• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fighting Games are Approaching Accessibility Wrong

A Pretty Panda

fuckin' called it, man
It's sad how off the mark they are when it comes to making fighting games more "casual friendly".


When it was done perfectly over 15 years ago:

Super_Smash_Bros_Melee_box_art.png
You know there was a game before this one that did the same shit right?

No Race To The Finish so 64 is much better
 

FACE

Banned
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?

Koihime Enbu
 

KingBroly

Banned
I feel like devs would be better off building something into their game that can direct people to community folks that can teach their game better rather than trying to build that system in themselves.

Also games should have more information (frame data!) to help those community folks out.

'we don't know how to teach players how to play, so we'll have the players do it for us' is a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE way of doing things. It's also incredibly lazy.

If a game has zero or almost no community, the game will never be learned. Relying on an invisible player base to teach the game when the game isn't out yet is terrible game design.

SFV's "demonstrations" are also awful. They're just videos. They show me things, but don't actually require my input. Killer Instinct has these, but they actually require my input.
 

Anth0ny

Member
You know there was a game before this one that did the same shit right?

No Race To The Finish so 64 is much better

melee perfected the formula bruh

but yeah I'd give smash 64 credit too.



The main problem I think with fighting games today is the that that they feel they NEED to keep those arcade style commands alive. In an era where kids grow up playing games on mobile where the controls are:

1. tap screen to do the thing
2. that's it

There isn't a chance in fuck they're going to understand quarter circle forward + punch. As basic and easy as it is for us fighting game vets, it's just not gonna fucking happen. My younger cousins can barely move the analog stick forward and hit the jump button at the same time in Banjo Kazooie. The 90s are over. Kids aren't wandering into arcades and learning how to work an arcade stick and buttons to get the most out of the quarters their mom gave them.

Smash Bros simplifies the controls of a fighting games. The controls work and are simplified to work on a regular controller, not an arcade stick. There are no tutorials neccesary or giant move lists by pressing pause because everyone has the same inputs. You know what up + b will do no matter what the character. You know what smashing forward + a is going to do no matter the character. You're always learning no matter what character you're playing.

If Capcom thinks Marvel Infinite is going to appeal to casuals with the way they're approaching accessibility they're fucking kidding themselves.
 

Clawww

Member
Information overload is one of my biggest issues with some FGs. I'm decent at fighting games but Guilty Gear XRD Signs tutorial with its massive information dump of a tutorial made me never touch that game again.

I had forgotten stuff it taught me by the time the entire tutorial was over. What a mess.
This really bothers me. Why do you feel that you should have retained every little detail after running through the tutorial? I don't play RTS games but I wouldn't expect to learn and remember everything I'd need to know in one sitting.

When expectations are as dumb as this, you can hardly blame the games. The tutorial is there as a resource and reference. Maybe you should have focused on one or two mechanics each session? If you want to learn, you need to actually approach things sensibly. No tutorial is ever going to make up for a lack of effort or a feeling of entitlement, especially when it comes to unabashedly deep or complex games.
 

FSLink

Banned
They honestly need something like Miiverse built in-game. In-game communities where people can share their love of the game, but add the ability to upload your own tutorials, combo challenges for people to try, replays for other people to analyze, etc.

A lot of the stuff I learned in fighting games is because I went out to a local and learned from people around me. Some people don't have that luxury, and for the people who don't, there's a ton of outside info out there but it's a pain in the ass to filter through a bunch of Youtube videos and forums to figure out what's relevant. Having an in-game hub to easily access this information would be fantastic.

I also agree that Skullgirls is the only game at the moment that does a good job of teaching concepts, but it's still not enough.
 
It's sad how off the mark they are when it comes to making fighting games more "casual friendly".


When it was done perfectly over 15 years ago:

Super_Smash_Bros_Melee_box_art.png

Perfect example of how you can actually make a game as hard and deep as you like and even let things rock without thinking much about what players will do with them. If people like the characters, they will play and put themselves through all kinds of grind. I hope ArcSys makes DB FighterZ without worrying about doing anything to the gameplay side of things to ensure success with newcomers. Let the IP itself bring them in.
 

Clawww

Member
People overhype the hell of Guilty Gear just because it's not SFV. Only played SIGN but that Jack-O tutorial doesn't seem to avoid the issue of information overload, it's the same as GG/Blazblue 30 minute infodump that teaches you a bunch of mechanics that you will forget about right after except that it's on an infinitely scrolling stage. It needs to do a better job of convincing the player to stick with the game because when it's so overwhelming, you always feel like you aren't doing anything right. Meanwhile, while Street Fighter has a bad selection of modes too at least it's a more intuitive and simple game in which it's easy to figure out what you did wrong and gradually get better in every aspect of the game. Fighting games should have story/mission modes that are better scenarized and basically force you to master each aspect of the game to progress. For example you would need to beat a computer using one button, than you unlock other buttons/special moves/mechanics. If that's not enough of a hook you can even put in RPG elements to emphasize each mission, for example in that one you have a poison status effect to force you to end the match quickly or whatever. You can even add some loot mechanic to further hook the player instead of making modes that use similar gameplay elements yet no one cares about like M.O.M in GG or Heroes and Heralds in UMVC3.

Yeah the tutorial should also change my diaper, please.
 

Skilletor

Member
People asking for a fuckton of work for people that are going to be like, "I COMPLETED THIS RPG-LIKE TUTORIAL, SURELY I CAN HOP ONLINE AND WIN NOW," only to get bodied, quit and never play again.
 
D

Deleted member 752119

Unconfirmed Member
The main problem I think with fighting games today is the that that they feel they NEED to keep those arcade style commands alive. In an era where kids grow up playing games on mobile where the controls are:

1. tap screen to do the thing
2. that's it

There isn't a chance in fuck they're going to understand quarter circle forward + punch. As basic and easy as it is for us fighting game vets, it's just not gonna fucking happen.

There just need to be more fighting games like Smash that have simple inputs, but otherwise play more similarly to SF, Tekken, GG etc. Those would be great places for people to learn fighting game fundamentals, and make it easier for some to transition on to the SFs and Tekkens of the world as they have the basics down and now just have to learn the execution of tougher inputs.

