The Problem of Execution

Current Fighting Games Fighting Game Discussion
121

my 2 cents:
practice should be rewarded, but any game that requires hours of practice every day to do stuff that’s basic on a strategic level has flawed design.

As it was seen in Smash Bros, very simple control system didn’t stop the players to find hard to execute techniques, so execution will always be something to care about if you want a game that’s deep and not turn-based.
Developers should just try to get good balance in execution requirements, that’s it. In my perspective, developers should just try to make anything that’s crucial on a strategic point somewhat easy to execuite. Not TOO easy, but neither a thing that requires a week of training to just understand how it’s supposed to work for most players. This is what alienates many gamers to take a serious look into fighting games, and it’s even one of the reasons why players specialized in relatively low-execution games don’t get into stuff like GG. I’m Ok in all the possible ways about having better execution -> having an edge on the opponent. Thing is, execution shouldn’t be a huge wall on the way to appreciate the strategy of a game.
One bad example of this is FRC’s (and even standard RC’s) in GG. They take quite a bit of practice even for fighting games veterans; for anyone who’s new to fighting games (or isn’t, but never played seriously) that is a stupid artificious obstacle that’s just there to alienate a gamer. On top of learining execution of all specials, supers, chains, and various maneuvers, you HAVE to learn a stupid “press 3 buttons at the same time in a 0.05s window” thing. Yes I’m saying that’s stupid, not much for the execution itself but for what it means in the economy of the game. Without getting decent with RC/FRC you lose a huge part of strategy that you really can’t even appreciate unless you learn/master it. And you can’t even dream about competing against any experienced player (not necessarily a great one!).
Going to another, this time good, example: 3s Ken - the game system in general is quite lenient in motions, anyone who has played a fighting game before will learn 99% of his combos in 2-3 hours at most; some stuff will be hard for a new players but it’s going to take them 1/10 of the time to learn everything that matters on strategic level as opposed to doing the same in GG. And even if you don’t have the greatest execution, playing that character you can already appreciate and implement in your game most of the strategy that the engine allows. And a gamer that feels rewarded by his strategic improvements might often look into getting his execution better, while in a game where you can’t even grasp the strategy without hard execution requirements the gamer will likely not even understand what’s going on even after he masters the move, because he had to put all of his time into execution before even thinking about strategy.
I know, 3s Ken has the kara.shoryuken which is hard to get for most players, and takes a lot of practice to do at first (yes I can do it). Let’s say it’s difficulty is comparable with FRC comgbo or setup in GG. Here comes my point: if a player can nail the kara-sho consistently, more power to him. But it’s not a big thing strategically speaking. It’s a pretty rewarding bonus to those who cared mastering its execution, but it’s not like a player that can’t kara-sho to save his life can’t beat a kara-master if he outplays him. You don’t lose half of your options for not being able to execute something; while a genius that can’t execute FRC will never be able to stategically outplay anyone who can FRC consistently and has what resembles a remotely working brain.

I don’t want to turn this into a GG bash; in fact, I admire and respect the huge depth that GG has in strategy. Still, I think that the tie between strategy and hard execution is too strict and it’s ultimately a flaw which alienates most gamers.

It’s good when good execution makes winning easier, and I’m all for it. It’s bad when you can’t even play a game properly until you master ridicolous stuff.

I talked about GG, but it’s the same for how SFA3 turned, in example. At the point where the game is today, if you can’t execute all the useful VC’s for you character you’re pretty much done for, with very few exceptions. Roll Cancels somewhat did the same to CVS2, though to a lesser extent (there still are people who can compete with non-roll grooves) and even though they were not meant to be, they arguably turned the game better.

Games like ST/AE and 3s (and KOF98) are still popular and actually get new players even if old, because they’re quite simple to grasp. Sure there are lots of difficult things to do in both games, but at least with some characters you don’t need great execution to get a grasp of most if not all of what matters strategically. Don’t need 6 months of practice to even begin to play, you can start training strategy mindgames almost as soon as you get into the game.
While I agree that getting hard combos and such is fun and very rewarding when you get it in a match, I also think that the strategic part of a fighting game is the core of its fun. If you need 100+ hours of practice just to get to the fun part something is wrong.

