Support NeoGAF

[superbank]

The problem with fighting games is that they're not intuitive. They don't make sense to a new/casual player of fighters. The things you do with your hands and the actions displayed on screen do not match up convincingly. First person shooters are popular now and part of that has to do with their intuitive controls. Move left control stick to move forward/back/left/right. Move right control stick up/down/left/right to look in corresponding direction. Pull trigger to shoot. That's basically it. With a traditional fighter there are 6 buttons that do different attacks, and depending on the direction pushed may do different attacks as well. With just those it's complicated but manageable but mix in different button combinations, stringing those together to do combos, the button presses must be timed properly, the animations change to something unrelated etc. It's no wonder new players resort to mashing.

Traditional fighters are not made to be understood easily. That was the tradeoff made so many years ago. The designers (Who? I don't know my FG history) wanted the most moves possible, so naturally a bunch of buttons were laid out (but just enough to be manageable), combinations and different directions do additional moves, and strings of presses do more complex moves. It's definitely a good way to get the most unique moves out of a stick and 6 buttons. Should the problem be addressed? Not by the existing franchises, no. Traditional fighting games have their fans and rightfully so. There's a lot of depth trapped under that complexity and many will put in the effort to understand it. A "better tutorial" may ease the pain slightly for players, but by design traditional fighters cannot be understood without great investment.

Smash Bros. is a good example of a "new" fighting franchise that made fighting understandable and intuitive (though it can be categorized as a platform fighter as opposed to traditional). You've got standard attacks on the A button. Just pressing A is a weak attack. Tilt the stick for a stronger attack. Slam the stick for a smash attack. Press B to do a special attack and combine with a direction for a directional special. And jump, block, and grab buttons. It's pretty simple. Even health can be determined without taking your eyes away from the action. As an enemy gains more damage they fly further. Everything about the game was made to be intuitive from the first match. But does it have more depth than a traditional fighter? I honestly don't know. Technically a wide range of situations can result from the physics engine/stage/character/attack/health combo but I really don't know.

Divekick is a game I'm looking forward to as a fighting game casual. With its interface simplification it breaks down the videogame barrier almost completely. Anyone with two appendages should be able to get into it at a faster rate than any fighting game before it. Then its purely about mind games. Who can outsmart who, without a heavy investment into training. There isn't as much depth as a traditional fighter for sure, but some of the matches I've seen are really intense and the better player always comes out on top.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Nah, I don't think they're too obtuse. In fact I think they're probably the most accessible type of competitive game you can get into. It's one on one, it's easy to keep track of everything, and it's not like you need to even know what you're doing from the start. Play AI on easy mode, get by on using one move, fight other people without a background in fighters. The amount you need to put in is only as much as you're willing to compete.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

To add to execution being a part of the game, check out SFxT's auto-combo system. By hitting two buttons you can cause your character to automatically preform one combo at the cost of meter. Players with better execution able to do stuff on their own are rewarded with keeping that meter for other uses.

Your examples have more to do with specific instances of games (which were built with a technical execution in mind that factored into their balance and game design) and do not make the argument that technical execution is intrinsically tied to the genre and its potential for depth.

I'm not even arguing that games with more accessible input wouldn't be "different"; I'm saying that it doesn't mean they would be shallow or lack the potential to be just as competitive.

 

[RM8]

There's always stuff like Bushido Blade.

You would think we'd have more alternative fighters like Bushido Blade or Power Stone, but other than Smash Bros. we get mostly very traditional fighters.

 

[OceanBlue]

You're thinking about this too literally, but even if we were to do that, humans aren't perfect. You answered this yourself:

(And, for argument's sake, you could just add an artificial delay equivalent to the time it takes the brain to tell your finger to press a button.)

Again, I'm hoping to instill the idea that we should think critically about game design and mechanics and determine what factors actually result in competitive gameplay. There is always going to be room for the execution heavy, arcade stick style fighting game, for games that are competitive due in part to their technical requirements.

But, can we envision a future where the genre encompasses games that embrace the same gameplay ideas, the same principles of strategy and technique while maintaining comparable (if not greater) depth, but with control schemes that are more accessible? I think so. Anybody can move a Chess piece, but that doesn't make one a grandmaster.

While I have a few ideas, I don't think controllers are at a point where we can vastly simplify input without sacrificing a great amount of depth, but it might not be like that in the near future. I just think it's important to recognize that fighting gameplay (and depth) is not intrinsically tied to traditional motion inputs so that we can more critically discuss the genre and not miss opportunities in the future for innovation.

