irfaanator
Banned
every fighting game should be like the best fighting game divekick. I dont know why that isnt at EVO
The example you give seems bizarre to me. Why would you need to have a tutorial on how to look at the screen? (I'm assuming you mean the interface). If I was making a game where I felt that I had to explicitly tutorial players on how to read the interface, then I might begin considering a redesign of the interface.
Lets go back into DOA5.
Playing replays of your online or offline matches with the amount of data offered here is quite amazing to learn from your mistakes and tweak your playstyle. They could add a forward and backward feature in the future game cause that would be a bit more helpful if I wanna repeat a scene but still amazing to see.
Ah, so someone who has no idea what they're doing can beat a pro Smash player?
That's because nobody actually knows how to teach how to play a fighting game.Absolutely agreed. It's laughable how much these companies say they want to the make their accessible through easier execution, but do nothing to teach how to actually play a fighting game.
Teaches you a lot of stuff =/= accessibility. It's about the structure and pacing of information, as much as it is what is taught. I don't think GG really does that well.
And it also doesn't mean that that process is enjoyable. They gamify the opening... dashing tutorial, and then that style of presentation is dropped, it's not too long before you're sat their, grinding it out on combo trial 17 for hours on end, just like every other fighter.
Playing other players helps a tonne yes but you should also be able to achieve a certain level of competence alone, without wading through nonsense to do it. Placing the responsibility for the user experience on the user, reflects a failure of the game. Sure, it's a multiplayer game, designed to be better with people to play with, but it should also learn and develop a sense of competence with, without that.
Also, it's 2017, people shouldn't have to drive across town to play with someone. If that's the only way to get a good experience from your product then your game has failed. Not to mention, a lot of people don't have that option, the vast majority of players don't engage with their FGC, many of which don't have access to one. I used to run the FGC in my town and there was only so much I could learn because of the 20-40 players who used to attend I was among the top 2 players. There was only so much to learn playing against the other guy that was decent (Necalli) over and over). I invested a lot of time into my local FGC and while it did help, it wasn't an answer to these problems. I'm sure it is if you live next to Justin and he's happy to teach you footsies, but that's not everyone.
It wasn't mentioned because I don't own it. I only listed games that I own and have explored the menus with. That's also why I left KOF alone for most of it. I don't own it.
Dead or Alive 5 always gets snubbed when it comes to the tutorial conversation.
You got a deep tutorial
You got combo challenges which encourages you to learn some more things with the character you want to play.
You also get the traditional command training, free training and you even get frame data, damage values advantage, tracking data etc.
DOA5 for all the fan service it may have they also care about teaching people the mechanics well and went the extra mile giving people tools.
Well the PR dude said look for the doa championship for a announcement.As someone who loves fan-service, hawt women and good fighting games I wish a new DoA comes out soon
Of course not. But they can hop in and quickly learn all the moves (mostly the same inputs for every character and very simple) and have fun playing online against others mostly doing the same.
Vs. something like SF where it takes a lot of effort to learn the moves and you tend to get bodied online as the other newbies are often people who have played prior games, know more moves, know more fighting game fundamentals, or Tekken were even something like backdashing is complex.
Again, nothing wrong with those games, but clearly stuff like Smash sells more as its easier for newbies and scrubs to have fun than the more complex games.
What the genre is missing is good tools in the more complex games, or some type of popular game between a Smash and an SF/Tekken, that more gently and effectively teaches fundamentals and eases into more complex execution games.
the problem is that the systems are complex so explaining them succinctly in a way that isnt information overload is something i think is borderline impossible.
another thing is that the pace of a fighting game match is quick so learning how to implement these extremely situational things on a time table where the situation is constantly changing is something that 10 minutes in a tutorial isnt going to teach you how to do. GG and SG tried to cover basic fg mechanics like hit confirming or trying to react to mixups but im fairly confident these are things that can only be learned by lots of time playing matches or maybe in the lab.
Please, you are telling me you can design an icon that shows I have enough of a resource used to either break out of combos or to instantly fill my other resource meter depending when I use it without cluttering the screen? I'm talking about GG's Burst by the way.The example you give seems bizarre to me. Why would you need to have a tutorial on how to look at the screen? (I'm assuming you mean the interface). If I was making a game where I felt that I had to explicitly tutorial players on how to read the interface, then I might begin considering a redesign of the interface.