Complex input games shouldn't go away as they have sizeable followings. We just need more games to provide an easier entry point to the genre for people to get hooked, learn the fundamentals and be hungry for more advanced games (even if it's just a small portion of those gamers that move on).



This really bothers me. Why do you feel that you should have retained every little detail after running through the tutorial? I don't play RTS games but I wouldn't expect to learn and remember everything I'd need to know in one sitting.

When expectations are as dumb as this, you can hardly blame the games. The tutorial is there as a resource and reference. Maybe you should have focused on one or two mechanics each session? If you want to learn, you need to actually approach things sensibly. No tutorial is ever going to make up for a lack of effort or a feeling of entitlement, especially when it comes to unabashedly deep or complex games.

One simple thing they could do is break tutorials down more into lessons, with advice to go play some matches using just what you've been working on etc. before moving on to the next. People can of course do that themselves, but people are used to being taught in lessons rather than just given a ton of information to work through themselves.

Gootecks had some great tutorial vids and that fighting game fundamentals e-book for SFV that did a great job of that--work on these basics in training mode and go play some matches and don't move on until your winning some matches using just those moves/tactics.

In short, just build in some more structure. I'm sure people like Gootecks would jump at the chance to work as a consultant with devs on structuing these modes better. Maybe higher an instructional designer who's an expert in online classes to help tweak things as well.

Anytime you leave it solely up to the end user to learn and teach themselves, you're really going to struggle to build a base beyond the diehards who are just naturally attracted to the genre. Which is fine if the FGC and the devs are fine with their current size. A lot of the FGC is as they like feeling elitist and being into hard games rather than casual ones. I doubt devs and publishers feel the same when they could be making games in genres that sell much more.

People asking for a fuckton of work for people that are going to be like, "I COMPLETED THIS RPG-LIKE TUTORIAL, SURELY I CAN HOP ONLINE AND WIN NOW," only to get bodied, quit and never play again.

It's not that much work though. Plenty of games like KI, Skullgirls, past VF games have/had great tutorials that maybe could be organized a tad better with some input from instructional designers etc. Other games have tutorials or challenge modes that focus on silly combos that just need swapped out (or supplemented with) simpler tutorials about fundamentals. Adding simple presets in training mode to have the AI do things for you to practice anti-airs, defening against mix ups etc. vs. leaving it to users to record actions is also not a ton of work.

That said, I agree it wouldn't hook that many more people. Still everyone counts if you're trying to build a base and keep an online community going and buying DLC etc.
 
People overhype the hell of Guilty Gear just because it's not SFV. Only played SIGN but that Jack-O tutorial doesn't seem to avoid the issue of information overload, it's the same as GG/Blazblue 30 minute infodump that teaches you a bunch of mechanics that you will forget about right after except that it's on an infinitely scrolling stage. It needs to do a better job of convincing the player to stick with the game because when it's so overwhelming, you always feel like you aren't doing anything right. Meanwhile, while Street Fighter has a bad selection of modes too at least it's a more intuitive and simple game in which it's easy to figure out what you did wrong and gradually get better in every aspect of the game. Fighting games should have story/mission modes that are better scenarized and basically force you to master each aspect of the game to progress. For example you would need to beat a computer using one button, than you unlock other buttons/special moves/mechanics. If that's not enough of a hook you can even put in RPG elements to emphasize each mission, for example in that one you have a poison status effect to force you to end the match quickly or whatever. You can even add some loot mechanic to further hook the player instead of making modes that use similar gameplay elements yet no one cares about like M.O.M in GG or Heroes and Heralds in UMVC3.

Are you a python of learning who learns like this:


...who can inhale massive amounts of information and retain it clearly in one go?

Or are you like the rest of us who get out the metaphorical knife and fork and git gud at a less insane pace?

Nah, VF4's tutorial is unmatched, even by later version of Virtua Fighter.

The problem is that all this hoo-hah is dancing around the fact that an outstanding tutorial is rarely a purchasing criteria, or rather, that it isn't a make or break feature. Some have barebones tutorials, hella sales. Some have barebones tutorials, weak sales. Some have outstanding tutorials, hella sales. Some have outstanding tutorials, weak sales.

All this intellectual preening is jack shit in the face of observed data.

We don't, as a people, reward this when it is offered, so if we get garbo, we deserve it, and VF4 remains a gleaming "what if" that COULD have been the way forward but nah. Period.

I personally hope fighting game developers never try to appeal to people like you.

Some do. His problem? They ALL aren't.

Generation 7 is a hell of a drug.
 

LordKasual

Banned
a) The information of architecture of fighting games is god awful (Tekken, Injustice, Guilty Gear)

YepYqus.gif


There's no consideration for he user here. No consideration for what they might want to know. No thought that when you present the d-pad sideways like that (like arcade buttons), that it might confuse users on a controlller, no consideration that users might find it valuable to view the properties of each move, to understand why they might want to use them.

It tells you the input, it demonstrates the attack, it even gives you visual timing on the inputs required.

The properties of the move are literally shown when they connect with the opponent. Anything extra (tailspin, superarmor, homing) is told to you with the move.

I will agree that frame data is something that should ABSOLUTELY be included for every move in any modern fighter these days....but the movelist itself? What is there to even complain about? There is no easier way to learn these attacks.


b) Tutorials teach you HOW but not WHY (USFIV, Injustice, MKX, Tekken)

eXhlyxZ.jpg


Why teach the player useless combos? Why do I see this time and time again? Why do the tutorials in Injustice 2 teach the player a small fraction of the characters moves, without any context on why this is something you should know, or what you should do with it in a fight?

This is true for most fighters, but i'm going to assume you're talking about something different because of your next point....


c) Information Overload (Guilty Gear, Blazblue, Tekken)

BbXtUQQ.jpg


Sometimes they try to teach you far too much, and the investment is just far to steep. If you want to get good with a character in Guilty Gear, it's difficult to even know where to start. Guilty Gear gets a lot of credit because it's one of the only games that actually tries to teach the user, but it's also at risk of overwhelming the user; the structure of its tutorial information is far from ideal.

...where you now complain that a game is giving you too much thorough information. So which is the problem, too much or too little?

