Support NeoGAF

[mujun]

I agree with the OP.

I used to love fighting games but it took SFIV to make me realize I can't get into them anymore.

My two favorite games are Breaker's Revenge and Real Bout 2.

I would love to get back into fighting games but for me to do so I need games that are about the same level of complexity as the two I mentioned.

 

[Astery]

I do believe many fighters are quite complicated now to introduce a new generation of players easily, but I think it's fine, newbies who really like them will dig in and deal with it.

For me, I think something like Virtual On is designed very well for both new comers and experienced players. Not strictly speaking a fighter of course.

The gundam vs series that started off as a similar concept of Virtual On however has followed the footstep of the other fighters into making more complex controls and mechanics over the years, which I can't tell if it's a good thing or not either.

 

[entremet]

As long as you're not trying win tourneys, I find most fighting games accessible if you put in the time.

 

[Snapshot King]

Those tools can be effective, but not on their own.

Your second statement is based around the assumption that information collecting systems in games cannot improve to that point. It should be possible to have the game figure out what a player is attempting to do and then help them achieve their goals. It may not be easy, but the game that figures it out will be fascinating to see.

Not really. Maybe if I'm playing Third Strike I want to do a raw super that will MISS, but I know has good enough recovery that I can stuff my opponents response because I can guess what they'll do. Maybe I want to safe jab them 3 or 4 times before trying to tick throw them. Maybe I want to do standing fierce in the corner to build meter, but doing so at a range that I can keep them out with a ducking fierce if I need to. There's too many variables and too many pieces of information.

Hell, even a damage breakdown of where your damage came from, such as sweeps, vs throws vs supers etc means nothing without the context of each particular match. You want the game to hand you answers, which it more or less can't. You have to put in the time and find the answers for yourself.

 

[PAULINK]

With fighting games, there's always that initial learning curve that you got to get over (and more or less understand the basics of the game in and out). It's hard to convince total outsiders to the genre to play against you if you're much better than them, but if they can play against other people on their same level, it's pretty enjoyable.

 

[Snowden's Secret]

Most fighting games use obtuse combo inputs for their attacks for no reason other than that's the way it's always been done.

You know how Call of Duty multiplayer unlocks slant the game in favor of those who have played the longest and disadvantages new players (this rewards longtime players and allows them to feel superior)? Complex button input combos are the same thing, screening out newer players.

 

[Skilletor]

Worked for street fighter 4.

Street Fighter 4 isn't dumbed down. It has more shit to deal with and learn than any other SF. Its execution requirements outside of stuff like a reversal window are pretty strict. Try explaining the applicaitons of an FADC to somebody? How many characters rely

People say that it's easier, but only in the sense that it's easier to throw a fireball than it was 20 years ago. Lots of stuff is more difficult in SF4 than it ever has been.

 

[Deft Beck]

What you're asking for is impossible though. It requires the system to know what the correct thing to do in every situation is. A match in a fighter is a back and forth between two opponents and is rife with mindgames as well as mechanical execution. You seem to want the equivalent degree of an FPS heatmap, showing stuff like, "Hey, 40% of your damage came from being thrown". But what if your opponent happens to be supremely good at tick throwing? Or setups? Just because replays of match footage is "old" doesn't make it archaic. There's a reason it works. It lets you watch the entire thing in context. No computer system will ever be able to figure out why you have bad footsies and be able to give you advice on how to correct them. So learn the systems, watch your replays and put in the time. If you're not willing to do so, that's okay, the genre clearly isn't for you. Any game that would allow for such a system would lack depth.

There are likely chess simulators that allow for the systems I am imagining. Fighting games are much younger as a competitive activity, yes, but it would be valuable to have a skill refinement system, regardless.

I agree that the replay feature is excellent and a good learning tool. However, it doesn't have to be the only tool at a player's disposal.

A player should feel motivated to put in the time to improve specific deficiencies in their game, and systems that make these deficiencies obvious would allow this time to be remedial and productive.

 

[Slamtastic]

OP I would recommend buying Injustice: Gods Among Us.

Darkstalkers Resurrection is a port collection of 10+ year old fighting games.

Most modern fighters are actually easier than older ones.