Yes anyone can say that top players have top strategy AND top execution. True, that’s why they’re top players. But for the rest of the world, it’s more fun when one who lacks in a area can compensate in another.
In some games a match between someone with good strategy and decent execution vs someone with decent strategy and good execution is interesting and can go either way. They are skilled in different areas, but those skills can compensate each other. Those are the good games, in my book.
In some other games, any non-minimal difference in execution skill makes the match one-sided, and strategy only matters when both have the same execution skills. I don’t like when games turn that way.

A good game with easy execution on basic/mid stuff can always have a hard/technical character with crazy requirements even in some of his standard techniques for players who like that. It’s good for everyone that way.
When a game incorporates hard execution deeply in all of its system, they can’t just put an “easy” character. It’s not going to work beyond early after release.

122

I think it might have had a little more to do with the fact that SF1 was so limited in its game engine it that it didn’t have enough to the game to be played competitively even if the moves weren’t a pain in the ass to get out.

123

You guys need to realize a very simple distinction. Fighting games aren’t games. They are a sport, specifically because for the physical aspect. They are NOT “games”. Chess is a game. Poker is a game. Go is a game. Monopoly is a game. Fighting video games, real time strategy video games, basketball, football, even NASCAR, are sports.

Yes, there is an element of strategy in each of those sports I mentioned, but the physical aspect is, and will always be, a crucial part of the sport. I don’t give a fuck how smart how smart he is, my money is on Jordan over Stephen Hawking in a game of one-on-one. If you want to play a true game, where you don’t have to practice the physical aspects of moving a piece or making a big bet, then you have a ton of options available.

Stop being pissy by telling yourself that you shouldn’t lose because you’re smarter. It’s a cop out. You lost. Either man up or play a true game; sports may not be your thing.

Let’s get as simple as possible. Let’s imagine a fighting game that doesn’t require physical execution: Turn based.

Opponent walks into sweep range. Do you:

  1. Sweep
  2. whiff jab
  3. walk away
  4. jump in
  5. crouch block

Congratulations, fighting games are now a turn based rock paper scissors. What, too simple for your tastes? Except for going turn based, how else are you going to take reaction time out of the loop? How else is the player going to have time to think of and implement their strategy? Reaction time is a physical skill, not a strategic one.

Oh, you want reaction time to be in there as well; I assume you do, otherwise you’d be agreeing that turn based is the ultimate fighting game, which is ridiculous. Ok, so we leave reaction time in. Then our game becomes Karate Champ. A couple of rock paper scissors options, but the game resets whenever a single hit is scored; there is no ‘checkmate’ option; no fireball traps, no way of using positioning to trap your opponent. All of the risk/reward for ANY situation is exactly the same. Slightly more interactive RPS. Lame.

The point of each one of those traps as they currently exist is to setup a situation that is difficult for your opponent to get out of; from the game designer’s point of view, they want to leave SOME option available to get out of them. Thus, reversals. Reversals are definitely difficult for most games, and definitely a PHYSICAL execution problem, prone to error. If it was a simple matter if having all of the time in the world to select the ‘escape tick throw’ option, then the traps would be pointless; you’d actually be REMOVING strategy from the game. There’d be no point in trying to physically control space to setup a trap, because there’d be no such thing as a difficult trap to get out of.

Oh, you’re just talking about combos? There’s shouldn’t be any just frame, or otherwise difficult to execute combos; they should all be equally easy to perform? Sounds boring as hell, but I’ll humor you; we’re back to Karate Champ, or even Yie Ar Kung Fu. Set number of successfull attacks, no matter what, and the game or round is over. There’d be no point in choosing Zangief; SPD’s would do the damage of Sakura’s 2 frame jabs. There’d be no point in choosing Potemkin over Chipp. You’d take the option that gave you the best option of landing multiple hits.