GGXRD's challenge mode starts with 1-move inputs, then simple strings, THEN big combos. If you pick up a fighting game, go to Mission No.39, and expect to get it right first try, then you're playing the wrong genre.


Complexity in fighting games are the selling point. Complaining because the game makes you feel like you suck isn't a problem with design, it's a problem with your expectations.

d) Learning Isn't Made Fun (SFV, KOF, Guilty Gear, Injustice, Marvel, Tekken)

OpTPiuL.jpg


There are language learning apps that gamify learning better than fighting games. How do you make games but not understand reward and motivation?

Language apps are also completely ineffective at teaching a language to someone who approaches learning one as if the app itself is going to make them learn through information osmosis. It sounds as though you're complaining about fighting games as if they're supposed to provide the same form of reward that RPGs, MMOs, Action games and mobile games provide. They do not. This is what people don't understand. No amount of appealing design is going to make a casual, non-competitive gamer enjoy fighting games the same way that its core audience does.

The objective of a good fighting game isn't to make you feel like you're good, but give you the tools to prove that you're good. The easier it is for you to feel like you've mastered the game, generally speaking, the less competitive it is.


This is why casual smash players hate Melee. It's very easy to FEEL like you're amazing at the game, until some asshole (who cares more than you about being better then you) objectively proves to you that you aren't. People dislike being faced with the reality that someone is better than them, or that their approach is flawed, or that they aren't doing enough. And not everyone has the drive to improve themselves when faced with that reality. And THAT is the essence of competitive fighting games, THAT is where the reward and motivation comes from.

I will agree that they could approach accessibility better. Shoutout to ASW games, as they are definitely at the forefront of this, their tutorials and guides are VERY in-depth these days. But complaining about the fact that you have to actually go out of your way to master the game means that you're simply playing the wrong genre.
 
truly the only way to learn is to go to your local fgc and get your ass beat into the ground long enough that they feel sorry for you and teach you basic tech

Serious question. How does one even go about finding their local FGC? I don't even know where to begin looking. I play a lot of board games and sites like boardgamegeek.com make it easy to find game groups. What sites can I use to find a local fgc in my area?
 
Serious question. How does one even go about finding their local FGC? I don't even know where to begin looking. I play a lot of board games and sites like boardgamegeek.com make it easy to find game groups. What sites can I use to find a local fgc in my area?
Try googling the name of your city + the name of a fighting game like Street Fighter V.

The more "hands-on" way is to ask around in big community sites, like here on NeoGAF, ultra-combo forums for KI or tekken zaibatasu or Shoryuken, etc etc. Ask around there for anyone who might know of a scene near your current location.

Other than that, you can just do the good old method of asking people you know that play fighting games if they know anybody.
 

Z..

Member
truly the only way to learn is to go to your local fgc and get your ass beat into the ground long enough that they feel sorry for you and teach you basic tech

Vast majority of people don't get the privilege of a local fgc even existing at all, though.
 
Vast majority of people don't get the privilege of a local fgc even existing at all, though.

This is where online comes into play. As someone who has literally no (even half decent) SFV, KI or Tekken players in his city, online is the only thing I have left.

All of us still play online and keep in touch. It's not ideal but it's the next best thing.
 

notworksafe

Member
Vast majority of people don't get the privilege of a local fgc even existing at all, though.

you'd be surprised. there's a town of 6000 people here that has a local scene. it's not huge but it's something. facebook is the best place to look for that sort of thing these days, cause a lot of places at least have a gathering of 2-3 people if nothing else.

or they can start one or revive a dying/dead scene. i did that about a decade ago and have met some of my best friends from it.
 

vg260

Member
Came here to say TC should check out KI's dojo mode. Someone beat me to it.

Hey Adam, can you speak to how much work went into KI's Dojo mode? Generally speaking.

It's a great example of a tutorial mode done well, but it still only scratches the surface. (as it should be for a game with depth. That's not a knock). However, I think a lot of people greatly underestimate the level of effort involved in creating such a detailed tutorial mode.

I think their expectations for an interactive teaching mode are way out of line with what is a reasonable use of development resources if they want other significant content. I think you would be getting the information presented to you in a much more efficient way with a 5-10 minute YouTube video with someone explaining it than some sort of in-game tutorial mode. Curious if you had any thoughts.
 

Ogodei

Member
This is a pretty minor thing, but the part about move lists reminded me of something I wish fighting games would do with them: allow users to select each move to see a brief description of that move. It's not a huge deal though since that information is pretty accessible in a bunch of different places.

In regards to guilty gear, if you start with the actual tutorial (not the character trials) and move onto missions, the game does a pretty good job of teaching you its systems and basic tactics. It's inherently a fairly complicated game though so I don't really see how it could ease players in more than it already does.

Even better, select that move and see a movie of that move in action against an enemy. The "How but not Why" part of the OP is critical, as fighting games are extremely situational unless you're up against someone who hasn't the foggiest clue of what they're doing.
 
Games could do more to add incentives to the learning process, but you could have the best tutorial in a game and new players still won't touch it because they want instant gratification. There's no reward for learning stuff in fighting games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p42p_CCrDRE

There's plenty of resources out there for those who are willing to learn.

They're not exceptionally more difficult overall though. They just have that mechanical barrier that hits players very early on.

Being good at Rocket League or CS isn't any easier than being good at SFV or Marvel. It's just that players pursuing that 'high level play' never hit a wall or mechanical barrier at any particular point. Unfortunately for fighting games, that barrier hits players quite early on.
 

Ferrio

Banned
Even better, select that move and see a movie of that move in action against an enemy. The "How but not Why" part of the OP is critical, as fighting games are extremely situational unless you're up against someone who hasn't the foggiest clue of what they're doing.

Namco has the patent on that apparently, so you're not going to see that feature outside of Tekken/Soul Calibur/whatnot.
 

LordKasual

Banned
melee perfected the formula bruh

but yeah I'd give smash 64 credit too.



The main problem I think with fighting games today is the that that they feel they NEED to keep those arcade style commands alive. In an era where kids grow up playing games on mobile where the controls are:

1. tap screen to do the thing
2. that's it

There isn't a chance in fuck they're going to understand quarter circle forward + punch. As basic and easy as it is for us fighting game vets, it's just not gonna fucking happen. My younger cousins can barely move the analog stick forward and hit the jump button at the same time in Banjo Kazooie. The 90s are over. Kids aren't wandering into arcades and learning how to work an arcade stick and buttons to get the most out of the quarters their mom gave them.

