I would rather the difficulty to execute be starting and landing the move then punching in the buttons.Teknopathetic said:It's also worth noting that moves are balanced around their difficulty to execute.
Teknopathetic said:It's also worth noting that moves are balanced around their difficulty to execute.
Glix said:Making the inputs easier doesn't make a fighting game more noob friendly. Its all about the system.
I would say the DOA are good fighting games that are also noob friendly.
Monroeski said:Can't be too noob friendly of a mode with all the names in Japanese.
Which can also be conveyed with a shorter range, a slower start (which means more vulnerability) or less priority. Complex button sequences aren't the only way to make a move harder to execute.Teknopathetic said:"But that would be different from how fighting games have worked for the past 20 years, and fighting game fans can't have that."
It (and you) completely ignores the point I made about moves being balanced around their difficulty to execute. There's more to a characters moveset than just "they have X amount of moves." This concept seems lost on you both.
In some cases its a good thing. For example, you probably wouldn't want to be able to map a 360 command throw to a single button press.A Twisty Fluken said:You say this like it's a good thing.
No, I'm just saying there's plenty of parameters that can be balanced if the developer wants to remove the barrier of entry given by complex button sequences.Teknopathetic said:"Which can also be conveyed with a shorter range, a slower start (which means more vulnerability) or less priority."
You're getting into areas where you could make moves worthless or way too good.
Teknopathetic said:It (and you) completely ignores the point I made about moves being balanced around their difficulty to execute. There's more to a characters moveset than just "they have X amount of moves." This concept seems lost on you both.
Which is a completely different topic, I was talking about moves being balanced around their difficulty of executionTeknopathetic said:"No, I'm just saying there's plenty of parameters that can be balanced if the developer wants to remove the barrier of entry given by complex button sequences."
And those parameters are balanced with the (not really) "complex button sequences" in mind to create a varied roster of play styles.
Mr_Elysia said:If you take away the depth of a fighting game's fighting engine what is left?
KevinCow said:Again, you, as a fighting game fan, are unable to envision a fighting game not built in the 20-year-old Street Fighter mold.?
Teknopathetic said:Should Ryu's Fireball and Zangief's SPD have the exact same difficulty to execute?
Uh? No, they don't.Teknopathetic said:"Which is a completely different topic, I was talking about moves being balanced around their difficulty of execution "
It's not a completely different topic at all. They go hand and hand.
Teknopathetic said:Even with shortcuts there is a much higher potential of flubbing your SPD input than a fireball one, simply because there is more room for error.
Yes Boss! said:Back to basics is great! That is what makes SFIV so nice. I can play it like it is Street Fighter 2. I had not played a fighting game since Tekken 2 so I like it when they make some easy modes and tutorials for us casual players to play these games again. Otherwise the genre would just continue to shrink and eventually cater to a few tens of thousands of players. Folks who want to use all the advanced stuff can do that as well...so everybody wins.
Honestly,Skilletor said:But people on gaf say that sf4 is super hard to get into because of 1frame links and fadc combos!
And what I said is that complex controls aren't the only way to make a move harder to execute. You can balance plenty of variables to achieve exactly that, if your goal is removing a potentially harsh barrier of entry.Teknopathetic said:"Balancing is completely different from making the controls of each character feel more unique. You can have characters that play completely differently even if they share the same, simplified button presses, and has nothing to do with balancing (again, what I was arguing in the first place)."
You're completely not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the controls making each character feel more unique whatsoever. I'm talking about movesets and strategy. I'm saying there are plenty of moves that have harder inputs because they have a certain set of advantages that means that they shouldn't be as easy to do as a similar move that doesn't have those advantages. See: Guile's Sonic Boom vs. Ryu's Fireball.
Uhm, no. Their moves would still be different and behave differently, exactly like characters already sharing the same combinations to execute moves don't share the same playstyle.Teknopathetic said:Sure, you could just take away those advantages and give them the same motion, but now you've made two characters with the same playstyle.