In my experience, the time it takes to see something is far different than the time it takes to react to something with your hands. Even if people aren't perfect, they aren't blind. People vary both in how fast they react with their hands and how they react with their head.

It's not that I don't think that every game should use QCF or DP motions. 3D games and Smash are fine without them. I'm just saying that execution requirements add their own level of skill to a game and affect how it's played. Whether you think that it's a worthwhile skill is another argument entirely. The article posted by Lemstar is a good look at it. The counter-article posted in the comments of that article is a good rebuttal.

Honestly, I don't mind that I can't kick a ball in soccer or dribble around quite like a professional player can. I can still compete with people on my level. I think both execution-heavy games and execution-lax games have their places and their audiences. After all, it's not like most people choose to compete in the most technical or deep games anyway.

Edit: Also, I think frame buffers (or whatever Blazblue, SSB, and Virtua Fighter use) are a nice way to ease the difficulty of links. You have X amount of frames during recovery to press a button and have it activate the frame you leave recovery.

 

[SixMachine]

You would think we'd have more alternative fighters like Bushido Blade or Power Stone, but other than Smash Bros. we get mostly very traditional fighters.

Straight up, a game like powerstone took off, we would get a similar fg thread over again about people getting beaten by a better player. I made someone rage quit a powerstone match, because he said he played powerstone before, then I went on a long win streak because he obviously didn't know how to counter, control space, or even use the environment. I also killed him when I let him go super saiyan so that also attributed to him getting pissed. Though we played ikaruga afterwards so we were cool.

 

[coldfoot]

Most puzzle games can't be modern at all, lol. No 3D, no need for analog input, no popularity to pull off a $60 price tag. You can come up with a new concept for a puzzle game without these elements and it won't be a modern game. Terry Cavanagh's upcoming Halting Problem can't be a modern game.

Echochrome

 

[coldfoot]

Yes you can. I actually just can't tell if you're being genuine anymore because you're not even talking about fighting games at all any more.

Mario anything sells, and that's a DS game, and last I checked, 2006 is a lot different than 2013. Handheld games aren't big business anymore.
Anyway we're way off topic now, so I'll stop. But the execution barrier will always make sure fighting games will have no appeal outside of their hardcore niche.

 

[thesolidshark]

Mario anything sells, and that's a DS game, and last I checked, 2006 is a lot different than 2013. Handheld games aren't big business anymore.
Anyway we're way off topic now, so I'll stop. But the execution barrier will always make sure fighting games will have no appeal outside of their hardcore niche.

Won't be much of a fighter without it, in my eyes at least. I may have some exceptions to that, but I can't think of any now. Fighters can only bend so far before those "outside the hardcore" will be the ones that have to adapt and learn.

 

[RM8]

That DS game spawned two multi-million selling home console full-priced sequels. And Mario's popularity somehow doesn't make every single spin-off become so successful. The upcoming DKC game on WiiU will be fill priced as well.

 

[Noisepurge]

well this thread moves fast but it has probably been said that games like Tekken has settings for changing the Arcade mode to easy or very easy and then its even fun just buttonmashing through the story mode.

 

[shadowstar]

There just needs to be a better tutorial. Just giving a movelist doesn't help. Explain why a move is effective at one time versus another. When should you be doing this. What's a good time to do one combo or a different combo.

That's the stuff that needs to be explained.

That's what the strategy guide is for. Often they're now written with the help of pro players. The issue is the meta game changes so much over time, i'ts impossible for the game or guide to keep up. You just have to keep playing, learning, adapting, and relearning.

Even if it was possible for the developers to program in a system that somehow knows the exact use of every move in every situation so it could somehow magically tell you how to beat your opponent, it would only work on day one. The fighting game genre is one where the way the game is played a year after release is unlikely how the developers envisioned it. There are also so many factors that can't be judged like mind games. Even the simple dragon punch is hard to analyze when you should be using it because you can be baited into doing it at the wrong time. How is the game supposed to tell you when you should or shouldn't be doing it? Combos change over time too. The combos aren't static inputs (unless its an auto combo system) so the game could only tell you to do day 1 combos.

Fighting games are a lot like real fighting. There are too many factors to take into consideration to have one magic AI telling you how to fight the perfect fight.

It seems like the comments from people who don't play fighting games are full of ignorance regarding the meta game and just how difficult it is to predict.

