Building A Better Fighter : No Megaman Edition

[SnowShingo]

Fighting games seem to have hit their plateau, sales wise, for this generation. The exception is Mortal Kombat, which as of June is still in the top ten best sellers list, despite previous contenders SSF4 and MVC3 only holding a place in that list for a month or so before dropping drastically. I think that fighting games still have a long way to go before developing a larger fanbase, and even that will pale in comparison to the tactical shooter gamers who almost always ensure that the current iterations of CoD will remain in the top sellers list until the next version is released. On Capcom Unity in a thread asking for feature in 3S:Online, I (and several others) made posts asking for an advanced parry training system with real attacks being used in pre-coded conditions that would gradually increase in difficulty to allow new players to get into that particular mechanic. Argued with a lot of so called pros on the subject to, the majority of whom thought it would ruin the game and that new players should bootstrap it up.

I think Capcom, along with other fighting game devs, could and should go even further  :

1) Have a mode that acts as a supplement to training that goes through all of the mechanics in the game, explaining what exactly links and chains are, how to perform them properly, how to properly perform defensive maneuvers, etc. There is no reason that a new player should have to immediately go online for this information, it should be contained within the game itself. And it should be presented in a way that awards the player for learning these core concepts.

2) Have the hitboxes shown during the programmed combo practice mode, where the attack boxes will light up at the exact moment you should link/chain into another attack, instead of this trial and error stuff. Again, there is no reason a new player should have to go outside the game itself to learn how to perform anything inside the game.  It's counter-intuitive and makes the games seem impossible to master unless you're super dedicated. (Some level of dedication is naturally required, but there have been wildcards.)

3) Better, more sophisticated online matchmaking to allow new vs new until they're ready to progress and take on more difficult opponents. Award players for doing this and do not punish them for losing when they do. There is always going to be cheaters in any kind of ranked gaming, always. Punishing legit players is a turn-off and will keep people from exploring the title more.


To use the Mortal Kombat example again, the sheer amount of modes dedicated solely to making the player better at the game is staggering for any fighter. It's a good jumping board for future fighting games, but there is more that can constantly be added on.

[Cyanide]

SF3 is probably the best example of "fucking fighters how do they work" Parry and EX attacks are never explained and are very important mechanics to the game. It doesn't even tell you how to THROW ffs. Most other games throw is holdfwd+heavy button. In SF3 it's X+A, not intuitive at all.

I have no problem with trainers, or even training based challenges in a fighter if they help you understand the mechanics. If the "pros" argue against them, they're dumb. You still need skill to make use of the mechanics fully. You can't just learn how they work and win Evo.

[Cobra Caddie]

I agree with you completely. Fighting game "regulars" seem to have some kind of members only attitude that leads them to want less people to be able to perform as well as them. I can't describe it with any word better than elitism. Fighting games should be getting progressively easier to get into and master, not harder. Timings for attacks and buffering shouldn't be as strict as it is in SSF4.

I, a fighting game and Street Fighter vet since 1992, can complete a total of 2 characters trials in SSF4 because of the ridiculous timing for normal linking. You know how much more fun and accessible the game would be if say you press mp during your lp attack, and then when the lp ends you go into mp? I'm not saying speedy MvC style, but more like...Real Bout 2.

[Lost_Avenger]

I agree with the points for quite a few reasons. For one, Im actually kind of happy about seeing the fighting game industry(mostly Capcom) being more open about things like hitbox changes and what they changed from version to version. The trials in SSF4 sort of acted like a training mode.

The hitbox viewer thing would probably confuse new players a lot. I like the concept, but I dont know if they would be that open.

[SnowShingo]

They had a hitbox viewer in SSFIIT:HDR and it was pretty nice.

[TempesT]

buffering shouldn't be as strict as it is in SSF4.

Are you kidding? (S)SF4 is the easiest SF to play to date and this point in particular is just lol-worthy.

I will agree that stuff like plinking and really system specific stuff should be explained though, but the internet is still a great resource for information on games. I equate that to looking up guides on Gamefaqs to find easter eggs in some random FPS or platformer.

They had a hitbox viewer in SSFIIT:HDR and it was pretty nice.

Indeed!

[Cobra Caddie]

Are you kidding? (S)SF4 is the easiest SF to play to date and this point in particular is just lol-worthy.