Guilty Gear literally does this in its FAQ, in a section about how to choose a character.Even grouping characters to reflect their play style has become a staple in other genres (like Overwatch / Battleborn). You could do that to reflect the type of range that a character likes to play in, that informs players what they should expect from the character, their play style, helps with understandability.
Which developer said that?Why do these developers believe that players don't want to learn how to play, when they have never tried to teach anyone how to play?
Not the same thing you are mentioning, but Dissidia had different AI patterns, each one with a name. So, the "Special Squall" would exclusively attack (or more appropriately, spam) his Blasting Zone attack, a huge beam that he swings down and breaks guard. As soon as you saw that category in the pre fight screen, you could customize your character to deal with it, or at least have a proper plan (in this case, dodge after Blasting Zone's sound cue and hit him back while he recovered).As I stated a number of years ago in a thread I started, I think that AI will be a great force in tutorial mechanics in fighting games and games in general in the future.
Imagine an AI that is able to instruct and train newbies better than any canned tutorial or a video.
.The community does a better job of creating training materials and instructional videos than the games will ever be able to do.
This is totally acceptable and idk why people are so against reading some forums or watching some YouTube tutorials to learn how to play a fighting game.
It's not like an in game tutorial is going to suddenly make you win anyway. You still need to put in the work and put in the time to learn.
And most importantly you need to put in the time losing matches to learn what not to do. This is the biggest barrier to new players, who think that losing is a problem that the game must fix for them.
Losing is part of the experience of learning the game. Losing a match means nothing. Learn from it and get better. It's the only way to stop losing.
A game like call of duty a new player can wander in and get a few kills and run around and be stupid and feel like they "won" a few times.
Fighting games don't have that. If you're just pushing buttons mindlessly you get destroyed. It's a fundamental difference with most console online experiences.
Of course it will never give the game burn, it's fanservice allows people who don't want to learn a new fighting game a easy out to pass on it. It has a very well desgined tutorial mode, it has frame data and other info. But it will never get credit for reasons that make it easy to write off. But I like what they are doing, make your own community and never try to convert people from the fgc, that is a fools errand.
...plus making that F2P approach that in the ended up working wonders for them.
.
I really do think that is the way forward for most fighters outside of the huge ones like Smash, Tekken, MK, Injustice etc. that sell on strength of the IP.
The KI approach is great as fans can just buy the season passes and be done with it, but casuals can try for free--including the meaty and well done tutorial.
SFV would have been well served to have just fully embraced that type of game as service model vs. getting hammered for the $60 barebones at launch with a season pass their day one approach they went with.
It's not me. It's them.I personally hope fighting game developers never try to appeal to people like you.
Overall giving options on how to get the game can work wonders. Some people can get encouraged to pay for a full package if they feel the little taste they get of the free version or pay for the content they want from it. Then you add the cosmetic aspects like DLC of loot boxes and you have some potential to attract more people into the game in that aspect. We are going off topic but its also another interesting aspect to explore as a conversation piece.
Challenge modes aren't tutorials.
Learning isn't fun.
There is a limit to how much you can learn from reading/listening, you should try stuff for yourself.
I do agree that there is a presentation/information architecture issue to be addressed in the genre, but most of your complaints aren't the actual problems. I'm also not sure why you are equaling accessibility to learning. Stylish mode in Blazblue makes the game instantly accessible and has its own learning curve if you so wish to explore it, since there are multiple branches for combos just alternating button presses. Yeah, that doesn't make you learn how to play footsies properly, but it does makes the game more accessible to those who want to do flashy stuff and/or have weak execution and/or want quick pick up and play game.
Now here is the crazy thing: CS:GO doesn't teach you the proper way of grouping with people, camping spots or how to use smoke grenades. No MOBA tells you "that item use useless for this character, and that one is better at the end of the match and not the start". Rocket League doesn't teach you advanced movement or meta. And nobody complains about it. It's always fighting games.
Please, you are telling me you can design an icon that shows I have enough of a resource used to either break out of combos or to instantly fill my other resource meter depending when I use it without cluttering the screen? I'm talking about GG's Burst by the way.
Guilty Gear literally does this in its FAQ, in a section about how to choose a character.
Which developer said that?
Not the same thing you are mentioning, but Dissidia had different AI patterns, each one with a name. So, the "Special Squall" would exclusively attack (or more appropriately, spam) his Blasting Zone attack, a huge beam that he swings down and breaks guard. As soon as you saw that category in the pre fight screen, you could customize your character to deal with it, or at least have a proper plan (in this case, dodge after Blasting Zone's sound cue and hit him back while he recovered).