 

[Into]

Its the same as it always is, its just that, other genres have become easier to learn and get into

A game like CoD shelters its new players by having the most popular game modes be team based, meaning removing most responsibility from any 1 specific player, so despite this new player being new and bad he can still win the match if his team pulls him through. The levels are also designed in such a way to guaranteeing that even the worst players will get a lucky kill here and there, motivating them to learn the game better and better better overall.

Fighting games do not have that as it is not team based, all the responsibility is put on one player and that can be very daunting for new players.

 

[Orayn]

I figure fighting games still have the execution they do for the same reason Magic: The Gathering still has land cards. Though you could theoretically get by without them, they've become ingrained because they add tactical depth and raise the level of skill required, and the potential replacements for them have problems of their own.

Its the same as it always is, its just that, other genres have become easier to learn and get into

A game like CoD shelters its new players by having the most popular game modes be team based, meaning removing most responsibility from any 1 specific player, so despite this new player being new and bad he can still win the match if his team pulls him through. The levels are also designed in such a way to guaranteeing that even the worst players will get a lucky kill here and there, motivating them to learn the game better and better better overall.

Fighting games do not have that as it is not team based, all the responsibility is put on one player and that can be very daunting for new players.

This too. The 1v1 nature of fighting games undoubtedly plays a big role in why they're so intimidating to new players.

 

[Essay]

The most satisfying event in my video-gaming life has come recently, when, after half-a-year of practice, asking questions, researching and weekly casual meetups, I've become consistent enough with one of Guilty Gear's most executionally-advanced techniques to compete with my country's top players using the (hard-to-use) character I was most interested in, but never thought I could handle.

I would not trade the experience for the world. If it had been any easier, it would not have made the same mark on me. Hell, I don't think I'd get the same endorphin rush from performing it if it wasn't so involving.

Even better, somehow, my investment/obsession has spilled over and attracted a lot of people to the game from other scenes, and kept everyone hungry for competition. (What it really did was force me to be a better community organizer and hype-man to ensure my investment didn't go to waste, but that's another thing entirely. Who cares! There's a competitive local scene here now where there wasn't one before!)

It got me thinking though. I'm starting to look at fighting games as requiring two different types of investment: 1) a strategic investment like learning how to play chess, and 2) a executional investment like learning to play billiards. Both elements contribute to the thrill of any fighting game. Every game will reward simultaneous investment in each element to varying degrees, but, on some level, the skills are always transferable to the rest of the games in the genre.

The one trick is that I would argue that our society is more prone to celebrating/valuing the chess-player element than the billiard-player element simply because we're a literate society that likes to talk about things we can describe/summarize easily in writing, like strategy over execution- and reaction-building. Maybe because of that it's too easy for outsiders looking in to idealize the strategic aspect of fighting games, which is kind of like falling in love for someone's looks alone....

 

[Ken]

I'm not even arguing that games with more accessible input wouldn't be "different"; I'm saying that it doesn't mean they would be shallow or lack the potential to be just as competitive.

Well, P4A removes DP motions and everything is QCF, QCB, 22, or charge motions and I've read more than one person express that the game is shallow compared to stuff like BB with DP and half circle motions. Of course I don't know if the two are linked but is that kind of what you're going for?

 

[Manabanana]

There just needs to be a better tutorial. Just giving a movelist doesn't help. Explain why a move is effective at one time versus another. When should you be doing this. What's a good time to do one combo or a different combo.

That's the stuff that needs to be explained.

But no one KNOWS that stuff when the game comes out. So I'm not sure what you expect. Competitive games take a long time to mature. What's "good" at first might get solved a month later and never pop up in competitive play again.

 

[coldfoot]

Duplicate post sorry.

 

[coldfoot]

That DS game spawned two multi-million selling home console full-priced sequels. And Mario's popularity somehow doesn't make every single spin-off become so successful. The upcoming DKC game on WiiU will be fill priced as well.

But it does. Mario games are million sellers. Anyway a Wii isn't a modern console, and WiiU sales shows us exactly where Nintendo is heading in terms of home consoles. Mario sells, period.

The one trick is that I would argue that our society is more prone to celebrating/valuing the chess-player element than the billiard-player element simply because we're a literate society that likes to talk about things we can describe/summarize easily in writing, like strategy over execution- and reaction-building. Maybe because of that it's too easy for outsiders looking in to idealize the strategic aspect of fighting games, which is kind of like falling in love for someone's looks alone....