How is this situation any different from a 90s kid like me, who grew up playing Mario and Sonic where only 2 buttons were ever needed at a time (one for Sonic)??

I was completely unable to do fireball / shoryuken motions at one point. I was also unable to carry a glass of juice up the stairs without spilling it at one point too...hell, I was unable to accurately use the touchscreen on my smartphone when those became a thing, and simply preferred using my flipphone interface.

This idea that kids/new gamers are bumbling idiots that are incapable of higher motor function is based on nothing. It's just nurturing laziness. But more importantly, there's really only so many ways you can cram a movelist into 4 directions and 4 buttons.

Smash Bros simplifies the controls of a fighting games. The controls work and are simplified to work on a regular controller, not an arcade stick. There are no tutorials neccesary or giant move lists by pressing pause because everyone has the same inputs. You know what up + b will do no matter what the character. You know what smashing forward + a is going to do no matter the character. You're always learning no matter what character you're playing.

If Capcom thinks Marvel Infinite is going to appeal to casuals with the way they're approaching accessibility they're fucking kidding themselves.

Smash isn't much different from any other fighting game other than inputs. The inputs are all the same, but the difference between the actual move properties between smash characters can vary widely.

Marth's Fair cannot be used the same as C.Falcons, which is entirely different than Mario's. Smash is simple to understand but it's still pretty complex.

Learning attack motions is a barrier, but it simply is not as hard as people make it out to be. Once you've gotten it down in muscle memory, it's a complete non-issue, and at that point, it's not much different than a game like Smash. SFV for example has no motions more complex than shoryuken, unless you count Charge i guess. But most charge characters are relatively light on that aspect.
 
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.

I haven't, which is why I didn't mention it I'm afraid.

It'd be super interesting to look at. I work in a third party games user research company, so essentially what we do is highlight these kind of issues for developers, with players (usability analysis etc). With that in mind, it's really interesting for me to look at different approaches to tutorialling / information architecture, especially in a genre where I think these issues are quite common.

KI is probably a great game, but I feel like it penetrated quite a small portion of the FGC as a result of the platform exclusivity. No one that I know plays it, I remember at one point some friends and I discussed that it might be worth getting an XB1 to give it a go but by the time I actually got an XB1 I had forgotten about it.

It's no surprise that a better user experience would come from a game published by Microsoft though, I think the cause of many of the issues in the OP is that many of the developers that produce other fighting games are not especially 'player centric' companies.
 

Keits

Developer
KI is probably a great game, but I feel like it penetrated quite a small portion of the FGC as a result of the platform. No one that I know plays it, I remember at one point some friends and I discussed that it might be worth getting an XB1 to give it a go but by the time I actually got an XB1 I had forgotten about it.

It's no surprise that a better user experience would come from a game published by Microsoft though, I think the cause of many of the issues in the OP is that many of the developers that produce other fighting games are not especially 'player centric' companies.

Good news, its coming to Steam this year!
 

n051de

Member
Well, god damn. Thanks mates. I still think inputs should be the default display tho.

There really shouldn't be any argument there. Even with small things like notation in training mode, it makes me believe CAPCOM just isn't really thinking(properly) when they do the things they do.
 
I love this OP. 10/10 we need more people like you posting here ^^

Accessibility is extremely important, especially in fighting games!

^ This is one of the reasons why I think the FGC themselves hold fighting games back from global appeal and bigger sales. The idea of simplifying controls makes them cringe, when most don't realize that many fighting games have an unnecessary execution barrier, and developers can't decide who to cater to. I can't entirely blame them because traditional fighting games started with motion inputs like QCF. But you gotta ask yourself why games like Smash, NRS games, and MOBAs are played by a much bigger demographic with a wider age range. They have a much less steep learning curve and are very easy to pick up and play. It's perfect for casual play, but on a deeper level, the games can be played competitively in tournaments, and if that doesn't define a good fighting game, I dunno what is.

Should the next Street Fighter have 2 attack buttons? No, SF is a special case and should not be changed. That small demographic knows what they like. The series will never be inclusive, so stop trying, Capcom. As for future fighting games, less buttons and motions doesn't always mean less depth. Once the execution barrier is diminished, more people can actually experience the damn game (assuming the dev made a competent fighter to begin with).

Let's put this into perspective with Chess. People aren't struggling to learn what all the pieces do. The prerequisite step of learning Chess is to learn how each piece moves, which can take about an hour, then the real thing begins.

Going back to a game like Guilty Gear, and people are struggling to do special moves, instant air dashes, or Roman Cancels. They can't experience the actual fighting if the essential mechanics are too hard to learn.

Also nothing beats a good tutorial.
I support this (except for Capcom should stop trying, NOBODY should stop trying) and hope more fighting games move in this exact direction :)
 

vg260

Member
Going back to a game like Guilty Gear, and people are struggling to do special moves, instant air dashes, or Roman Cancels. They can't experience the actual fighting if the essential mechanics are too hard to learn.

How do you define "actual fighting" in this example? I agree Guilty Gear is complex, but the things you describe are elements of the gameplay. If you take away too much of that, it changes why a lot of the fan base plays that game.
 

jdstorm

Banned
Honestly i just want a Rythm game singleplayer mode similar to FFIX's theatre sequence or Tails of the Borderlands final boss.

Give us a choreographed action sequence that tells you what buttons to press and let that act as a high score chasing mode/practice mode.
 
It tells you the input, it demonstrates the attack, it even gives you visual timing on the inputs required.

The properties of the move are literally shown when they connect with the opponent. Anything extra (tailspin, superarmor, homing) is told to you with the move.

Watching the move being performed is far slower than simply being able to view all of the moves that send the opponent into a juggle, or stun on counter hit. I completely disagree with the idea that it's acceptable design to expect players to browse through and play all of these to find the combos, pokes, whiff punishes that they might want to use.