Injustice has a tutorial that teaches the game mechanics, and a more in depth (fancy presentation) single player, along with being on the easy end of the execution difficulty spectrum.

 

[WolvenOne]

Yes, yes they are.

Good designs take complex mechanics and simplify them, make them so controls are easy to learn, but difficult to master.

A lot of games however, seem mostly to place their difficulty entirely in the controls. This isn't to say that we cannot have games that require considerably more forethought to play through, but developers should still strive to simplify gameplay and mechanics where ever possible.

 

[Snapshot King]

Most fighting games use obtuse combo inputs for their attacks for no reason other than that's the way it's always been done.

You know how Call of Duty multiplayer unlocks slant the game in favor of those who have played the longest and disadvantages new players (this rewards longtime players and allows them to feel superior)? Complex button input combos are the same thing, screening out newer players.

Those inputs are there partially to allow for precision. The shortcuts they added to SRK in SF4 to help new players drive me crazy because they fuck up some of my execution.

 

[Passive Assassin]

Perhaps my thread title and initial example were mismatched. My point still stands.

It's an issue of ensuring that the player feels satisfied by their progress enough so that they will be motivated to reach higher and higher levels. Systems in future games should alert players to their deficiencies and be presented with opportunities to remedy them.

You aren't blocking enough. Stop jumping.

 

[Village]

Street Fighter 4 isn't dumbed down. It has more shit to deal with and learn than any other SF. Its execution requirements outside of stuff like a reversal window are pretty strict. Try explaining the applicaitons of an FADC to somebody? How many characters rely

People say that it's easier, but only in the sense that it's easier to throw a fireball than it was 20 years ago. Lots of stuff is more difficult in SF4 than it ever has been.

I think its pretty accessible and hard to master, unlike 3rd strike that wasn't really accessible, hard to master. And it didn't matter anyway because any decent Chun or Yun could wreck your shop.

 

[Gormless Noodle]

Stuff like Skullgirls and Persona 4 Arena go out of their way to have beginner friendly mechanics. Quite a good thing for the genre, unlike Capcom games which just throws darts at a board and see what sticks. >_>;

I wish more games had a tutorial like Skullgirls. It's one of the best I've ever seen. Blazblue CS had a pretty good one too.



Capcom fighters are anything but accessible. Hell, Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 is pretty much devoid of a tutorial.

I'm really stunned by the responses here and no, I'm not claiming to be anywhere near "pro" at fighting games. But I mean, I played Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 and it's a barren game as far as options and tutorials go, sure, but just check the movelist and practice like 15-30 minutes and you should be fine. You'll probably learn as you play from the CPU as well.

 

[Snapshot King]

There are likely chess simulators that allow for the systems I am imagining. Fighting games are much younger as a competitive activity, yes, but it would be valuable to have a skill refinement system, regardless.

I agree that the replay feature is excellent and a good learning tool. However, it doesn't have to be the only tool at a player's disposal.

A player should feel motivated to put in the time to improve specific deficiencies in their game, and systems that make these deficiencies obvious would allow this time to be remedial and productive.

But these deficiencies aren't obvious. Many times they're part of learning the game. It took a while for the start of SF4 to find out that Sagat Vs Gief was a 9/1 matchup. Near impossible to win for Zangief. Would you rather the system came back with the answer of "Don't pick Zangief"?

 

[Daingurse]

Naw fighting games are just different, it's a demanding genre. It should stay that way to be honest.

Fighting games are very newbie friendly if you have other newbies to play with, expecting to do well against people who have mastery of the nuances of the genre is just ridiculous.

This. I learned the hard way that unless you put in the time and effort, you're not going to go far with the genre. So I mostly just play fighting games offline with my brother. The rage I felt getting destroyed online was simply ridiculous. Something about fighters man, 1v1, makes loses more crushing. I enjoy fighters, but unless I put the time in, I'm not going to get better, simple as that. Made peace with it.

 

[Deft Beck]

Not really. Maybe if I'm playing Third Strike I want to do a raw super that will MISS, but I know has good enough recovery that I can stuff my opponents response because I can guess what they'll do. Maybe I want to safe jab them 3 or 4 times before trying to tick throw them. Maybe I want to do standing fierce in the corner to build meter, but doing so at a range that I can keep them out with a ducking fierce if I need to. There's too many variables and too many pieces of information.