Yes, the buffering for commands is incredibly easy, what I'm referring to is delayed input buffering, or as mugen likes to call it "command buffer time". Like the stuff you come across in the trials where the command is lp, lp, ducking lp, ducking mk, hp and the timing for the buttons is INCREDIBLY strict.

You have to press it immediately after the move ends and there's no room for error because if you press the button a FRAME, 1/60th of a second, too early the attack won't come out and a FRAME too late the attack won't combo. You can't tell me that isn't ridiculous. You should be able to press the button a few frames before the first attack ends and have your character go into the second attack as soon as the first one is over.

SSF4 is the easiest Street Fighter to play, but the series has always been ridiculous when it comes to those kinds of advanced play timings and it's all completely unnecessary. What do you lose by being able to pull off moves easier?

[TempesT]

Yes, 1 frame links are hard. It's what separates good players from average players. The games are still about competition after all.

[Cobra Caddie]

Yes, 1 frame links are hard. It's what separates good players from average players. The games are still about competition after all.

WHY? Why is it like that? Why can't more people be in the "good players" category? Why is the "competition level" intentionally seperated in the way it is? Why do tourney level players continue to insist on keeping the games intentionally difficult to master?

You don't lose anything from changing the game to have easier to link normals like that, it only benefits the game and allows more players to be competitive. It's not like I was asking the moves to cancel into eachother, and having it effect gameplay in that way.

Fighting game "regulars" seem to have some kind of members only attitude that leads them to want less people to be able to perform as well as them. I can't describe it with any word better than elitism.

This is the exact kind of attitude that I was mentioning in this quote and I thank you, with your high reputation of among fighting gamers, for demonstrating it perfectly.

[TempesT]

Why can't more people get put into the good players category? Because being a good player means you have to be good.

There shouldn't be a plateau that is easily achievable in a fighting game. It makes them boring, they have no staying power. If I spend 100 hours practicing SSF4, I should be able to beat someone who has been practicing for only 5 hours, that person shouldn't know as much as me, or be able to do the same things I can do, it makes practice trivial, it makes the game not fun.

If you honestly think that fighting games are "too hard" when they're easier than they've ever been, then maybe you should move on to different games. There are still plenty of people who are willing and able to put the time into something they like doing, this problem isn't exclusive to fighting games either, people have to put in work to get good at shooters, to get good at puzzle games and to get good at any game really.

Things are hard because they are hard. Practice and do them.

[Duos.act]

@Caddie

Well consider this.  If a player works hard and trains daily to master those one frame links, and the next game makes them into chain combos, he's probably going to feel insulted and so will a lot of players.  It's kind of a spit in the face to people who work hard to master the game when you just make it easier.  That's why different games have different learning curves to them, to accomodate the preferences of the players.  If someone doesn't want to play a game with one frame links, he can try the Marvel series which has chain combos instead. 

EDIT: Furthermore, link combos are only a fraction of the game.  You have to consider other concepts such as footsies, mix ups, mind games et cetera.  Being able to do one frame links does not instantly make you a good player. 

[Jesuszilla]

Of course in a game like Marvel, the more-skilled players are still going to be able to do crazy shit that average players can't do.


Time and experience.

[Cobra Caddie]

TempesT and MC2

Look at this kind of attitude that you two are presenting. It completely pushes away from attracting more people into the fighting genre. Doing what I asked wouldn't stop the "good" players from being able to perform the moves like they always have, it would give them more freedom for how they perform it. What I suggested would literally benefit everyone playing the game but you're afraid that it would make people who wasted their time on a completely unnecessary fighting game mechanism mad.

And I know, I know "if they don't like it they shouldn't play fighting games or they should play Marvel"...the whole point of this topic was about building a larger fan base for fighting games, and your attitudes are all about driving people away from them. As if tourney players would push away fighting games just because the linking is easier to do. HOW DARE THEY

If someone doesn't want to play a game with one frame links, he can try the Marvel series which has chain combos instead.

Now let me tell you why this is bullshit. I hate MvC, I can't stand that games speedy chain comboing system. I am a Street Fighter fan but don't like how strict the frame linking is in the games, and think that everyone would benefit if in the next game is was more loose. Why should I go play a game with a combo system I don't enjoy just because I think Street Fighter would be better if they adjusted the way their system is? It wouldn't be chain comboing just because there is a larger input window for frame linking.

