Don’t leave vids embeded when you quote, it’s an infraction.
Pit, you might want to edit the videos out of the quote.
Also, don’t get me wrong. While I feel that at their very core, there are a few basic fundamental similarities between, say, SFIV and Fight Night, I also know why “Street Fighter and Blazblue” are more similar and related games than “Street Fighter and Fight Night” or “Street Fighter and Power Stone.” I’m operating on being able to separate the concept of “straight up SRK fighting games” (SF, KOF, GGX) and “the family tree of fighting games” (SF, WWE games, UFC games, Smash).
I think games in the first category of traditionally acknowledged fighters will always exist in some capacity because there will always be at least a small, dedicated audience for them. But the industry as a whole is bleeding for money, and accessibility to the much aligned “non-hardcore gamer” will be necessary for survival. What I personally want to see, and where I think we’ll find a real evolution in fighting games, will stem from that second category of fighting games, which derives a heavy amount of influence from outside of the traditional fighters.
Like I said earlier, Baldur’s Gate, Deus Ex, Final Fantasy and Persona are all considered RPGs. Sure, there are distinctions like “WRPG” and “JRPG” but these are still recognized as subgenres of the greater RPG concept. Fighting games are organized in a very similar way, but few seem to want to acknowledge that Smash/WWE/Street Fighter are related. Dissimilar in execution and ideal, yes, absolutely so, but still related.
Randomness and customization makes no difference to the fact a game is a fighter or not, there have been multiple fighters in the past with both customization and randomness eg 3d mortal kombat games, bloody roar 4, soul calibur 4, etc. now even if these games suck and fail on a competitive level they are still fighting games. Smash is not a fighting game because of tripping or items but because the creator of the game never set out to make a fighting game but instead something else, call it a party game or a VS platformer or whatever personally i see it in the genera as Bomberman a game i grew up with and love, and i don’t flip my shit when some one tells me bomberman is not a fighting game.
nah man people dont take mugen seriously because its an absolute mess and its community is 90% full of retards. That said there are some original projects that have been received fairly well here on SRK
lol i don’t want to get into a Bloody Roar argument and further derail this thread but ok ill bite.
Bloody Roars mechanics fall inline with any other fighting game the beast system is more akin to something like V-ism or Darkforce you use meter to enhance your character something not uncommon in many 2d fighters, at its heart BR is exactly that a 2d fighter. As for doing moves and combos its no easier than any other fighting game, each character has command moves just like in street fighter hadoken motions, srk motions, TK motions, 360s, etc none of these moves have shortcuts so i fail to see how these can be considered easy compared to any other fighter other than perhaps I-No from Guilty Gear. Combos are the same sure some characters have easier combos like Gado (66B 214B 8P 236B) while other characters have more complex combos like Jenny (22B air cancel 8K 2B K air cancel BBB 4P 214P(cancel on the first frame) 4P 214K aircancel 2P+K) and others require high dexterity/focus to keep going like Shina’s AC loop (66B 214B air cancel K 6B x4 236B) but how is this different from many other fighting games.
Anyway if you can find me one person that seriously considers Bloody Roar anything other than a fighting game i shall concede defeat lol
so back on topic?
We technically kinda are on topic. We are discussing the evolution of fighting games, what seems to not be allowed, a a very strict set of rules that makes someone who makes a different kind of fighter IE: Smash are not even considered fighting games. So it seems as though the the genre could never evolve becuase between 1995 and now, fighters have not changed much since. With the exception of notable games like Power Stone.
3D fighters like Tekken and Soul Calibur are a lot different from 2D fighters like Street Fighter yet no one has any problem calling them all fighting games. I think the fighting game genre can be broad enough to include Smash Bros., so here’s how I think we should classify them:
2D Fighter: Street Fighter, Marvel vs. Capcom
3D Fighter: Tekken, Soul Calibur
Platform Fighter: Smash Bros.
My question is, why do a lot of people seem to have a problem with accessibility for newer players? The same people that whine about comeback mechanics seem to forget that they have them as well. Playing a game that doesn’t have comeback mechanics or a higher execution barrier doesn’t make you more hardcore. It doesn’t mean that you play **“real” **fighting games. It just means that those are the types of games you like.