People around me usually complained that those single move spamming CPU opponents were too hard. Figures.
Only slightly off topic as one big way to make fighting games more accessible is building a bigger base of casual players to help with matchmaking.
As earlier, things like Smash, MK, Injustice are more newbie friendly is they have larger player bases and thus there are more newbie/scrub players for people to find similar skilled matches against.
They want you to sit there and try to S rank it, they want you to be willing to invest some time and learn, they want you to go back and try again later, they expect you to try and learn the missions in order.If people are using challenge modes to learn to play the game then they become tutorial. Good games are designed around the user. If you leave people with no instruction on how to learn combos, then provide a set of combos that players can learn in a 'challenge mode' people are going to use that as a tutorial.
People go to those menus looking for help, looking to learn. The same was true on SFIV, where trials were the only resource of that type in the game. It taught players a load of rubbish information. You could even see the effects online, as people parroted unsafe and useless BNBs from the games trials, because it was the only resource of its type that the game made available to it.
Ultimately, the challenge moniker doesn't enable it to escape criticism. It's embeded in the training menu in Guilty Gear Xrd Rev 2, and the challenges are the only character-specific content that the game offers within the Dojo.
As far as the iconography goes. It could definitely be clearer than it is in GGrd, however not everything needs to be explicitly taught to the player either. Would it not make sense to introduce that mechanic (and the associated UI element) when introducing the meter system? In general GGs information architecture is a mess. 52 basic mission items with no meaningful prioritisation of what it intends to teach.
Hell, the most basic example of poor information architecture is embeded in the menu itself, the items are categorised as 'mission' 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to 51', they're not sorted by type, combat, defensive, system, or anything else to help the player focus on what they might want to learn. Players need to read a paragraph of text because the titles (which aren't presented on the list items themselves) are vague and non-descriptive words like 'intercepting'. Players that are stuck because they don't understand the mission are forced to fail x number of times to reveal the hint, it's non-nonsensically obtuse.
Launched quickly KI on PC and took some quick images.OP you should highlight Killer Instinct in the OP and what it does right (if you've played it). I think that could be valuable info.
They expect the player who wants to learn to actually want to learn.
Playing against real players is often overwhelming for new players as well and they need to improve the CPU AI so that it's actually possible to learn the game by playing against the CPU (Ive heard that fighting the CPU teaches nothing about actually playing against other real players?)
DOA celebrated 8 million downloads in January 2017 and from what I gather the DLC content sells pretty well to the point they have kept releasing DLC all these years and getting collaborations with different companies from other videogames, manga and anime. Killer Instinct Microsoft was celebrating last year 6 million unique users and as well continue to support the game with new seasons.
This encourages developers to keep supporting the game in the long run with balance updates, new characters and cosmetics without having to buy a new game the next year and adds longevity to the games and if the people trying that f2p version get encouraged to learn more they can just splurge more money on the full package.
I don't know how viable it is but my big weakness is execution. When I played music, I started songs at half speed and slowly sped up until I can play at regular speed. I don't know if that's viable but it's been part of my requests for every fighting game that asks for feedback
Give me examples. Plus, even if you do want to use the challenge mode in GG to learn, guess what, GG does it in a good way. It teaches you a knockdown combo as the first thing. Then some special confirms. Then a anti-air. Then a jump cancel. Then a dust combo.If people are using challenge modes to learn to play the game then they become tutorial. Good games are designed around the user. If you leave people with no instruction on how to learn combos, then provide a set of combos that players can learn in a 'challenge mode' people are going to use that as a tutorial.
Fair enough, and I don't anybody can disagree the genre lacks in game information in general.People go to those menus looking for help, looking to learn. The same was true on SFIV, where trials were the only resource of that type in the game. It taught players a load of rubbish information. You could even see the effects online, as people parroted unsafe and useless BNBs from the games trials, because it was the only resource of its type that the game made available to it.
Mission mode says hi.Ultimately, the challenge moniker doesn't enable it to escape criticism. It's embeded in the training menu in Guilty Gear Xrd Rev 2, and the challenges are the only character-specific content that the game offers within the Dojo.