There shouldn't be a plateau that is easily achievable in a fighting game. It makes them boring, they have no staying power. If I spend 100 practicing SSF4, I should be able to beat someone who has been practicing for only 5 hours. If you honestly think that fighting games are "too hard" when they're easier than they've ever been, then maybe you should move on to different games.

First of all, that's just your opinion and I think your mind would change...If what I said was implemented in SSF4 from the beginning you still would have the same dedication to it as you have now. The only difference is more people would be able to reach a higher level than they have. Does that make the game more boring, having more competition that can play at your level?
If you spent 100 hours practicing SSF4 you're going to beat people who've only played 5 hours regardless of if what I suggested was in the game or not.

It doesn't make your automatically a great player just because of the system. Real Bout 2 has that kind of input buffering for normals in it(and no I'm not talking about just the chain comboing) and trust me, someone who picks up the game and plays 5 hours is going to be nowhere near my level. I can't believe you would suggest I walk away from fighting games just because I made a suggestion that would widen the competitive level and possibly the fanbase of not only Street Fighter but of the entire fighting genre. But keep proving my point about the elite wanting to close off "their" genre to the "average" players so that they can show off how their awesome hard work has paid off!

Edit:

EDIT: Furthermore, link combos are only a fraction of the game.  You have to consider other concepts such as footsies, mix ups, mind games et cetera.  Being able to do one frame links does not instantly make you a good player. 

That's exactly my point! It would just make the game easier to get into, it wouldn't make the game boring or make everyone instantly great at the game.

[Duos.act]

I was interested in having an intelligent debate with you, but then you started jumping the gun and basically calling me an elitist when I did nothing to even suggest the notion.  Why should SF4 be changed now, when the community has been familiar with the game for almost 4 years?    Why shake the very foundation of the game?  If Capcom wants to make a new fighter that is accessible to the casual audience, that's fine I have no problem with that.  But by now everyone is used to SF4, and to change the entire foundation of the game by making the combos loose would serve no purpose whatsoever.  It would alienate the players who have dedicated themselves to the game and it would spoil the casual players by handing them everything on a silver platter instead of encouraging them to put dedication into a game they are passionate about.

[SnowShingo]

My thoughts are that gameplay doesn't need to change at all if the tools for learning the mechanics are succinct, in-depth, while remaining practical and at least create the illusion of a more gradual learning curve. When it comes to bringing in new players, that all boils down to content and presentation. Ono has a visual style in the games he produces that attracts people, but the learning systems in place aren't really the best to go by, and the aesthetic content is a whole other issue entirely. I don't think that high level players wouldn't also improve their game with inclusion of systems that would make understanding the mechanics a matter of fact, instead of a mix of fact and guess work. Personally, I think SF4 (and its variations) and MVC3 both have good, relatively easy to get into systems in place that could further be expanded upon with the right type of training modes involved. It would keep newer players from being immediately intimidated and would also be useful to vets. The idea is not to make it easier for people to play, but to make it easier for people to understand how to play, to take away to wall and allow them that vision of actually excelling in the game at some point in the future.

The other part of the argument is aesthetic content itself. Back before we even had DLC, game that sold well were generally ones with lots of content and the replayability that came with it. It's not just a Capcom problem, but a fighting game industry trend of pushing these titles for a quick release, then adding on DLC after the fact to increase profits, which is against the original idea of DLC in the first place. It was meant to expand on titles with provided content, not provide day 1 content for those games after release. People might be lazier when it comes to gaming today, but I don't think the majority is stupid either. Tactical shooters provide a lot of content for the type of games they are, more than they are expected to, which is why you can have a game like Black Ops stay on the top ten best sellers list almost a year after it was initially released.

[TempesT]

If our (very lenient) attitude still pushes players away from the games, then that's their loss not ours. I'd love for people to put in the same amount of time that I do, and I'd love to have more competition but, quite frankly, people getting into these games don't want to do their due diligence, they want things easy (which isn't a bad thing, but it trivializes what more experienced players do). I like jumping into training mode and figuring out something new, I like that I can't consistently hit 1 frame links because it means I can still get better, I like when I lose (legit lose) because I know I'm not the best and I know there's more time for me to put in to get better.