Professional sports are even more execution oriented than fighting games, and they're very popular in our society, so I don't think it's that.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

In my experience, the time it takes to see something is far different than the time it takes to react to something with your hands. Even if people aren't perfect, they aren't blind. People vary both in how fast they react with their hands and how they react with their head.

Again, like I said, this magical device could implement a delay (or even warm-up) of some kind, on the magnitude of the time it would take your hands to receive a brain signal.

It's not that I don't think that every game should use QCF or DP motions. 3D games and Smash are fine without them. I'm just saying that execution requirements add their own level of skill to a game and affect how it's played. Whether you think that it's a worthwhile skill is another argument entirely. The article posted by Lemstar is a good look at it. The counter-article posted in the comments of that article is a good rebuttal.

Honestly, I don't mind that I can't kick a ball in soccer or dribble around quite like a professional player can. I can still compete with people on my level. I think both execution-heavy games and execution-lax games have their places and their audiences. After all, it's not like most people choose to compete in the most technical or deep games anyway.

Edit: Also, I think frame buffers (or whatever Blazblue, SSB, and Virtua Fighter use) are a nice way to ease the difficulty of links. You have X amount of frames during recovery to press a button and have it activate the frame you leave recovery.

Glad you posted that Sirlin article, it's a great example of how to think about game design more critically. (I love all of his writings on fighting games.) But even with his point about turning DP into a button press going too far in reducing strategy, he should still separate the strategy component ("I need time to react and execute a DP") from the execution component ("I need the dexterity to execute a DP in a timely fashion"). In some theoretical input, one could be required to "warm-up" a move before it actually executes. ("Hold button for X time" is a simple way of representing this.) The physical motion is not implied by his argument. But I digress.

I agree with you for the most part. Like I said, there will always be room for games that include a degree of technical execution and dexterity, but that doesn't imply greater gameplay depth. It's just simply "different". (Probably also has a lot to do with if a person views games, and fighters in particular, as being more similar to physical athletics like basketball or pure mental competitions like chess.)

But I think those games that are more accessible (again, without sacrificing depth) have the potential to be more widespread and popularized, which I think is a great thing for the genre. And I don't think that it would take away from what traditional fighters have to offer.

 

[Essay]

Professional sports are even more execution oriented than fighting games, and they're very popular in our society, so I don't think it's that.

I think at its core its a hard comparison to make because there are so many external factors and rewards that go into encouraging people to play sports, and a much older cultural tradition established around them.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

Well, P4A removes DP motions and everything is QCF, QCB, 22, or charge motions and I've read more than one person express that the game is shallow compared to stuff like BB with DP and half circle motions. Of course I don't know if the two are linked but is that kind of what you're going for?

Again, you're using a specific example that doesn't necessarily prove a connection or that all similar games would be just as shallow. I could find a dozen shallow fighters that rely on technical execution, but that doesn't link the two together.

 

[Ken]

Again, you're using a specific example that doesn't necessarily prove a connection or that all similar games would be just as shallow. I could find a dozen shallow fighters that rely on technical execution, but that doesn't link the two together.

Dunno then. I can't think of any other fighting games that I've played that tried to increase accessibility by changing how inputs work.

 

[FSLink]

In regards to tutorials, the problem is that the community tends to find new tech/exploits out of mechanics/etc that the developers never intended or expected.
So I think more modern fighting games should lean towards BlazBlue/Skullgirls type tutorials where they teach you "the basics", but anything new, they could have a community hub where they promote tutorials and such. I think this would be the best especially with YouTube implementation/streaming implementations finding its way into gaming more nowadays.

In otherwords, since fighting games is all about the communities and the amount of information out there, make it easier for newcomers to find that information. Yeah, it's easy to google and go on SRK or YouTube, but I think streamlining the process would be a good way to modernize this.

 

[daniels]

The most satisfying event in my video-gaming life has come recently, when, after half-a-year of practice, asking questions, researching and weekly casual meetups, I've become consistent enough with one of Guilty Gear's most executionally-advanced techniques to compete with my country's top players using the (hard-to-use) character I was most interested in, but never thought I could handle.

I would not trade the experience for the world. If it had been any easier, it would not have made the same mark on me. Hell, I don't think I'd get the same endorphin rush from performing it if it wasn't so involving.