Hell, even a damage breakdown of where your damage came from, such as sweeps, vs throws vs supers etc means nothing without the context of each particular match. You want the game to hand you answers, which it more or less can't. You have to put in the time and find the answers for yourself.

I agree that a certain degree of granularity and context will be extremely difficult for an in-game system to capture, calculate and respond to. However, if the system is able to help a player develop their skills to the point where they would be be competent enough to move on to the metagame, that would be great. That's the crux of my argument.

The game should not hand you answers, but it should help players by questioning their methods and offering opportunities for practice in specific areas.

 

[Slamtastic]

But these deficiencies aren't obvious. Many times they're part of learning the game. It took a while for the start of SF4 to find out that Sagat Vs Gief was a 9/1 matchup. Near impossible to win for Zangief. Would you rather the system came back with the answer of "Don't pick Zangief"?

Well, the game could record your personal win loss for every matchup in the game, and show you "You lost 100 matches against Sagat as Zangief and won 10", and the player could draw conclusions.

I don't think any fighter so far has had an actual player matchup chart in game.

 

[Snapshot King]

I agree that a certain degree of granularity and context will be extremely difficult for an in-game system to capture, calculate and respond to. However, if the system is able to help a player develop their skills to the point where they would be be competent enough to move on to the metagame, that would be great. That's the crux of my argument.

The game should not hand you answers, but it should help players by questioning their methods and offering opportunities for practice in specific areas.

Can you give any examples? I struggle to think of anything that would actually work. The main crux of this argument always seems to be that people who don't know how to play fighting games ask for them to be made simpler or for better tools to be available. When people who know how say "that wouldn't really work though," the whole thing breaks down because the new guys feel that the older players are just set in their ways, and the older players have trouble caring about anything the new guys have to say because they can never articulate specifics.

 

[Snowden's Secret]

Well, the game could record your personal win loss for every matchup in the game, and show you "You lost 100 matches against Sagat as Zangief and won 10", and the player could draw conclusions.

I don't think any fighter so far has had an actual player matchup chart in game.

Smash Bros does, but your mileage may vary re:SSB as a fighting game

 

[Snapshot King]

Well, the game could record your personal win loss for every matchup in the game, and show you "You lost 100 matches against Sagat as Zangief and won 10", and the player could draw conclusions.

I don't think any fighter so far has had an actual player matchup chart in game.

That wouldn't help at all though, because it'd assume that all Sagat players were the same skill and that you maintained the same skill throughout. If you had data on this for say, Virtua Fighter, you'd see that you did the best against Jacky and Kage and Lau, but that's only because they're disproportionately newbie characters, despite those characters being fantastic at high level.

 

[NewGame]

Stepping stones people!

It's good to have entry point games that give a better starting point for players.

 

[Bishop89]

I think its a problem just for the newbies, as a fighting game veteran, I have no problems getting good/adjusting to a new fighting game. To b honest, I dont know how u could make it easier on new players without dumbing it down for the rest. Practice makes perfect, so start training and dont make the rest of us suffer .

 

[Deft Beck]

Yes, yes they are.

Good designs take complex mechanics and simplify them, make them so controls are easy to learn, but difficult to master.

A lot of games however, seem mostly to place their difficulty entirely in the controls. This isn't to say that we cannot have games that require considerably more forethought to play through, but developers should still strive to simplify gameplay and mechanics where ever possible.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you cannot execute an action at all, the game is not accessible enough.

A game should lay out your tools, teach you how to use them and then present challenges that utilize them in different combinations. Easy to learn, difficult to master is a good phrase to describe that practice.

I also have issues with Minecraft, a game that lacked a tutorial for the longest time. Exploration, trial and error are one thing, but if I have to constantly look back in a move-list or a wiki page to execute an action, that is cumbersome and clunky.

 

[impact]

Tekken most definitely is. So many systems/options you have to learn before you can even play the game without resorting to button mashing.