Making matters worse, even if you find a move that you want to use or incorporate into your game in some way, there's no means of sorting so unless you permanently commit to to memory, finding it and learning how to incorporate it into your game can be another issue. Human beings aren't machines, we can't see a move once and then recall and execute it at will, there are a vast number of ways that Tekken 7's move list could be better structured to enhance the usability as well as the overall user experience.

I will agree that frame data is something that should ABSOLUTELY be included for every move in any modern fighter these days....but the movelist itself? What is there to even complain about? There is no easier way to learn these attacks.

I do agree but I also think you need to be careful when presenting frame data because without context it could just be intimidating to new players. A lot of top players have said that they don't actually care about frame data but just want to know if something is punishable, safe, leaves them at advantage, etc. There's definitely ways you could help players get to that stage, rather than necessarily, bogging them down with the numbers (even if I agree that the raw numbers should be available for those that want them).

This is true for most fighters, but i'm going to assume you're talking about something different because of your next point....

...where you now complain that a game is giving you too much thorough information. So which is the problem, too much or too little?

In some cases it can be that there's too little information, and in some cases it can be that the presentation of a vast amount of information is sub-optimal. These are not the same issue and while it may sound contradictory, they're not. One regards the sheer lack of information, one is about the information architecture, how the information is conveyed to the user. If you would like to understand where I'm coming from, I described some of my thoughts on Guilty Gears information architecture a few posts prior.


Complexity in fighting games are the selling point. Complaining because the game makes you feel like you suck isn't a problem with design, it's a problem with your expectations.

I disagree, and it's clearly a concern for the developers that find themselves implementing simplified modes, or in some cases making the game simpler at its core in an effort to make the game more accessible.

Some of the arguments here are a little ironic. I'm arguing that these games should have better information architecture and not sacrifice their depth or complexity, that they should avoid splitting their userbase between different control schemes and focus on removing barriers to the usability and understand-ability of their on boarding, tutorials, and gameplay systems.

Better information architecture, better usability, a better user experience, doesn't make the game any less in-depth or satisfying for those that are good, yet games that are simplified to their core will do that. This is not about making fighting games easier, but about improving how they convey their systems to the player. Giving players better tools to understand them.

Language apps are also completely ineffective at teaching a language to someone who approaches learning one as if the app itself is going to make them learn through information osmosis. It sounds as though you're complaining about fighting games as if they're supposed to provide the same form of reward that RPGs, MMOs, Action games and mobile games provide. They do not. This is what people don't understand. No amount of appealing design is going to make a casual, non-competitive gamer enjoy fighting games the same way that its core audience does.

The objective of a good fighting game isn't to make you feel like you're good, but give you the tools to prove that you're good. The easier it is for you to feel like you've mastered the game, generally speaking, the less competitive it is.

I disagree, and feel that you missed the point. The point of that remark was that language learning apps are better at motiviating and incentivising players. They better structure learning, give players multiple paths, and show them what they need to do to learn next.

Whether they teach you well, or not, is almost irrelevent, because they've proven to be incredibly encouraging to their users. I personally think that they can be a valuable tool to assist in learning a language, in the same way that training can be a valuable tool to assist in learning to play a fighting game. I did not say that they were a substitute for direct exposure to the language, in the same way that I did not say that tutorialling should be a substitute for playing real players.

The point was quite simple though, and simply that they make an effort to make it seem like the users is on track. They reward the user, they make it feel fun. I do not see why fighting games cannot do the same. I do not see why users can't get meaningful, worthwhile reward for completing character training sessions, and I also think that things like the 'daily lessons' implemented in many language apps, could be a good way of helping players break down the things they need to learn for their character rather than having players sit in training until they've completed 52 basic trials.

This is why casual smash players hate Melee. It's very easy to FEEL like you're amazing at the game, until some asshole (who cares more than you about being better then you) objectively proves to you that you aren't. People dislike being faced with the reality that someone is better than them, or that their approach is flawed, or that they aren't doing enough. And not everyone has the drive to improve themselves when faced with that reality. And THAT is the essence of competitive fighting games, THAT is where the reward and motivation comes from.

I think hate is a strong word to use here. Many of the players I know that play Smash 4 and not melee, just like the newer game because it's what they're familiar with. They like the larger roster of characters, the nicer graphics, and they have plenty of people to play with. Why would they go out of their way to learn a similar game which they have no understanding of, but find less immediately appealing? It's been out for a long time, anyone that's played it for a long time, is of course, going to have a huge advantage. Why tackle that barrier when they feel they could have more fun, on a more level playing field, in Smash 4?

My thoughts are that it's infinitely easier to see what is wrong than it is to see what would be the better alternatives. "Nonapples" is not a design document.

Didn't see this and wanted to reply. I don't want to be presumptuous and provide solutions that I think would be better, particularly because there are many potential solutions.

However I feel that the best resolution is not one particular solution, but a user focused design. A design that gets players into your usability lab and assesses their understanding, works towards developing a set of tutorials, structururing the information in a way that is best understood by players.

I have posted various potential suggestions in this thread. Some of them are simple, for instance, let's look at that Tekken 7 picture I posted.

When looking at something like that, when looking at a particular move or combo, it's helpful to consider 'What does the user want from this?'. For me, I want to be able to view the moves that might fit a particular criteria that I may have at any one time. So If I want to juggle my opponent, I want to be able to see all of the moves that can be used to initiate a juggle. I want to see all of the moves that can initiate a combo on counter hit, I want to see moves that are safe on block, etc. You could better accommodate that with features like clear iconography and filters.

However, ideally, you would look at users broadly, their expectations, and build the system around them. Remedy the issues that they face and meet their expectations where it makes sense to do so. This would enhance the usability of the system, and in turn, the user experience as a whole.

So the suggestion is better UX, enhancing the usability by testing solutions with real players. Good UX design is something that I feel is missing from the development process of many fighting games.
 

Loona

Member
Point being, there's plenty of room for simplified, casual friendly fighters and more hardcore ones. Even the hardcore FGC fans should be supportive of new fighting game IPs that are simpler than SF, Tekken et al as those can bring more people to the genre and some will learn fundamentals and get hooked and branch out into learning the more complex games. The SFs, Tekkens etc. of the world aren't going anywhere as they sell well enough, sell lots of DLC and have the esport scene growing and keeping them relevant in their niche where as most former arcade based genres have died off.