Not that hard as your example but i STILL remember the first time i got my first dustloop with sol in GGx2R outside of trainingsmode :'D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQsted6FjRo

 

[RM8]

Okay I'm done with the dynamic goalposts and arbitrary labels. BTW guys, isn't Injustice doing really well numbers-wise? Fighters clearly still can be popular and approachable without one-button specials, 3D or analog input.

 

[shadowstar]

But I think those games that are more accessible (again, without sacrificing depth) have the potential to be more widespread and popularized, which I think is a great thing for the genre. And I don't think that it would take away from what traditional fighters have to offer.

But fighting games are fun both because of the strategy and the technical skill (dexterity) required. You may not like that, but there are plenty of other genres out there. Even simple to play fighters like Smash Bros. eventually have a dexterity requirement (wavedashing) because the kinds of people who truly love fighting games and take the time to be great at them, figure out how to be better in any way they can. Someone earlier mentioned the 3point line in basketball. Basketball, like any other sport, is a test of strategy and execution. Moving the 3 point line closer would ease the execution, but it wouldn't feel as rewarding. Hitting a hard to do optimized combo in a game under extreme pressure is rewarding. To me, removing the dexterity part of the genre is dumbing it down the same way it would be to move the 3 point line closer.

If a game came out that severely dumb down execution and became popular, as a fan of fighting games as they are now, I would be scared because I'd fear that would be the future of the genre once companies started making money. While I see your viewpoint, I disagree with it as a fan of fighting games.

 

[Juicebox_FGC]

"Fighting games are hard"

Yup. Keep playing. If you don't feel like it, that's cool, bro.

Most modern multiplayer games have RPG-style XP and rank systems for a reason. They give players a sense of accomplishment and progress regardless of the match results. In a fighter the result is the only thing that exists.

I have 3000 or so "Battle Points" for my main character Abel in SF4. I remember coming across a Ryu player with over 12000. Is he better than me? Well, I beat him 10 times in a row. The points are worthless. The game tells you you're terrible at it. Do something about it.

Or don't, and complain on the internet about how it's somehow the game's fault that you lost.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

But fighting games are fun both because of the strategy and the technical skill (dexterity) required. You may not like that, but there are plenty of other genres out there. Even simple to play fighters like Smash Bros. eventually have a dexterity requirement (wavedashing) because the kinds of people who truly love fighting games and take the time to be great at them, figure out how to be better in any way they can. Someone earlier mentioned the 3point line in basketball. Basketball, like any other sport, is a test of strategy and execution. Moving the 3 point line closer would ease the execution, but it wouldn't feel as rewarding. Hitting a hard to do optimized combo in a game under extreme pressure is rewarding. To me, removing the dexterity part of the genre is dumbing it down the same way it would be to move the 3 point line closer.

If a game came out that severely dumb down execution and became popular, as a fan of fighting games as they are now, I would be scared because I'd fear that would be the future of the genre once companies started making money. While I see your viewpoint, I disagree with it as a fan of fighting games.

You'd do well to read the Sirlin article OceanBlue linked.

But more than that, it goes back to what I said earlier:

(Probably also has a lot to do with if a person views games, and fighters in particular, as being more similar to physical athletics like basketball or pure mental competitions like chess.)

I probably err more on the chess side. I'm personally more interested in games that focus on interesting decisions and not necessarily their execution. (Chess would not be made better by a dexterity component added to the action of moving a piece.)

But, as I said in the post you quoted, I think they could easily coexist. We have all sorts of games with all sorts of gameplay, and they're all justified in their own ways. Heck, even in this genre, we have 2D and 3D fighting games, which offer fundamentally different approaches to gameplay without a negative impact to the potential for depth and strategy.

 

[Chrono Helix]

Modern platformers (Wii/WiiU Mario, Ratchet and Clank or LittleBigPlanet) are certainly not better with a d-pad. Puzzle and strategy games don't have you controlling a character where his movements need to be made in a time critical manner.

I really don't recommend playing Catherine with an analog stick.

 

[Ragingnight]

Some of the old fighting games are balanced around the execution of the move. For instance, can you imagine how broken guile would be if sonic boom was a QCF? Having sonic boom and flash kick as charge skills puts check on guile. Same goes with Honda as well. Honda would be super broken if he had QCF motions instead of charge skills.

I think fighting games are fine. I don't think they are hard at all. You can get by fine playing very basic for majority of the fighters. The obvious exceptions (imo) would be tekken, KOF and BB.