Have you considered that not everyone that is playing games is doing it to accomplish something?EYEL1NER said:Where is the sense of accomplishment in the using the noob mode?
Who are you agreeing with? No one said that. So cut the crap.Skilletor said:Yeah, I hate that I have to play more to get better. That shit is stupid.
You can't really apply this concept to an existing game without changing the way it's balanced, of course. If SSF4 was conceived for simplified controls, then the Sonic Boom would - for example - have a bigger delay before starting (slowing it down and making Guile more vulnerable), and/or deal a different amount of damage.Teknopathetic said:"And what I said is that complex controls aren't the only way to make a move harder to execute. You can balance plenty of variables to achieve exactly that, if your goal is removing a potentially harsh barrier of entry.
Making it all boil down exclusively to the complexity of button sequences is a very limited view imho."
"Uhm, no. Their moves would still be different and behave differently."
The problem with this is that now the move that retains its advantages and different behavior is noticeably better. Guile's sonic boom is capable of being much faster than Ryu's fireball and also much slower. Furthermore, Guile's sonic boom has very little recovery, meaning the instant his first sonic boom disappears, he can instantly throw another one (assuming a single button press input system). Ryu would lose a fireball fight every time. This isn't even getting into the versatility that having a really slow or really fast fireball gives.
Teknopathetic said:"And what I said is that complex controls aren't the only way to make a move harder to execute. You can balance plenty of variables to achieve exactly that, if your goal is removing a potentially harsh barrier of entry.
Making it all boil down exclusively to the complexity of button sequences is a very limited view imho."
"Uhm, no. Their moves would still be different and behave differently."
The problem with this is that now the move that retains its advantages and different behavior is noticeably better. Guile's sonic boom is capable of being much faster than Ryu's fireball and also much slower. Furthermore, Guile's sonic boom has very little recovery, meaning the instant his first sonic boom disappears, he can instantly throw another one (assuming a single button press input system). Ryu would lose a fireball fight every time. This isn't even getting into the versatility that having a really slow or really fast fireball gives.
Crakatak187 said:Tekken :lol
And that's because SSF4 is designed taking into account the difficulty of execution of each move. So, again, you can't just stick in different controls and expect nothing to change. Which makes going too far into specific examples that don't take into account a complete rebalance entirely pointless (my rebuttal to the Ryu vs. Guile argument was, not coincidentally, limited to differentiating them enough).Teknopathetic said:"You can't really apply this concept to an existing game without changing the way it's balanced, of course. If SSF4 was conceived for simplified controls, then the Sonic Boom would - for example - have a bigger delay before starting (slowing it down and making Guile more vulnerable), and/or deal a different amount of damage."
A bigger start up delay creates quite a few problems and solves nothing. For example, a longer start up means guile can't really bait out a whiffed normal and punish with a sonic boom. A longer start up also means it's much easier to jump over and punish the sonic boom. Guile is a character whose strategy revolves around his using sonic booms to control his opponent and force them to make mistakes (like jumping over a sonic boom) and punishing them. Also, with a longer start up, how would Guile combo into his sonic boom? You would have to change the properties of his normals which causes even more balancing problems. And Guile's Sonic Boom already deals a different (less) amount of damage.
And that was not my pointTeknopathetic said:"And that's because SSF4 is designed taking into account the difficulty of execution of each move. So, again, you can't just stick in different controls and expect nothing to change. Which makes going too far into specific examples that don't take into account a complete rebalance entirely pointless (my rebuttal to the Ryu vs. Guile argument was, not coincidentally, limited to differentiating them enough).
Very slight changes in balancing, often small enough not to be noticeable immediately, can often produce enormous effects. I know that pretty well "
Then what The OP and the people I were originally responding to seemed to be talking about modes like EO-ism that are put into pre-existing fighting games for simpler inputs, not fighting games with simpler inputs themselves. There are already fighting games (highly regarded ones) without the "complex" inputs of SF or KOF, etc.