Capcom has Super Gem fighter Mini-Mix, which could work well as an introductory game - it had simple controls with the option to use classic commands, characters from their fighting games, and a power-up system to upgrade moves, based on item that wold pop out of an attacked character, and could be picked up by anyone - out could make things a bit more chaotic, but the basics of the genre were there.
And the visual were fun as hell, making it extra inviting to a younger crowd, which the genre can benefit from to continue existing.

I mean the original release of DOA5 toned down a lot of the fan service and in the end didnt gain that much of a new following and the fans of the game that want the fanservice made it clear they were not happy to the approach they took so they ended up doubling down on the fan service later on plus making that F2P approach that in the ended up working wonders for them. So we can tell they pretty much learned from their mistakes of trying to cater to an audience that wasnt there for them from the beginning.

They still made a pretty good job at getting the game on tournaments for years and giving it support so I wouldn't worry much about the game on the FGC tournaments because it has an audience for it still even if its not as big as others manages to keep the game alive.

I hope they keep doing what they do and keep improving the mechanics and tools they give.

DoA5 is the unsung hero of the latest generations of fighting games - just the fact that it added an optional tutorial factor to its story mode was a good thing, but they kept adding ever more stuff up to the Last Round version - sadly, they also started to reemphasize the kind of content the series is infamous for, but if DoA6 puts all of that behind a paywall while keeping the good F2P system and tutorials for everyone, they're on the right track.

I feel like devs would be better off building something into their game that can direct people to community folks that can teach their game better rather than trying to build that system in themselves.

No. That means:

* leaving the game to learn about the game
* relying on external online resources to stay up indefinitely, which might not necessarily happen
* relying on the online presence of individuals or entities that might not even be on their payroll - if they're relying on it, they should be paying for it, and if they're paying for it, it should be in the actual game
* what could possibly go wrong with pointing people who may be popular for a while but fall out of public favor later for whatever incident, a la Aris or JonTron?...

If the official social media associated with the game drops occasional links to some good videos, wikis or threads it's one thing, but the content in the actual game should be a bit more reliable and part of it.

Honestly i just want a Rythm game singleplayer mode similar to FFIX's theatre sequence or Tails of the Borderlands final boss.

Give us a choreographed action sequence that tells you what buttons to press and let that act as a high score chasing mode/practice mode.

The closest I'm aware of is one Finger Death Punch.


On the wider topic, I figure if the development process involves the concept of Definition of Done for features, for any move in the game, be it an attack, movement option or defensive maneuver, the feature should only be considered complete if there's something in the game that explains its purpose and why it should be used instead of something else - universal stuff like blocking would be reusable across characters, or course, but from the puniest jumping jab to the highest-damage crouching attack, everything should have an explanation of the purpose it serves, when it may be a good idea to use it, and if applicable, what can follow it, especially if the move can be cancelled (something that should also be clearly stated).
 

petran79

Banned
I dont think situation changed much when compared to the golden age of fighting games during the 90s. Majority of players are exposed to those games and play casually like back then, while tournaments players are on another level just like those days.

It is just that the standards for the genre have increased tremendously after almost 30 years. Thousands of accumulated matches, tons of input data, frame data, strategy etc has changed the genre. Not just limited to one region or your local arcade, but applied worldwide. Perhaps no other video game genre has so much information stacked together.
American players learn the strategies of Japanese players the next day, while previously this would require someone to travel to Japan or a Japanese to travel abroad.

No way the uninitiated can keep up with this. Something like chess. You can play casually with friends, but to understand more advanced stuff you'll need to be member in a chess club and participate in tournaments while studying matches both past and present.

The tools are there and are more accessible than ever. It is just that one is required to catch up much more quickly than 20 years ago when flow of information wasnt that immediate and there were no video streams and replays. Add that fighting games are not as popular to keep the interest going like it happened with many veteran players. They learned the hard way, having to figure out everything themselves.
 

Z..

Member
you'd be surprised. there's a town of 6000 people here that has a local scene. it's not huge but it's something. facebook is the best place to look for that sort of thing these days, cause a lot of places at least have a gathering of 2-3 people if nothing else.

or they can start one or revive a dying/dead scene. i did that about a decade ago and have met some of my best friends from it.

You're overestimating people. There is no fgc anywhere at all in my country and even while I was living in the UK I learned the hard way that the London fgc is a joke (yeah, you heard me HOG). Going by my personal experience and over 15 years of actively looking for a local scene wherever I may happen to be living at the time I'd say you're pretty much fucked unless you live in very specific areas in Japan, Korea, USA or Mexico.

The second part of your post makes me even sadder because I've tried doing that several times in high visibility spots within the community and quite literally never got one single answer. People just don't seem to be into it that way in Europe. =/
 
I dont think situation changed much when compared to the golden age of fighting games during the 90s. Majority of players are exposed to those games and play casually like back then, while tournaments players are on another level just like those days.

It is just that the standards for the genre have increased tremendously after almost 30 years. Thousands of accumulated matches, tons of input data, frame data, strategy etc has changed the genre. Not just limited to one region or your local arcade, but applied worldwide. Perhaps no other video game genre has so much information stacked together.
American players learn the strategies of Japanese players the next day, while previously this would require someone to travel to Japan or a Japanese to travel abroad.

No way the uninitiated can keep up with this. Something like chess. You can play casually with friends, but to understand more advanced stuff you'll need to be member in a chess club and participate in tournaments while studying matches both past and present.

The tools are there and are more accessible than ever. It is just that one is required to catch up much more quickly than 20 years ago when flow of information wasnt that immediate and there were no video streams and replays. Add that fighting games are not as popular to keep the interest going like it happened with many veteran players. They learned the hard way, having to figure out everything themselves.

This is very true. Additionally, the people that complain expect the game to teach you how to play in order to beat those players. What the game teaches you is enough to beat any SP content, but no tutorial will teach you how to beat players who have been playing for decades.
 

VariantX

Member
Skullgirls definately is a good one and VF tutorials, VF4's in particular had a thing that told you how well you were doing and what you need to improve on. I think there are patent reasons why that no other FG is able to do this, otherwise that tutorial would have solved most of the issues people have with FG tutorials years ago.
 

