. And just 'cuz you planned something doesn’t mean it’s going to go down exactly like you planned.
Seriously. Sports games have fairly simple, intuitive execution, so how do you balance that out? People have to miss shots or drop passes randomly. Not all the time but often enough that it adds some element of chance to it… which incidentally adding strategy/tactics to the mix- who do you want to take this shot? Who are you going to defend more heavily? Wouldn’t matter if every player scored every time they took an undefended shot.
There’s enough randomness inherent in playing another thinking human being, I could do without fighting games going the route of arbitrary randomness to balance easy execution. The fact that there is that execution “barrier” in place creates a layer of strategy since it forces you to account not just for the game but for the player- you would have to play fairly differently against a guy who, say, couldn’t reversal DP to save his life and a guy who nails it every single time he goes for it.
Or if I know somebody is fairly solid in GG but misses a particular FRC that’s necessary for combos, I’ll be more aggressive than I’d be against a guy who will nail me for 60% every time I slip up… even if the guy who will nail me for 60% is pretty awful otherwise.
Seriously, this isn’t turn-based strategy games we’re talking about. Fighting games are boring when devoid of difficult techniques to pick up and master. Would SF2 had made the impact it had if you could only do normals (no combos, no specials, just normals)? No fireballs or flashkicks or SPDs. Easy execution! But is it fun?
Which I think kinda addresses the accessibility issue. Who would have batted an eye at a special-less SF2? Yet specials were a pretty big execution requirement, and nobody thought it was awesome to lose because they couldn’t throw a fireball.
People whining about execution requirements for GG - to be quite fair, there have been FAR more godawful games than good games that had really easy execution requirements. Case could possibly be made for games with crazy execution requirements, but simply put people still play ST, MvC2, 3S, GG, Smash, Tekken… where are the dudes playing “easy” games? You know, the ones that don’t require difficult just-frame-style techniques to be good at?
History is against you if you seriously believe stripping down execution would improve fighting game quality.
The idea is not that easier execution directly makes for more mindgames. Rather, it is that easier execution can increase the player field and allow more people to be competitive. With more competitive players, you have more people to bring new ideas and approaches to a game.
A second benefit is that a larger player field can mean a larger market for a game, encouraging new games and growth in the field. It also means a larger pool that new serious players can emerge from, which can theoretically raise the overall level of competition.
One of the arguments relies upon the idea that at the top level of competitive play, perfect (or near perfect) execution is a given. Under this argument, making execution easier will not affect high level players, but will allow more players into the high level playground. (This argument does have some flaws, primarily related to the idea that execution is considered a given.)
Barrier to entry should be a concern to fighting game fans though. It is long past the era where fighters where the “it” genre, but the barrier to entry has only continued to grow as new fighters are based upon the skills required of previous fighters. Casual gamers no longer flock to 2D fighters, and no longer have the reason to try to learn them. This in turn reduces the potential number of new serious players, as well as reduces sales and causes companies to marginalize or even abandon fighters. (It also encourages the creation of “garbage” fighters that sell upon some other idea than gameplay, since the fighter market would presumably only account for a fraction of such a game’s sales.)
Sports comparison counter-arguments are flawed because execution difficulty is an option in videogames, and there isn’t a billion dollar industry built around the idea of only the best of millions of players competing in a league. “Easy execution games are bad” counter-arguments are flawed when they point to games like CvS EO as their proof, as EO mode does not compensate for the easier execution. The same argument with DOA is often itself in part flawed simply because many people automatically dismiss the series based upon its history and the opinions of others. And for weak games in general, they would likely be as bad whether they were easy execution or hard.
One problem in the execution debate is that there are multiple types of execution being debated. Entry motions for a single move are different from chains of moves. A game with simple motions can still present a barrier if at the competitive level you have to be able to chain 50 of those moves into a single combo. (Consider custom combos or just really long combo strings.)
Another problem is that even if execution is simplified, players will ultimately raise the execution level through new combos and techniques. (Smash Bros Melee is a valid example here, as its tournament play is certainly not what its creators originally imagined.) This problem does not discount the potential benefits of trying to reduce execution requirements though. (Again Melee is an example, as simple move execution helped create a large player base, which in turn the competitive scene developed from.)
A few million of them are buying Mortal Kombat and DoA and giving Midway and Tecmo more money than most of those games combined. And let’s not forget Melee, just mentioned in the post above mine. But I agree with a few things that you wrote. There’s a difference between accessible and just dumb. However, as long as the game demands timing (unlike chess, a game that can be pretty good as well), there will be mistakes> They can be positioning mistakes, por presing a button too late (your opponent pressed early), and all that stuff