Oh, character’s should have real damage based on their character. We agree on this, yes? No way a safe jab should do as much damage as a risky sweep, yes? Ok, so now each character has a combo that does some amount of damage. Chipp’s combo does a bit less damage than Potemkin’s because he has the manueverability to get multiple shots at doing the combo compared to Potemkin. With me so far? So now we’re closer to where we’re at now in today’s fighting game than Karate Champ because we’re introducing variety into those characters. Since the combo will do the same, we can even scratch most of the buttons and have a ‘combo’ button that will do this combo for us. There’s no reason to do anything else; if we have multiple buttons, and if we require timing and motion to pull off the combo, then we’re relying on the physical aspect and we want pure strategy. We definitely don’t want the ability to prematurely end the combo to go into an overhead reset or tick into throw; that would increase the damage the character does, and put the opponent in a situation requiring physical reaction time and execution (reversal) skills. So, single combos for everyone. Yuck. Instead of making the game purely strategic, you’re REMOVING strategy from the game.

Oh, you want those options in, but don’t like the idea of having to work on practicing. But, you do want the opponent to be in a situation that requires practiced execution and awesome reaction time to get out of? Deal with it, you can’t have it both ways.

Oh, you’re okay with characters having options for extended damage, them having the option of forgoing guaranteed damage for a chance of bigger damage and a remote possibility of resetting the match if the opponent executes properly? Good, glad to see you’re agreeing that execution is a core part of fighting game gameplay.

No one would play or watch basketball if the hoop was 3" off the ground. No one considers Tee Ball better than baseball because of the reliance on strategy over physical skills. No one considers WNBA better than the NBA because of the awesome fundamentals they display in passing the ball and teamwork.

The only way to take execution out of the fighting games is to take strategy out of the game, or make it a turn based game.

124

But will your arguement make things better in the future, or spawn the lazier players most are worried about?

To see the positive of your arguement, one could look at smash and it’s popularity, and the fact that complicated shit has been discovered that is considered standard among high ranked players. But looking at the complaints concerning wavedashing and wobbling I’ve seen from smash players, I have to wonder if the arguement about hard execution limiting options will ever go away. Especially since it’s a fact that fans will always find complicated shit no matter the system that some players won’t be able to preform and complain that they can’t.

125

Success!

126

yea, I agree with this. SF1 wasn’t popular because the game was too hard, the game wasn’t great to begin with.

well put toodles. That summed up everything and i’m still willing to bet money that people are still going to cry about execution being too excessive.

127

Ok, let’s look at 3rd Strike… Ken for instance.

If you get the opportunity, you can either:

  1. Target Combo -> SA3

  2. Cr. MP -> SA3

Which of these takes more execution skill to perform?

Said option #1? Good.
What’s the DIFFERENCE between these three? One point of damage (if against Chun. Not sure what it would do against a taunted Q, or Akuma, for instance).
Which of these options will you use when it presents itself? If you can’t execute the first, you’ll take the guaranteed damage that option 2 presents.

Now, if you DON’T have a stock and want the biggest damage possible, you’re left with one option:

  1. Target Combo, Jab Shoryu, Kara Shoryu

This demands alot from a player, but it’s SA-style damage without using a level.

This is an example of good execution-to-reward ratio. You have other, less-damaging options, such as Cr.MP -> EX Tatsu (if half-stock or more), Cr. MP/MK -> Roundhouse Tatsu, etc.

Now, in a game like Guilty Gear, the simpler combo without the execution requirement of the Kara Shoryu might do a piddly 10% damage. If you have the execution, though, your potential shoots to 50% for the same mistake. Logically, only those with that skill will get the 50%, so anyone who can only do the smaller combo will have to play 5 times the strategic game to encourage the mistake 5 times, and avoid making one in the same timeframe. THIS is where the artificial barrier exists and turns away players, and a bad example of execution-to-reward.

128

I copied onto wordpad a number of posts from numerous people here but upon seeing your reply here I deleted them so I can focus on you.