New002

Member
I haven't, which is why I didn't mention it I'm afraid.

It'd be super interesting to look at. I work in a third party games user research company, so essentially what we do is highlight these kind of issues for developers, with players (usability analysis etc). With that in mind, it's really interesting for me to look at different approaches to tutorialling / information architecture, especially in a genre where I think these issues are quite common.

KI is probably a great game, but I feel like it penetrated quite a small portion of the FGC as a result of the platform exclusivity. No one that I know plays it, I remember at one point some friends and I discussed that it might be worth getting an XB1 to give it a go but by the time I actually got an XB1 I had forgotten about it.

It's no surprise that a better user experience would come from a game published by Microsoft though, I think the cause of many of the issues in the OP is that many of the developers that produce other fighting games are not especially 'player centric' companies.

Very cool. And yeah KI was a victim of the Xbox One's poor reception and lower than anticipated (I imagine) sales. It's a real shame given how quality the game is. If you and your buddies end up playing the game on Steam it'd be interesting to hear your take on the dojo.
 
Didn't see this and wanted to reply. I don't want to be presumptuous and provide solutions that I think would be better, particularly because there are many potential solutions.

Exactly my point: "don't do what you're currently doing" is, to put it bluntly, neither insightful nor helpful. I don't disagree that even pointing out that there's a problem is a necessary first step, but I think we can at the very least think of potential alternatives. If we can't, how can we even say that current designs aren't actually optimal?

However I feel that the best resolution is not one particular solution, but a user focused design. A design that gets players into your usability lab and assesses their understanding, works towards developing a set of tutorials, structururing the information in a way that is best understood by players.

That's outside the reach of most of us here on GAF, and for all we know that's what they did and came up with tutorials and trials. Users are notoriously bad at knowing what they would want or predicting how they could improve their own user experience, let alone users unfamiliar with what they are supposed to learn in the first place.

I have posted various potential suggestions in this thread.

Indeed and I would want to see more of them. I actually liked one of them a lot, as I mentioned here.

Some of them are simple, for instance, let's look at that Tekken 7 picture I posted.

When looking at something like that, when looking at a particular move or combo, it's helpful to consider 'What does the user want from this?'. For me, I want to be able to view the moves that might fit a particular criteria that I may have at any one time. So If I want to juggle my opponent, I want to be able to see all of the moves that can be used to initiate a juggle. I want to see all of the moves that can initiate a combo on counter hit, I want to see moves that are safe on block, etc. You could better accommodate that with features like clear iconography and filters.

I seem to remember precisely one of the Tekken games (5?) allowed you to filter moves in some way, including moves that juggle the opponent. This may highlight a more general issue that many of the solutions mentioned here have actually been implemented in the past, but they haven't become the industry standard that they should.

However, ideally, you would look at users broadly, their expectations, and build the system around them. Remedy the issues that they face and meet their expectations where it makes sense to do so. This would enhance the usability of the system, and in turn, the user experience as a whole.

I was thinking we could do a bit of that here on GAF, ask non-fighting game experts what they'd like to see to make fighting games more approachable. Either here or in a new thread.

So the suggestion is better UX, enhancing the usability by testing solutions with real players. Good UX design is something that I feel is missing from the development process of many fighting games.

That's entering straight into nonapplespace again, if not straight up tautology. Of course you need a good user experience for a game to be accessible, just how do you do that? I don't have much use for nebulous "solutions" like "improve the user experience" that any PR with zero design knowledge can spew: the hard work is looking for actual, specific solutions.

Perhaps we should begin by dividing up the sources of fighting game "unapproachability", as they are different beasts that would require entirely different solutions. At a glance I can identify three:
1) Familiarity with what a character can do (let's roll together "what every character in this game can do" and "what this specific character can do" for the time being).
2) Execution, i.e. doing the move you want to do when you want to do it. This may be a motion like a Shoryuken or a Tekken string.
3) Application, i.e. knowing when you should do each move (or block, or jump, etc.). Again this is a huge area that encompasses everything from move reach, attack priority, speed, recovery, blockability, etc. etc.

In my opinion, games have focused on either teaching 1 and 2 via tutorials and trials, or sidestepping them by way of simplicity (the Smash approach). 3 seems to be almost entirely ignored wholesale and you are expected to learn it by playing, which depending on your viewpoint and playing style, you may consider anything from perfectly reasonable to utterly preposterous, so we may want to focus more on 3.
 
Exactly my point: "don't do what you're currently doing" is, to put it bluntly, neither insightful nor helpful. I don't disagree that even pointing out that there's a problem is a necessary first step, but I think we can at the very least think of potential alternatives. If we can't, how can we even say that current designs aren't actually optimal?



That's outside the reach of most of us here on GAF, and for all we know that's what they did and came up with tutorials and trials. Users are notoriously bad at knowing what they would want or predicting how they could improve their own user experience, let alone users unfamiliar with what they are supposed to learn in the first place.



Indeed and I would want to see more of them. I actually liked one of them a lot, as I mentioned here.



I seem to remember precisely one of the Tekken games (5?) allowed you to filter moves in some way, including moves that juggle the opponent. This may highlight a more general issue that many of the solutions mentioned here have actually been implemented in the past, but they haven't become the industry standard that they should.



I was thinking we could do a bit of that here on GAF, ask non-fighting game experts what they'd like to see to make fighting games more approachable. Either here or in a new thread.



That's entering straight into nonapplespace again, if not straight up tautology. Of course you need a good user experience for a game to be accessible, just how do you do that? I don't have much use for nebulous "solutions" like "improve the user experience" that any PR with zero design knowledge can spew: the hard work is looking for actual, specific solutions.

Perhaps we should begin by dividing up the sources of fighting game "unapproachability", as they are different beasts that would require entirely different solutions. At a glance I can identify three:
1) Familiarity with what a character can do (let's roll together "what every character in this game can do" and "what this specific character can do" for the time being).
2) Execution, i.e. doing the move you want to do when you want to do it. This may be a motion like a Shoryuken or a Tekken string.
3) Application, i.e. knowing when you should do each move (or block, or jump, etc.). Again this is a huge area that encompasses everything from move reach, attack priority, speed, recovery, blockability, etc. etc.