 

[PBalfredo]

That wouldn't help at all though, because it'd assume that all Sagat players were the same skill and that you maintained the same skill throughout. If you had data on this for say, Virtua Fighter, you'd see that you did the best against Jacky and Kage and Lau, but that's only because they're disproportionately newbie characters, despite those characters being fantastic at high level.

Who cares if the stats don't reflect the universal metagame? If I know that my Zangief is a shitty matchup against the Sagat's I've been playing, then that's enough for me. Then it does it's job.

 

[ihearthawthats]

I agree that a certain degree of granularity and context will be extremely difficult for an in-game system to capture, calculate and respond to. However, if the system is able to help a player develop their skills to the point where they would be be competent enough to move on to the metagame, that would be great. That's the crux of my argument.

The game should not hand you answers, but it should help players by questioning their methods and offering opportunities for practice in specific areas.

got any examples of games from other genres that do this effectively?

at least to me, fighting games have always been about playing other people and learning from other people. i'm not sure how much a cpu aide could help, especially if cpu ai itself is already non-representative of actual player matches. i suppose it could help you get better at arcade mode, for whatever reason people would value such a thing?


with xbone/ps4 social/streaming capabilities, i think the community implementation will definitely be great. no more having to go out of game and onto youtube channels to learn things. you can do it right in-game.

 

[HeelPower]

fighting games are mostly inaccessible , unintuitive and one of the slowest evolving genres in gaming. Someone needs to come up with a new ip that actually has logical gameplay that can be enjoyed and understood by all levels.

preferably it shouldn't require five a hours a day for a year to start making sense.

Edit : Unless fighting games are accepted as Olympic sports its not ok to build such arcane systems.Their current status doesnot warrant the effort these games require.

 

[SolarPowered]

I picked Felicia by accident, and was matched up against Jon Talbain. I wanted to turn off the sprite filtering and I couldn't until I had finally lost my first two matches.

That's besides the central point of the thread, though.

Jon will make any game look unfair and obtuse.

I think Darkstalkers is one of the least newbie friendly games out there. Try Persona 4 Arena OP.

Vampire Savior is one of the most accessible fighting games out there so long as you can get past the hurdle of command supers. Recommending a game like P4A with a million subsystems is hilarious though lol. I tried to play P4A. I really did, but it's got a million things going on at the same time. People get fooled by the mashing for a regular combo, though.

fighting games are mostly inaccessible , unintuitive and one of the slowest evolving genres in gaming. Someone needs to come up with a new ip that actually has logical gameplay that can be enjoyed and understood by all levels.

preferably it shouldn't require five a hours a day for a year to start making sense.

You won't feel it's very logical when someone better puts you through the grinder. I feel this is the case for many people who have issues with fighting games.

 

[Acorn]

For me genres like fighting games and Mobas etc are marked on my game map as "there be dragons here". I'd love to be passable at them but I'm not putting in 200 hours of getting destroyed to get there.

 

[Deft Beck]

But these deficiencies aren't obvious. Many times they're part of learning the game. It took a while for the start of SF4 to find out that Sagat Vs Gief was a 9/1 matchup. Near impossible to win for Zangief. Would you rather the system came back with the answer of "Don't pick Zangief"?

Perhaps the deficiencies are not obvious, and sometimes they are. Player struggles like those are a part of any game, but learning systems should be configured to encourage a player's improvement in all areas.

The example you cited is a consequence of the game design. A game should never outright discourage the use of a character or feature that makes the game inherently more difficult in a particular situation.

 

[Zuly]

I think Skullgirls did it right by including a tutorial that not only taught you how to play Skullgirls but it taught you the basics of 2D fighting games in general. Fighting games have always been a demanding genre that caters to people who are willing to get good at it. The whole point of the genre is to fight and if you're not good a fighting, then there's really little of what you can do.

Many modern fighting games have actually skewed back and tried to make their games very accessible for newcomers. Ark System Works has the Easy Mode factor which enables a newcomer to do basic combos without any requirement of execution and Capcom has opted to make inputs more lenient by expanding the input window.

 

[Skilletor]

I think its pretty accessible and hard to master, unlike 3rd strike that wasn't really accessible, hard to master. And it didn't matter anyway because any decent Chun or Yun could wreck your shop.

