I can’t speak for others, but there are quite a few reasons why I haven’t bothered posting in this thread…
I very much am someone who doesn’t like to judge a game by it’s cover, and I have only less than a handful of games in my arsenal that I can say I have played enough of to really give concrete opinions on how said games play at a higher level. I’d feel silly throwing out names for games I have only played for small periods of times (Yet will do so in this post), even if I know they are games which rightfully deserve a spot, I personally, haven’t played them enough to know. I mean, I suppose the list I made would be accurate to my knowledge, and it would be “my” list, but it would also be objectively wrong in certain places due to my own ignorance, and I don’t like being ignorant. I’m ignorant enough in real life, I don’t want to be ignorant about games too.
Secondly, and, this is kind of the real reason… you didn’t specify criteria to use to define “tech.” This could be so many things. Is it how difficult a game is to play at a high level? Is it the amount of variables you have to account for at any given time? Perhaps the amount of weird oddities you have to know?
I mean, SFIV is a “tech” heavy game, in the sense that it’s riddled with option selects, but otherwise, it’s very simplistic. Contrary, as a 3S player, I feel like 3S isn’t very “tech” heavy, in the sense that you need to know a lot of asinine shit to do well in that game. 3S feels very fundamental to me, and very few 3S specific tech is required to do well in that game, or so I feel. Yet, despite that, you could then argue that 3S does have a large “tech” requirement, due to the amount of variables that go on between each matchup. There’s a lot of character specific stuff that you need to know: normals that whiff, combos that drop, when you should parry (yes that is character specific) and just a heap ton of other stuff. Is that tech to you or game knowledge? (Latter for me.)
If you’re defining tech as something acquired by abusing the game systems in ways that an average player wouldn’t think to use them in, then something like Smash, Tekken or SNK2 would be up there.
If you’re defining tech as something akin to game knowledge required to do well, and the ability to play well using the game mechanics which are in play and with superior match-up knowledge, then my list would probably favor more games like 3S, KoF, Tekken, and Guilty Gear. I mean, from a mechanical perspective, the amount of variables and knowledge capable in the latest or close to-it version of GGXX is pretty ridiculous. That game has so many mechanics in it, it’s pretty nuts, and as a result, a heck of a lot to know.
Shrugs
I think this thread would be better with a more concrete definition. You’re including too many variables, which is adding hesitance to anyone who might have wanted to post a list.
Also not sure why you even put Rising Thunder on your list, it’s way too early to even attempt to evaluate where that game will fall as far as depth. Currently, if I wanted to be hypocritical and rank it now, it would be very low. There is not much in that game that is not pretty obvious. It’s pretty much just fundamentals. Very little tech involved.