My main examples will encircle CvS2 and Tekken 4 (for its brokeness)

  1. Tekken has a number of “button mash” characters. In the hands of scrubs, that’s all they will ever be, button mash characters.
    Left to scrubs who’d never know any better (who have no competition against
    anyone who dominates, which thus would force them to adapt to overcome the
    techniques that they see while getting pummeled but can’t recognize through
    hindsight and detect a pattern and learn to bait and punish) and the game
    would eventually loose depth and balance.
    Depth has been brought up countless times in this thread, hardly defined really.
    I am not going to try, but the term itself seems like an umbrella for the numerous factors that make a game “deep,” rather than "bland."
    However, many will argue, even you have stated such, that Tekken is probably
    the closest we will get to lowering execution while keeping depth.

    The difference is that we are those who are in the know.
    Those scrubs that buy the game and throw drunken house parties who
    try to earnestly beat the others and dominate their tiny scene won’t recognize
    depth unless one of them at least takes the game seriously and recognizes
    patterns, ranges of normals, and learns what “simple execution” there is
    for his/her favorite character, but to do that requires adaptation and the
    willingness to practice against those of similar ability (meaning those who can
    adapt).
    And while Tekken has “simple execution,” many of its characters have lots
    of such moves, it then becomes a game of memorization of those moves,
    discovering which ones work and which ones don’t through Practice.
    And Tekken has Lots of those moves.

    And yet there we have Tekken 4, with a few characters that dominate virtually
    the entirety of the rest of the cast, along with the vastness of their movesets,
    because of the general superiority of those few moves.
    It became merely a game between Steve and Jin.
    There was no overcoming or adapting in the end. No characters will come close
    to the dominance that those two had over the cast, in Tekken 4.

Without some resource, or some top players with the knowledge, those aforementioned scrubs would only have learned of all this in the end through practice, whether it be in training mode, or against each other.

2)Actually I think I beat Tekken like a dead horse with 1), so we’ll skip to 3.
I forget what the initial question your response here to was.

3)Practice for unlimited hours,
Just so you can play how you want to play?
You play with what you have.
What you want is entirely dependant on how much you are willing to put in,
after all.
With games with “depth,” you have characters that dominate and are simpler
in terms of execution, and yes, this is 2D we’re talking about here, and
characters that dominate still in the same 2D field but require more work, more adaptability to overcome the afforementioned strengths of the former. More effort perhaps, but the effort put in could be rewarding for those who put in the time if they feel so inclined.
Otherwise they can settle for striving to be the best with the simpler character that dominates.

Keeping all this in mind, it sounds like it’s not just an arguement based on execution, but on playing to win with non-top tiers.

Oh yeah, example above. C-Groove Sagat vs P-Groove Kyo.

And how does strategy and adaptability and stuff fit in all that? Knowledge of the game in its entirety plays a factor in determining how deep a games is IMO.
CvS2 Blanka owns on the ground with his RC elec
K-Rock owns Blanka (IMO) period. Whatever I’ll put in an example, scrub Blanka jumps in with intent to use j.HK, Rock anti-airs with s.HK.
RC Scrub Blanka RC Elecs over K-Rock, K-Rock -too many options to answer with.
In the end though that Rock has to work his ass off, because the things Blanka has do dominate, because when you think about it most of his BS consists of less work.

Then you have things which some people cannot do like Blanka’s simple B&B’s, which involve rather difficult to learn links for newbs, but those are the differences that make the world go round, yes? Blanka still would own without that B&B.
“Balance” is hardly effected in the game if you don’t practice that.
“Balance” is a double-edged sword, 'careful what you wish for. :wasted:That is another discussion entirely.
We are talking execution right?

Simply put, C-Sagat can still get around and own A-Blanka’s hyped execution based top player stuff, because no matter how you look at it in CvS2, he is still Sagat, and he doesn’t need that stuff.

We are talking under the assumption that low forward / down fierce xx super is easy right?