SF3 is easier to play than any other SF ever, imo. Parries are the only difficult thing.

SF3 had easy execution, no reliance on links of any kind. I really don't understand why people say SF3 is hard. Back when it came out, it was made fun of for being so easy. It added special cancels to help combo supers, it didn't have custom combos (aside from Yun/Yang), no isms, no links. It seems revisionist to say that the game was super difficult to get in to.

I also don't think a decent Chun or Yun are going to wreck anybody's shit at a low to mid level of play. All things being equal, I mean. If somebody is better than you, it's not going to matter who they use.

 

[PBalfredo]

Recommending a game like P4A with a million subsystems is hilarious though lol. I tried to play P4A. I really did, but it's got a million things going on at the same time. People get fooled by the mashing for a regular combo, though..

The character subsystems only become meaningful once the player gets a handle of the basics and are ready to move to the next level. And P4A does so many things to help accommodate new players to the basics, that it's a worthy recommendation for new players.

 

[oneida]

You should seriously consider checking out Virtua Fighter.

I'm gonna make bullet points cause I like em

• It's only 3 buttons! 99% of commands are just BUTTON + DIRECTION!
• There's a 10 frame buffer so technically the tightest link in the game is 10x easier than the tightest link in SFIV!*
• There's a very good in-game tutorial which covers strategies which every high-level player uses!
• VF has had very good AI since 3 (and they started doing some cool stuff in 2). Depending on the difficulty, your AI opponent will usually respond to situations in a logical manner!
• It's $15!

*ok some of the just frame stuff can be tricky.

 

[Deft Beck]

Can you give any examples? I struggle to think of anything that would actually work. The main crux of this argument always seems to be that people who don't know how to play fighting games ask for them to be made simpler or for better tools to be available. When people who know how say "that wouldn't really work though," the whole thing breaks down because the new guys feel that the older players are just set in their ways, and the older players have trouble caring about anything the new guys have to say because they can never articulate specifics.

Experience in any genre of game will have a player grow accustomed to a new vocabulary of terms. Players should not have to feel like they are struggling through a hard-to-understand set of mechanics without feeling like they are making any progress. Yes, you can become better at a game with practice, but it's an issue of accessibility and preventing frustration, which is the worst thing for a player to experience. When that happens, the chances that they will reach high-level play at all could diminish significantly.

The goal should be to build the vocabulary of newbies so that they can articulate their difficulties to advanced players. Then, they can have some expert help to improve.

 

[Toski]

Perhaps the deficiencies are not obvious, and sometimes they are. Player struggles like those are a part of any game, but learning systems should be configured to encourage a player's improvement in all areas.

The example you cited is a consequence of the game design. A game should never outright discourage the use of a character or feature that makes the game inherently more difficult in a particular situation.

I can't think of any "systems" other than a real live coach that would be helpful to improve. There is simply too much variance in fighting games for it to give you tips more specific than "don't get hit."

 

[SolarPowered]

I think Skullgirls did it right by including a tutorial that not only taught you how to play Skullgirls but it taught you the basics of 2D fighting games in general. Fighting games have always been a demanding genre that caters to people who are willing to get good at it. The whole point of the genre is to fight and if you're not good a fighting, then there's really little of what you can do.

Many modern fighting games have actually skewed back and tried to make their games very accessible for newcomers. Ark System Works has the Easy Mode factor which enables a newcomer to do basic combos without any requirement of execution and Capcom has opted to make inputs more lenient by expanding the input window.

Really the key here. Something people have to understand about the designers is that they're designers, almost never actual players like Mike Zaimont or someone like Sakurai who played in his youth. All they can do is give you the basics because almost no designer is qualified to guide millions of players once they pass a certain threshold and the teaching system falls apart.

The key is improving the delivery system of those basics and providing more obvious rewards for learning them beyond winning.

The character subsystems only become meaningful once the player gets a handle of the basics and are ready to move to the next level. And P4A does so many things to help accommodate new players to the basics, that it's a worthy recommendation for new players.

I think it is too busy with all the options. Especially when very few fighters can even teach the basics well in the first place.

 

[LeleSocho]

Are modern fighting games too obtuse? Let me see...