 

[SapientWolf]

You would think we'd have more alternative fighters like Bushido Blade or Power Stone, but other than Smash Bros. we get mostly very traditional fighters.

Outside of licensed titles, the traditional fighters are a safer bet for the publishers.

 

[zoukka]

Yep fighting games could use better tutorials and campaign modes to slowly teach the game mechanics to everyone. A decent matchmaking would help too.

 

[shadowstar]

You'd do well to read the Sirlin article OceanBlue linked.

But more than that, it goes back to what I said earlier:



I probably err more on the chess side. I'm personally more interested in games that focus on interesting decisions and not necessarily their execution. (Chess would not be made better by a dexterity component added to the action of moving a piece.)

But, as I said in the post you quoted, I think they could easily coexist. We have all sorts of games with all sorts of gameplay, and they're all justified in their own ways. Heck, even in this genre, we have 2D and 3D fighting games, which offer fundamentally different approaches to gameplay without a negative impact to the potential for depth and strategy.

I have read that post before. I view fighting games as the digital equivalent of MMA. The decision of when to throw a punch and your form when throwing it matter in a fight. Fighting games are games that offer both interesting decisions and execution just like physical sports and it is why I enjoy them. I agree both can coexist, I think they do now with smash and say sf4. Powerstone was mentioned earlier too. These games already exist they just aren't popular. The ones that are, have execution requirements because the community that loves fighting games tends to prefer that type of game. The people that don't love fighting games and just want to play casually, aren't really the kind that stick around and build a community.

I don't see why 2D and 3D fighters having some differences is relevant to this conversation. Having different systems is OK. Not every game plays like street fighter even if 2D. MvC isn't played at all like SF. Having gameplay variety is good.

My issue is with the hypothetical of a fighting game that required no technical execution becoming big and it being good for the genre. I don't think that is good. I fear what happened with WoW would happen with fighting games if a similar situation appeared.

 

[shadowstar]

It really is the 1v1 aspect of fighting games that makes people feel down. You don't get all the magic stats you'd get from say League like your gold out put, assists, kills, etc. You either win by yourself, or lose by yourself. There is no one else in that match to cover up for your mistakes. A lot of people play team based games not realizing how bad they are and think they know how to play. I don't hear anyone asking for a magic AI that teaches you how to make the proper decisions to not get shot in the face in CoD or asking for every shot to be a headshot because "that's the strategy I wanted to implement, shooting that guy in the dome." In fighting games, your weakness is far more apparent.

The community also has deep roots so playing anyone that knows how to play seems impossible. You blame the game or the genre, but really its because 1 player has played the genre for decades. If there was no execution requirement these people would still lose every time and they'd find something else to blame. It will be most apparent when DiveKick comes out. There is no personal responsibility and no drive with casual players so they'd rather hope for someone to make a game tailored exactly for them.

 

[SolarPowered]

3.) Do you think it's possible for a tutorial to discuss the metagame, even if briefly?

No metagame can even begin to be discussed without players putting in hundreds of thousands of man hours into the game. I said a few pages back that even well regarded tournament players turned developers like Mike Z concede defeat before the masses. Others like Sakurai just spit on competition and some like Ono just troll the fuck out of us.

No one except the players is qualified to do the job. By the time the metagame is reached casuals will not care.

 

[patapuf]

No metagame can even begin to be discussed without players putting in hundreds of thousands of man hours into the game. I said a few pages back that even well regarded tournament players turned developers like Mike Z concede defeat before the masses. Others like Sakurai just spit on competition and some like Ono just troll the fuck out of us.

No one except the players is qualified to do the job. By the time the metagame is reached casuals will not care.

Not to mention that metagames change over time and even minor patches can mean big changes.

That said, good matchmaking and turtorials are certainly something developpers should try to implement.

In general though: MP games have always been light on tutorials and have relied on players and replays teaching newbies how to play. Be it FPS like quake or CS, RTS's, MOBA's ect. Valve for example just released basic tutorials for dota despite it being played for years.

 

[Kintaro]

Too obtuse? Nah. It's probably the closest thing to a sport. You put in the time to became better. You learn the game. Or you can fuck around and goof off. That's cool too. If you want to get "good" though, you better put in that work.