4)This is not true. Some good players master the hard stuff that will in the end help them dominate lesser skilled players so far as execution is concerned, others will stick to the simpler stuff unless they feel inspired to do better. Not everything difficult is left just to execution alone, in itself anyway. Quick paced mindgames associated with overwhelmin rushdown requires execution simply just because. You’re constantly inputting numerous moves and mixups which could be surprisingly simple but horrendously confusing for the opponent if they can’t deal with it and adapt.
In the end, it’s that latter quality there that seperates the average, the good from the great and all of the above from the scrub.

5)Is throwing a simple hadoken really that difficult?
Reading the numerous posts in the thread make me wonder.
Perhaps for new players, yes, but I move that the whole execution being the barrier arguement is simply the result of the limited controls we have. There are only so many ways in SF for example to throw punches and kicks. Lets say there are 6 ways total. No. Too many characters act the same. Let’s give them some forward + fierce, down forward + roundhouse moves.
What? Special moves? Oh. Well um.
Let’s see, double tap forward is taken, well it is an 8 directional joystick, let’s make quarter circle motions, half circle motions + kicks and punches, that’ll solve our problem.

Years later you get things like MvC2, which has ways to get supers out just by hitting all the buttons and instead of qcf x 2 + P for a certain super just input qcf + PP.

In a way, it seems like that game is "simpler"
CvS2 sticks to its old roots, but the windows for commands are longer, sure there are links but you get to do things like escape throws simply by making sure the “up” direction is hit in the execution of your specials.
Of course you have to see the throw coming, which comes through experience.
Of course to do that technique correctly it will require some execution.
Then again, lots of things in that game weren’t intentional, just like how Steve Fox and Jin Kazama weren’t intentionally designed to be the sole 2 playable characters in Tekken 4.

X) Okay, so Execution itself is a “barrier.” I remind you that no matter how you look at it Execution will exist and it will always be a “barrier.” If throws and specials and supers in CvS2 were one button moves a person’s execution will still be factor, and will still be hindered if they don’t know the system in its entirety, and practice. Moves will always have frame data, recovery and all that stuff.

What, the game should adapt to the player so the player feels good when they win because things went their way?

Aforementioned said person will get rushed down and owned just because the “psychic dragonpunch” will get him/her.

129

Isn’t there a difference between tough execution and… shitty controls?

Believe it or not, alot of newer games that have tougher execution also have a ton of shortcuts and much larger margin for motion completion.

130

Oh, the controls might well have been shit, but that has little to do with the fact that the special moves were specifically programmed to require on-the-dot timing. Their thought process: since knowing the special moves is a major strategic advantage, naturally they should be harder to do. Kind of like what a lot of people in this thread are saying.

131

I think some people are missing what the thread was trying to point out. In a lot of fighting games there is a lot of execution needed just to actually do something remotely good in game. There will ALWAYS be a harder to preform combo that exists that gives you better options; however that doesn’t mean they (developers) should go out of the way to make the artificially harder barrier.

Roman cancels are an important integral part of GG, the FRC becomes even more important because it gives even more options for less meter. My personal experience with GG is that I understood a lot of the high level play, have played the game a lot and put quite my share of hours in the game. Then when it comes time to learn the game I can’t do the “bread n butter” BASIC attacks that use meter because the FRCs are so hard but essential. It’s ridiculously frustrating and worse is the fact that I’d probably be playing GG at a semi competitvely level right now if it weren’t the case.

Now for a different example; Third Strike. Third Strike has EX moves, they’re good and don’t really take much more execution than any regular move. THey add to the gameplay without making it stupid hard to play. Basic links and cancels into supers aren’t too hard, but are good and an integral part fo the game. Now, when I play with people I still lose; not because they can kara throw and use the tighter links but because they understand the game better.
EDIT: EX moves are a bad example, but whatever.
As my execution in the game gets better so does my understanding of the game. I think that’s important.

Execution isn’t bad though, consistency is always needed and if you don’t practice execution you lose. Newcomers shouldn’t automatically be able to have all the options as a pro, however, they don’t need to be handicapped. I hope I got the point across. At any rate, if you really want to keep playing, you’ll develop better either better execution or a way to keep up. Look at Preppy, he admits to having bad execution, but he is definitely not a bad player.