SF2: mash buttons -> win

SF Zero/Alpha 3: mash buttons -> win

SFIII 3rd Strike: mash buttons -> win

SSFIV: mash buttons -> win

nope they are still the same as 15-20 years ago. As someone else already said they are easy to learn but hard to master.

 

[Sheroking]

If it were made any easier, the massive audience that appreciated its challenge could be diminished. So, instead of dumbing it down, it would be a better idea to have systems that encourage the gradual development of skills.

I would argue that is what Street Fighter IV was.

Are modern fighting games too obtuse? Let me see...

SF2: mash buttons -> win

SF Zero/Alpha 3: mash buttons -> win

SFIII 3rd Strike: mash buttons -> win

SSFIV: mash buttons -> win

nope they are still the same as 15-20 years ago. As someone else already said they are easy to learn but hard to master.

Mash buttons against me in any of these games and it's going to be ugly.

I'm at best a lower-intermediate player.

 

[Arc Christelle]

Modern Fighting Games aren't obtuse at all, matter in fact, they've been dumbed down for casual audiences.

Old school fighters aren't really difficult either, but they had a much more higher curve + mastery back in the day.

I miss those days.. It's not that the games are obtuse, it's that many people who have a hard time aren't willing to read, use context clues, learn the basics and improve. Many hide behind "just wanting to have fun" as an excuse for not improving. I used to think that only a 5 year old can enjoy a game and not get better at it, but so many people my age or older are damn near on the same level. It makes me sad that people will never know the joys of getting better at fighting games.

But to legitimately combat your point, no.

A lot of the clcokwise inputs in fighting games make sense, and if you've mastered execution it'll never feel like your "flow" has been broken.

 

[Jacksonlee]

the characters are full of interesting style, impression and personality.

the gameplay, however in fighting games never hit with me

 

[Snapshot King]

Who cares if the stats don't reflect the universal metagame? If I know that my Zangief is a shitty matchup against the Sagat's I've been playing, then that's enough for me. Then it does it's job.

Do you really need to be told by the game that you lose that match almost everytime? Couldnt you just use your brain?

 

[Ken]

Those tools can be effective, but not on their own.

Your second statement is based around the assumption that information collecting systems in games cannot improve to that point. It should be possible to have the game figure out what a player is attempting to do and then help them achieve their goals. It may not be easy, but the game that figures it out will be fascinating to see.

It sounds like the only thing that would come out of this is flowcharts.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you cannot execute an action at all, the game is not accessible enough.

A game should lay out your tools, teach you how to use them and then present challenges that utilize them in different combinations.

One thing I could see them doing is having descriptions for every normal and special in a character's command list with brief blurbs like "this is good for x" or "avoid using this when y happens." The biggest problem with this is it'd have to be constantly updating to keep up with new discoveries by the community; might as well just include an in-game browser to Dustloop wiki or something for ASW games.

 

[HeelPower]

Experience in any genre of game will have a player grow accustomed to a new vocabulary of terms. Players should not have to feel like they are struggling through a hard-to-understand set of mechanics without feeling like they are making any progress. Yes, you can become better at a game with practice, but it's an issue of accessibility and preventing frustration, which is the worst thing for a player to experience. When that happens, the chances that they will reach high-level play at all could diminish significantly.

The goal should be to build the vocabulary of newbies so that they can articulate their difficulties to advanced players. Then, they can have some expert help to improve.

You should ask yourself why a player should dedicate SO much time and effort into a game to start remotely enjoying it ?

You can't build a real career out of fighting games, at least not yet.Yet somehow , these games seem to be built in such a way that would have to dedicate massive amounts of time to start getting good and most of them have unimaginable depth.(See TTT2)

Sure TTT2 is a system to admire but I feel that doesn't make any sense in the current world we live in.Unless these games become accepted as real sport,I don't see why they these games should be so hard.Really.

People like could COD, cuz you move, see an enemy, aim and shoot.But can you describe a fighting game's system in one sentence ? Hell F**king no!

I spent three years with Tekken and I kinda regret it.I won't get any return for my efforts and most of it wasn't that fun.SO blah.