Yes it would, but I am explicitly calling out your argument about redesigning the whole interface if you need outside information to read it. As a graphic design undergrad student (or grad student? I always get confused with the proper English terms for education) I think that's a bullshit ideal that UX/UI people follow. There is no way someone can take a look at something like the GRD gauge in Under Night and know everything there is to know about it - and that's fine.As far as the iconography goes. It could definitely be clearer than it is in GGrd, however not everything needs to be explicitly taught to the player either. Would it not make sense to introduce that mechanic (and the associated UI element) when introducing the meter system? In general GGs information architecture is a mess. 52 basic mission items with no meaningful prioritisation of what it intends to teach.
Absolutely agreed, but I do think you are seriously overestimating how many people would use (and learn something out of) the mode no matter the case.Hell, the most basic example of poor information architecture is embeded in the menu itself, the items are categorised as 'mission' 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to 51', they're not sorted by type, combat, defensive, system, or anything else to help the player focus on what they might want to learn. Players need to read a paragraph of text because the titles (which aren't presented on the list items themselves) are vague and non-descriptive words like 'intercepting'. Players that are stuck because they don't understand the mission are forced to fail x number of times to reveal the hint, it's non-nonsensically obtuse.
You avoided my MOBA comparison, and you're underestimating how hard it is to people who never touched a controller to read or control something like Rocket League or FPSes.I feel that your analogy to Rocket League and CS:GO misses the point. Those games don't have a comparable mechanical barrier between the player and being able to achieve what they want to, on screen. Additionally, they also have good matchmaking so that players can easily access players of their skill level at any time. You're comparing games where many players can't even execute the basic moveset, to games where the controls is inherently accessible, designed from the staples of two of the most successful genres in the industry. Heck, CS:GOs mechanical depth is determined by the accuracy of mouse movement, something that many, many people are likely to engage with every day.
Additionally, the mechanical depth to those games scales off of a single mechanic (accuracy) that people have a basic grasp of within moments of starting the game. Not to mention, everyone they play against wants to do the same thing as they do, so they don't have to worry about understanding each character, instead focusing on strategic components (often specific to each map).
As someone that wants to learn fighting games I agree with the OP.
The biggest annoyance for me is that it is never fun to learn the game. They need to work on fun and interactive methods for teaching the game mechanics. It's often really boring to learn a fighting game and that usually makes me want to give up.
Playing against real players is often overwhelming for new players as well and they need to improve the CPU AI so that it's actually possible to learn the game by playing against the CPU (Ive heard that fighting the CPU teaches nothing about actually playing against other real players?)
Playing against real players is often overwhelming for new players as well and they need to improve the CPU AI so that it's actually possible to learn the game by playing against the CPU (Ive heard that fighting the CPU teaches nothing about actually playing against other real players?)
Could tutorials be better? Yes, of course. I'd like to see a guitar hero-like display for button inputs, to learn the proper timing more easily.
However, I feel it's not that important in the big picture. There isn't a big crowd of people that would get into FG if they had better tutorials.
You can learn but you would learn more in practice mode, the cpu can teach you very bad habits. it's usually incredibly easy for a player who plays other people and has a deeper understanding of the game to beat someone who has only ever played the CPU or his friends.
There shouldn't be anything overwhelming about playing other people, even if you lose really badly. It's so easy to record matches and watch them over again. Pretty much every major fighting game lets you go into practice mode and record something and play it back. This will teach you far more than just fighting the CPU. Get online with people that have good connections, leave the ego at the door and just learn. Friend people who beat your ass so you can have more matches with them and continue to learn from them. Record your matches, see what is hitting you, learn what you can do to avoid that situation again. You will learn more from watching one match and repeating it in practice mode than you will against 100 cpu fights.
The best advice I ever got when I wanted to learn how to play Tekken was to lose my first 1000 matches as quickly as possible
You know, I'd love to see a REAL back-to-basics fighting game. I don't need a huge roster, countless moves or combos that last half an hour. Just a simple game that's easy to pick up and play. For example, I'd love to see a modern version of International Karate +.
Any recent games that fit those criteria?
Didn't get far into Bayonetta, but I like how the tutorial showed you a list of possible combos that narrowed down based on what you already pressed. At least you could be in the action while learning.
Yomi (available as physical card game too), Black and White Bushido, Nidhogg, Samurai Gunn, Divekick, Gundam VS, Arms, Rivals of Aether, Last Fight, Pocket Rumble...You know, I'd love to see a REAL back-to-basics fighting game. I don't need a huge roster, countless moves or combos that last half an hour. Just a simple game that's easy to pick up and play. For example, I'd love to see a modern version of International Karate +.
Any recent games that fit those criteria?