 

[Arthea]

Not only fighting games, although I do agree that it seems fighting games suffer most from being too much hassle to get into.
I see often people complaining with being unable to get into strategy games.
I have theory that only genres that are easy to get into (mainstreamed) are popular, for reasons they are easy to get into. And as I don't want strategy games mainstreamed, I can see how people would want fighting games to be as they are now - obtuse for newbies, just right for fans of a genre.
And fighting games have nothing on some simulation games I've seen. (><)

 

[enzo_gt]

I haven't read through the entire thread but frustrations with CPU that OP might be having (amplified by the absence of proper tutorial modes in the games OP cited) is largely due to the difficulty in programming good AI in a fighting game. SF4 has particularly bad AI. It's tough to make AI that isn't telepathic, but has some sort of reactionary ability. It's tough to make AI that has a plan that develops and evolves as a match goes on, let alone what that plan is. Other competitive genres suffer the same and often use sorts of shortcuts or "unfair" traits given to AI controlled characters to produce difficulty, which is a terrible way of doing it but that's what happens. And it happens in stuff like SF4 too where the AI doesn't need to buffer charges for moves etc.

 

[Freshmaker]

Analog and 3D are requisites, but just having that isn't enough, obviously.

By what's been said so far, the only modern fighter is The Fight.

Which is strange since the game was good, but it was poorly received by anyone that didn't know anything about boxing.

That aside, it's kinda funny. I avoid FPS games for reasons similar to the OP's issues with fighting games. (It's probably kinda dated)

1) I hate the POV. It makes platforming of any kind needlessly difficult and it doesn't give an accurate sense to space in my mind.
2) My guns do nothing. Everyone else's gun one shots me.
3) I don't want to spend time memorizing a map and running a race to the optimal points for attacking, getting gear etc.
4) I have no interest in hopping about like a flea on crack to avoid head shots.
5) I shouldn't have to blow my legs off with a rocket launcher to get to that ledge over there.
6) Why did that knife just do more damage than a tank firing a bunker buster at me?

That said, I don't think that FPS games should accommodate me at all because accommodating my list is impossible. Most of them are me simply being too lazy/disinterested/incurious to learn anything about the mechanics, and the first one can't be addressed without dropping the POV entirely. If I was interested, I'd put in the time to actually learn the nuances. I don't however.

 

[oneida]

Dunno then. I can't think of any other fighting games that I've played that tried to increase accessibility by changing how inputs work.

Absolutely any fighter with a frame buffer. BB has a 3 frame buffer IIRC, VF has a 10 frame buffer. They serve no purpose but to make the game easier to play.

 

[RangerX]

I can see how can be frustrating for beginners.. Its all about laying the groundwork. I don't mean playing for years, but yes, you do have to put a couple of hours in for a couple of weeks or a month to compete online.(Actually probably a year to beat some players!). The systems in fighting games are'nt complicated. How to employ them can be difficult for some. I'm happy with the way things are. I would'nt like to see it dumbed down.

 

[Htown]

Mario anything sells, and that's a DS game, and last I checked, 2006 is a lot different than 2013. Handheld games aren't big business anymore.

you can't go "games like 2D mario don't sell any more" and then ignore 2D mario because it sells too well

NSMB Wii sold upwards of 27 million copies

NSMB on 3DS sold more than 4.5 million copies and counting

 

[Hobohodo]

Is it just me that immediately gets the scene with the warden from Shawshank Redemption in their head when someone mentions the word obtuse?

Not at all.

 

[thelastword]

I kinda understand OP. I'm only now learning SF(this gen) because all I use to play was tekken before. The mechanics are definitely different, you have to learn chains and links in sf as opposed to launchers and bound moves in tekken.

The great thing about tekken is that it has alot of chains and therefore is instantly more fun for the casual players, however we all know it's depth (namely ttt2).

Learning SF on the other hand is kinda different and to me there are some inconsistencies with certain joystick movements. Why is it that trying to dp into fadc feels so different with seth as opposed to akuma, i'm trying to do this with seth and most times I will get super, the same can be said with Dan. This is just one example ofcourse.

I can't complain about 1 frame links too much, since you have to put in the time to get good execution wise, and despite the fact that sf is my most played online game this generation, it could definitely use a good tutorial to get persons to learn it's mechanics.

In sf; there are shotos, there are charge characters and there are grapplers. Capcom should at least teach persons the basics of all three of these fighter types, teach their basic bnb's at the very least.

Typical example, I never really played charged characters whilst casually playing sf, so I was stuck on Chun-li's trial 11 and was wondering, how can you do this? I tried many times. It's j.hp c.hp to sbk. I was trying to do all three as fast as possible, no dice, till i did a little research and understood you had to link the last two.

