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.