Edit: Even games that old school players think are easy are convoluted to hell.Marvel 3 is seen as a watered down game but its actually so inaccessible.I immediately thought "hell no I amnot going through this process again" when I first tried it.

 

[Deft Beck]

[
It's not that the games are obtuse, it's that many people who have a hard time aren't willing to read, use context clues, learn the basics and improve. Many hide behind "just wanting to have fun" as an excuse for not improving. I used to think that only a 5 year old can enjoy a game and not get better at it, but so many people my age or older are damn near on the same level. It makes me sad that people will never know the joys of getting better at fighting games.

A game should encourage a player to learn the basics again if they are struggling and not applying basic mechanics to advance their level of skill. Players of all skill levels should be able to have fun while refining their play.

The key is improving the delivery system of those basics and providing more obvious rewards for learning them beyond winning.

It ties back to basic operant conditioning, I believe.

 

[Mr. X]

Depends on the game and the person, to be honest. I could not get into BB at all. VF, GG and 3S are my favorites.

SF4 is hard. I would not recommend this game to a new person trying to get into fighters. There's too many nuances you need to know just to begin to play imo. The lax input leniency has to be unlearnt if you go to any other fighter.

I say this as someone who has enjoyed fighters casually since SF2 on the Genesis (SFA2, CvS2, MvC2, Soul Calibur 2, GGXX#R) and got into the real nitty gritty with VF4EVO, GGXXAC and 3S on PS2.

I find fighting games easy and highly enjoyable but you need a certain type of mindset for them. If you like putting time and seeing yourself progress, enjoy mind vs mind, and find fun in trial and error, you'll like them.

I think you can learn a lot from fighting games such as discipline, patience, awareness and perseverance and how to keep a cool head under stress. I know there was some kid who was at Final Round that plays DoA, his parents went on stream said it helped improved his grade in math because of studying frame data to improve his game.

There's a lot of fighting games out that you can try, new or old, if you want and see if any are a good fit for you. A right fit? It "feels" right. You play it and find a character or a few you enjoy using, you're having fun win or lose regardless of by how much and you have this urge to improve.

 

[Skilletor]

You should ask yourself why a player should dedicate SO much time and effort into a game to start remotely enjoying it ?

You can't build a real career out of fighting games, at least not yet.Yet somehow , these games seem to be built in such a way that would have to dedicate massive amounts of time to start getting good and most of them have unimaginable depth.(See TTT2)

Sure TTT2 is a system to admire but I feel that doesn't make any sense in the current world we live in.Unless these games become accepted as real sport,I don't see why they these games should be so hard.Really.

People like could COD, cuz you move, see an enemy, aim and shoot.But can you describe a fighting game's system in one sentence ? Hell F**king no!

I spent three years with Tekken and I kinda regret it.I won't get any return for my efforts and most of it wasn't that fun.SO blah.

Because competition is fun. Because improving execution is gratifying. Because the social aspect of fighting games have netted me my closest friends (going on 20 years). because I enjoy discussing fighting games, characters, strats. Because it's fun to watch and see what other people are doing. The combos and strats a vast community of players can come up with.

Can I describe a fighting game in once sentence?

KO them before they KO me.

 

[Deft Beck]

Do you really need to be told by the game that you lose that match almost everytime? Couldnt you just use your brain?

Brains are one thing, communication is another. Sometimes people become convinced that they are doing something wrong because of bad communication by the game, thus leading to the conclusion that they can't improve and the abandonment of the game. This is a worst-case situation and should be avoided.

Ideally, a multiplayer's game's mechanics should be varied enough that one style of play is not always the perfect way for a person to win.

 

[Sheroking]

Modern Fighting Games aren't obtuse at all, matter in fact, they've been dumbed down for casual audiences.
.

It hasn't been "dumbed down" for the casual audience, it's been made it more forgiving for entry level players.

I mean, I tried to explain how to do specials with charge characters to a couple friends and they lose interest before they can even learn how to flash kick. How do you think I'd fare with option selects or unblockables? There really are no casual players anymore. There are interested players who have to feel like their making progress to keep playing.

At least players who enjoy watching high level fighting games can work their way up with SFIV and it's derivatives.