These games are fun because they are challenging, there are still ways to play the game without having to do 1 or 2 frame links, there are ways to do 1 and 2 frame links easier too (plinking) and there are characters that don't use links to do damage.

No one wants to learn, no one wants to be smart, that isn't our problem, and these games aren't for them. Plain and simple.



Sales wise, I seriously would love to see more modes in Capcom fighters, online does get boring unless I'm playing with friends, and that'd be sufficient enough to attract more players. Right now(as an example), however, most people are going to buy UMvC3 because their favorite character is going to be in it, and that seems to be their main selling appeal. Half of those people aren't going to be playing that game 6 months down the road because of the lack of single player content, and because they don't have the time to put in the time or they are just too lazy to put in the time to keep themselves interested in it.

[Cobra Caddie]

I was interested in having an intelligent debate with you, but then you started jumping the gun and basically calling me an elitist when I did nothing to even suggest the notion.  Why should SF4 be changed now, when the community has been familiar with the game for almost 4 years?    Why shake the very foundation of the game?  If Capcom wants to make a new fighter that is accessible to the casual audience, that's fine I have no problem with that.  But by now everyone is used to SF4, and to change the entire foundation of the game by making the combos loose would serve no purpose whatsoever.  It would alienate the players who have dedicated themselves to the game and it would spoil the casual players by handing them everything on a silver platter instead of encouraging them to put dedication into a game they are passionate about.

It's not a whole lot to ask, and I don't really see how it would be alienating since they could still perform the moves in the exact same manner. I wasn't trying to lump you in with others who have taken up the same attitude when suggesting what I suggested earlier, and I think you kind of did prove my point with your edit btw.

If our (very lenient) attitude still pushes players away from the games, then that's their loss not ours. I'd love for people to put in the same amount of time that I do, and I'd love to have more competition but, quite frankly, people getting into these games don't want to do their due diligence, they want things easy (which isn't a bad thing, but it trivializes what more experienced players do). I like jumping into training mode and figuring out something new, I like that I can't consistently hit 1 frame links because it means I can still get better, I like when I lose (legit lose) because I know I'm not the best and I know there's more time for me to put in to get better.

These games are fun because they are challenging, there are still ways to play the game without having to do 1 or 2 frame links, there are ways to do 1 and 2 frame links easier too (plinking) and there are characters that don't use links to do damage.

No one wants to learn, no one wants to be smart, that isn't our problem, and these games aren't for them. Plain and simple.

You're right, they aren't for them. This is done intentionally and in my opinion unnecessarily and I disagree with you about what I suggested detracting from the overall experience. There are still ways to learn and improve without the strict timing, to go back to Real Bout 2 I'm still learning new things about that game and I've been playing it for around 7 or 8 years now.

Sorry that I keep using that game as an example but it has what I'm presenting in it and I figure that it's a great counter example. I still lose and I still improve every time I play the game, especially when I lose. I like losing for that reason, too.

What's frustrating is bringing up a small example of what I believe would be an improvement to the series and having people say "the game is too easy as it is!" or "that's what separates the good/great players from the average/shitty players"(depending on who you talk to and how polite they're being at the time) and "if they don't like it they should just go play Marvel or walk away from fighting games!". This is a weird and extreme attitude to have from just ONE MINOR SUGGESTION and I hope you can understand why I feel the way I do about people who say those things.

[TempesT]

Lemme tell you something about Street Fighter 4, it isn't Real Bout 2, and some games play differently and some games are harder to learn than others That doesn't make the games niche, it just means you have to try harder.

[Cobra Caddie]

Lemme tell you something about Street Fighter 4. It isn't Real Bout 2, and some games play differently and some games are harder to learn than others

I am completely aware of this, I'm just saying that everything you say about the experience being altered in such a negative way because of easier input links is completely subjective and probably wrong, and the example I cited was my own experience with a game that has what I suggested in it.

Like MC2 said:

EDIT: Furthermore, link combos are only a fraction of the game.  You have to consider other concepts such as footsies, mix ups, mind games et cetera.  Being able to do one frame links does not instantly make you a good player. 

[TempesT]

Link combos are fun though. Challenging things are fun. If you're too lazy to give a shit about link combos, you certainly aren't going to even consider the meta-game.