Still, I go to Guile and tried a similar bnb combo, j.hk s.hp to sb and it still felt a bit hard to do after having learnt the chun-li combo to some degree of efficiency.

I guess it's all part of the learning process, but perhaps a timing tutorial when doing the moves would be handy. I can do guile's trial 15 so easily, light.flashkick into ultra but can't do a sonic boom bnb consistently. Why is it that the stuff which is supposed to be harder is easier to do for me? This shouldn't be.

I had no problems with bison trials and did all his bnb's without even having any knowledge of linking, I just did it fast. I find most of deejay's stuff pretty easy to do too. Point is, i'm using the same basic movements for all these same character types yet do they feel so different in execution?

Why do I have to delay my hit-confirms into links with blanka as much as possible? I can do his j.mk c.mk into lightning cannonball but cant do j.hp s.hp into super.

I just want to say I ended up loving sf this gen despite all that and play it lots, but it just goes to show that the learning process can be a bit exhausting, perhaps capcom could approach a fighter not thinking that we all know the basics and have been playing since sf1.

 

[Recall]

The "problem" with fighting games is that people want to be able to mash and do the few moves they know and it be enough, the notion that its actually a deep and time consuming process is never mentioned.

Fighting games are amazing now as they ever were.

 

[ironcreed]

The "problem" with fighting games is that people want to be able to mash and do the few moves they know and it be enough, the notion that its actually a deep and time consuming process is never mentioned.

Fighting games are amazing now as they ever were.

Guilty as charged for the most part, but I was never really deep into the genre. I just enjoy it every now and then for a change of pace and find that just learning a few good moves that I really like in addition to the basics is enough for me. What is neat is that one has the option of going about as deep as they want and can still have a good time.

 

[Skilletor]

I kinda understand OP. I'm only now learning SF(this gen) because all I use to play was tekken before. The mechanics are definitely different, you have to learn chains and links in sf as opposed to launchers and bound moves in tekken.

The great thing about tekken is that it has alot of chains and therefore is instantly more fun for the casual players, however we all know it's depth (namely ttt2).

Learning SF on the other hand is kinda different and to me there are some inconsistencies with certain joystick movements. Why is it that trying to dp into fadc feels so different with seth as opposed to akuma, i'm trying to do this with seth and most times I will get super, the same can be said with Dan. This is just one example ofcourse.

I can't complain about 1 frame links too much, since you have to put in the time to get good execution wise, and despite the fact that sf is my most played online game this generation, it could definitely use a good tutorial to get persons to learn it's mechanics.

In sf; there are shotos, there are charge characters and there are grapplers. Capcom should at least teach persons the basics of all three of these fighter types, teach their basic bnb's at the very least.

Typical example, I never really played charged characters whilst casually playing sf, so I was stuck on Chun-li's trial 11 and was wondering, how can you do this? I tried many times. It's j.hp c.hp to sbk. I was trying to do all three as fast as possible, no dice, till i did a little research and understood you had to link the last two.

Still, I go to Guile and tried a similar bnb combo, j.hk s.hp to sb and it still felt a bit hard to do after having learnt the chun-li combo to some degree of efficiency.

I guess it's all part of the learning process, but perhaps a timing tutorial when doing the moves would be handy. I can do guile's trial 15 so easily, light.flashkick into ultra but can't do a sonic boom bnb consistently. Why is it that the stuff which is supposed to be harder is easier to do for me? This shouldn't be.

I had no problems with bison trials and did all his bnb's without even having any knowledge of linking, I just did it fast. I find most of deejay's stuff pretty easy to do too. Point is, i'm using the same basic movements for all these same character types yet do they feel so different in execution?

Why do I have to delay my hit-confirms into links with blanka as much as possible? I can do his j.mk c.mk into lightning cannonball but cant do j.hp s.hp into super.

I just want to say I ended up loving sf this gen despite all that and play it lots, but it just goes to show that the learning process can be a bit exhausting, perhaps capcom could approach a fighter not thinking that we all know the basics and have been playing since sf1.

Akuma doesn't have a double qcf super, so you wouldn't be able to get a super by accident with him. Sounds like your inputs are a bit loose.

 

[BadWolf]

I definitely feel like I'm lucky to have been there from the starting days of the genre, it is anything but new player friendly for sure.