In my opinion, games have focused on either teaching 1 and 2 via tutorials and trials, or sidestepping them by way of simplicity (the Smash approach). 3 seems to be almost entirely ignored wholesale and you are expected to learn it by playing, which depending on your viewpoint and playing style, you may consider anything from perfectly reasonable to utterly preposterous, so we may want to focus more on 3.

Will give you a reply later when not at work. :)
 

Hojaho

Member
I don't think accessibility is a problem. All those games, even Guilty Gear or Blazblue are very beginner friendly, you even have stylish mode in those which is kind of awesome tbh. Put beginners together with no initial knowledge, I'm pretty sure they will enjoy their time fighting each other.

All those games have a pretty high skill ceiling though, and the gap between players level can widen very very fast.
In my opinion, the problem is fanbase and communities size. NRS games have tons of players, so you are more likely to find players around your own skill level than ASW games with pretty small communities. Let's see how DB Fighters Z fare in that regard with the power of the license.
 

jdstorm

Banned
People asking for a fuckton of work for people that are going to be like, "I COMPLETED THIS RPG-LIKE TUTORIAL, SURELY I CAN HOP ONLINE AND WIN NOW," only to get bodied, quit and never play again.

Why not just integrate it into a single player campaign? Have it play like Mario or Donkey Kong where each level teaches you a new idea, but instead of platforms, its fighting concepts like blocking, spacing, zoning, anti air ect.

Then make it a score attack rythm/QTE style mode. That can be repeated as a practice mode for experienced players. However for new players it serves as an entry into understanding how to play a fighting game, but with flashy visuals to put on promo's

Why DK Works from the other Gamemakers tool kit thread https://youtu.be/JqHcE6B4OP4

Final Fantasy 9 theatre sequence
https://youtu.be/0Iv__NzwBC4
 

1upsuper

Member
For me personally, it's not an issue of accessibility or finding resources to learn. The issue is the time investment required to catch up to the FGC. I have a deep respect for good players and for the people who put in the time to learn, but when I think about whether I should devote lots of time to finally learning fighting games or instead develop a non-gamey skill, guilt makes me pick the latter. I wish I had more time.
 
Serious question. How does one even go about finding their local FGC? I don't even know where to begin looking. I play a lot of board games and sites like boardgamegeek.com make it easy to find game groups. What sites can I use to find a local fgc in my area?

Found mine through facebook groups
 

gelf

Member
I learned how to truly play Virtua Fighter from going through that tutorial. I will be forver grateful for that.

OT: Where in the hell is VF6 SEGA???!!!!1
Virtua Fighter is the only fighter I feel competent in largely thanks to VF4:Evo. Not only was the tutorial great but the single player quest mode had incentives to learn the different techniques. You could unlock items and wallpapers for completing various quest orders in regular AI fights. Stuff like "perform 5 throw escapes", "block 5 hits in a row" moving to harder more advanced stuff the deeper into the mode you got. I found it more fun learning that stuff in matches with the AI then in training mode.

Many fighters have copied the deep tutorial and quest modes from Virtua Fighter but I haven't seen anything like those quest orders. Even VF5 ditched them sadly.
 

Veal

Member
Killer Instinct does a LOT of things right in how it presents information to the player.

The tutorial not only teaches how the mechanics work, they teach you how to implement them realistically. They teach you how to block properly, how to tie everything together into your gameplan. I mean shit, it even teaches the basic concepts involved in "footsies".

The command/move lists in the game also provide ALL the information you could need. Not only do they give you the frame data for every move, they explicitly tell you what effect each move has, what it's invincible to, what it's strengths are and what it can lead into.

More games than not just flub when it comes to teaching newbies how to play the game. Tekken 7 didn't even TRY. It literally has 0 teaching mechanics in place, no tutorial, nothing.
SFV's trials give you the option to have either the move names or the inputs shown on screen, you change it by pressing pause.
Killer instinct does indeed have a great tutorial, which I feel is necessary, especially for that game. Its pretty unforgiving until you learn its systems.
 

Zissou

Member
1) As others have said, better tutorials might not matter all that much (in terms of increasing playerbase size and player retention).

2) That being said, there's no excuse for not copying the ways of those doing tutorials well that others have discovered, at very least.

3) IMO, there is a ton of room for improvement in fighting game tutorials, even if it might not matter all that much, thanks to the possibility of point 1 perhaps being true.
 
D

Deleted member 752119

Unconfirmed Member
I don't think accessibility is a problem. All those games, even Guilty Gear or Blazblue are very beginner friendly, you even have stylish mode in those which is kind of awesome tbh. Put beginners together with no initial knowledge, I'm pretty sure they will enjoy their time fighting each other.

All those games have a pretty high skill ceiling though, and the gap between players level can widen very very fast.
In my opinion, the problem is fanbase and communities size. NRS games have tons of players, so you are more likely to find players around your own skill level than ASW games with pretty small communities. Let's see how DB Fighters Z fare in that regard with the power of the license.

I think it's both. The NRS games have big bases mostly because of the IP, but more players probably a stick around as the skill floor is lower. Inputs and combo timing are much more lenient and forgiving than something like SF or Tekken. No diagonal inputs, lots of simple back-towards special moves, dial a combo strings rather than 1-3 frame links in various SF games or many strings that can simply be blocked after a hit or two like Tekken. Yet there's still a high skill ceiling for people who really want to dig in.


Virtua Fighter is the only fighter I feel competent in largely thanks to VF4:Evo. Not only was the tutorial great but the single player quest mode had incentives to learn the different techniques. You could unlock items and wallpapers for completing various quest orders in regular AI fights. Stuff like "perform 5 throw escapes", "block 5 hits in a row" moving to harder more advanced stuff the deeper into the mode you got. I found it more fun learning that stuff in matches with the AI then in training mode.

Many fighters have copied the deep tutorial and quest modes from Virtua Fighter but I haven't seen anything like those quest orders. Even VF5 ditched them sadly.

Injustice 2 has them in multiverse, though not all are skill based I guess. But you get bonus tasks in some fights For things like performing two roll escapes, hitting with five special moves, landing five sweep attacks, not using any special attacks etc. Not as robust as VF4, but still something I guess.
 
Top Bottom