It’s almost like people want the fighting game scene to remain underground and daunting for newcomers, then turn around and wonder why more people aren’t in said scene.
They were accessible 20 years ago when there was no comeback mechanics, why do they “need them so new players can have chance” now? We were all new at some point. Giving something to the kid who bought the game yesterday to keep up with good people who’ve been playing for a while is dangerous.
Comeback mechanics don’t make a game accessible. They just add another arbitrary layer for new players to learn.
Why? It’s not like some random newbie is going to win Evo on his first try. They still have to learn how to play, adapt, and strategize.
You end up with mechanics like XF and Ultra which end up widening the gap even further once the better player figures out alternative uses (i.e. Wolverine players).
It’s dangerous to add anything that violently tips the scale to one side or the other.
Ultras shouldn’t even be used as an example, because they’re mostly useless outside of combos.
As for XF, the thing about that is that the newer player can learn those alternative uses as well. So it’s not something that’s out of reach for a lot of players, like, say, if it was something that was execution-related.
evolution in fighting games is going nowhere when the only game making the big numbers isn’t a fighting game in the first place.
But I don’t get why comeback mechanics make a game so successful. Did they REALLY need Pandora mode in SFxTK. The game would have sold on the name alone. I never see commercials advertise these comeback mechanics. Is Capcom (the are the only real offender) trolling us?
Ultras make certain options much riskier (tipping the scale). The better player knows when to use the ultras, what not to do when up against each Ultra and has the execution to use it in multiple ways. It’s just another thing in the game they have to learn to use which widens the gap between new and learned players. You really expect new players to know how to get around 78 Ultras?
Newer player is going to get hit once and lose 2 characters to XF and get frustrated at how quick his team got dismantled. Then he’s left jumping around with his XF3 character as the learned player runs away and throws shit in his way as he tries to fight back. Or if the newer player is winning and their opponent pops XF3, loses the game in 10 seconds and is like “wow really? all that I did and he gets this super power at the end that’s better than everything in the game?”
None of it sounds like something to help new players out. They are available to everyone and the better player will always know how to use it better. All it does is force new players to learn even more before getting into the game and make the game “worse”. When did accessible mean adding more features to the game? They’ll just be forced to learn a bunch of things before they can even begin really playing.
Thing is, those “old heads” aren’t the majority anymore. Also, just because **they **can master the combo in 5 minutes doesn’t mean that everyone else can. High execution is more of a talent than something that can be learned. There are plenty of games for them to play with high execution requirements. Blazblue, KOF, Guilty Gear…every game doesn’t need to cater solely to the hardcore audience.
And since when do comeback mechanics negate the possibility of a comeback without them? Remember Combofiend’s Bionic Arm moment? No X-Factor, solo Spencer. Or hell, look at this past Evo. Justin Wong took out an entire team with Akuma, no X-Factor, and way less life than he had at his Evo 2007 comeback.
Comeback mechanics don’t impede your ability to learn, adapt, and play better. If you’re a good player, then they’re just one more tool you have in your arsenal.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
I get what you’re saying, but you act like new players can’t become better players. Not every casual is going to pick up the game, get stomped, then trade it in for Halo. Some of them will actually want to learn how not to get beaten like they did. With sites like this, Eventhubs, and YouTube, they have access to the same resources that you and I do. They can learn how to avoid certain situations, and it’s something that they don’t have to spend months doing just to be considered decent at it. They may have more to learn, but if the stuff that they have to learn isn’t very difficult, then it’s not much of a problem.
Except that plenty of those same players have said things that they don’t like. Justin has said in a few interviews that he thinks today’s games are too geared towards casual players. Also, news flash, but every player that plays these games isn’t sponsored. Fighting games aren’t made solely for top players. Who cares if someone like Justin or Sanford doesn’t like a game? If I bought it, and I enjoy it, then that’s all that really matters.
You are aware that life regenerates in the Vs. series, right?
So what if the game has low execution? One less thing to worry about. Why should I have my strategy and adaptation down, only to lose because I messed up a pretzel motion? Oh, and MVC2 ain’t exactly the benchmark for high execution.