132

This reminds me, I sort of miss the days where no one knew all the special moves. You had to somehow find them yourself, and then yeah you keep it a secret so you had an advantage over the other guy.

Yeah I think one of the biggest things with FRCs is that it adds a huge strategical advantage over someone that can’t do them. I mean what, they can make an unsafe move safe now, they can bring you closer to your opponent with certain moves keeping pressure, they can give you initiative advantages etc. I mean shit, adding damage to a combo almost seems like an afterthought for them now.

I think that’s one of the issues.
It probably wouldn’t be so bad IMO for players if all moves that could be FRC’d could also be RC’d, but it seems like there are bunch of moves that only have FRC capabilities. Maybe I’m wrong? I mean RC’s already take much more meter than an FRC but there’s moves that only can be FRC’d.

Hey, you know how you can watch a combo video for a game and be like “yeah but you don’t need, or probably can’t get something like that off in a match anyway.” I think alot of the issue now is that, you NEED and MUST get things like that off in a match in order to implement a successful gameplan.

133

There are varying degrees of difficulty in FRCs though. Truthfully, I’ve had no qualms with working on my game to be able to do them. I will admit, it was a daunting task when I first started playing GG and now I can look back and realize how much my work in the game has paid off. The feeling of improvement is the best. Isn’t that what we should be aiming for?

134

When the Internet was still beginning to proliferate in civilian homes, I saw a guy bring a sheet of moves printed off of Usenet into the arcade. It cracked me up, watching him try to read the sheet and play the game at the same time. He was easy pickin’s, and this was before I ever devoted any real time to fighting games.

135

Yeah.

You just got to have both types of games though, but it seems like all of the newer games are just walled high execution requirements. And the ones that don’t have high execution, the game’s system itself is unbalanced depth wise(imo DOA). Or the game’s near or over 10 years old.

I think people just want another type of game too. Atleast a variety of newer games to choose from.

Haha sounds like this cat tried to have his capcom competitive edge.
We used to try doing that with GamePro for Mortal Kombat II, though.

136

That’s right. I have spent a lot of time reading this topic and carefully thinking about where people are coming from. I understand the artificial barrier of execution messes things up for the “new guy.”

As people know Arcana Heart just came out on console. If you’ve played the game, you will know about the INSANE execution requirements in this game. In my opinion, even HARDER than GG. But, I really want to like the game and no execution barrier is going to stop me from getting good at it. I think the challenge of discovering a game’s inner-most traits are one of the most enjoyable things that you or I as a video game player can do. I totally scrub-out on Arcana, but the sheer difficulty of the game makes me keep coming back for more, to learn new things and to explore.

We don’t all need to be high-level players, we just need to find that spot where we will be happy with ourselves and enjoy the game we love to play.

137

This thread sucks so fucking bad it’s actually impressive

Shitty hand eye coordination means you’re never going to make it. diediediedie

no more of this shit plz

138

This sure doesn’t explain why it’s hard to get new people in the fighting game community:confused:

[Quote]
But, I really want to like the game and no execution barrier is going to stop me from getting good at it.
[/Quote]

That’s probably the best attitude we can take when dealing with execution; you either want to do it you don’t. (Speaking of which, Marvel is kicking my ass, but I come back for more).

139

this reply is not true now in accent core…
many many characters of the cast don’t need to use frcs anymore, cuz now they save it for forcebreaks and supers (both are easy to execute).
sure sol still needs his gunflame frc, but what about eddie? testa? slayer? may? jam? etc. etc.

so the series is going in the right dircetion…

140

Testament still uses his EXE Beast FRCs, but for the rest of the characters you’ve mentioned their FRCs, it’s true that their FRCs are not essential, but rather good to know.

Just another thought I had, I think I remember reading that the artificial barrier was barring people from “high-level” play. But, isn’t that why is called “high-level” play because only a select few can obtain it? Maybe I’m getting the wrong impression here, but shouldn’t be attaining something called “high-level” be a challenge?