Hang on, obvious troll, before you just flame, why don't you explain your views? How is this article bad? I mean, I disagree with some of it, but I don't think its all just lies.VicViper said:
246: Fighting Games: A Tapped-Out Genre?
- Thread starter Robert Bevill
- Start date
Why is blazblue getting all this praise? It was really a step backwards. It was really a less complicated and watered down Guilty Gear. The only reason new fighting games are getting iffy is because companys are trying to get new fans so they make the game easyier.
The Writer clearly as no understanding and shouldnt be writing his veiws on fighting games. The mainstream gamer not knowing jack about fighting games is pretty normal but for a qualified writer to write all this is just ludacris.
also the silliest thing out of all of this is that he praised blazblue for everything, when in reality the meta game for blazblue is debatibly the most complicated out of the games he mentioned and i doubt hed be able to handle it.
We need awarness people! Check out Shoryuken and Dustloop or even David sirlins website. They are full of people actually in tune with community and even the companies and most of them are very well versed in there games and are actice tournament goers. There words hold more weight mabey you'll learn somthing or mabey you should stay away from fighting games. Don't screw up the great thing we have going.
The Writer clearly as no understanding and shouldnt be writing his veiws on fighting games. The mainstream gamer not knowing jack about fighting games is pretty normal but for a qualified writer to write all this is just ludacris.
also the silliest thing out of all of this is that he praised blazblue for everything, when in reality the meta game for blazblue is debatibly the most complicated out of the games he mentioned and i doubt hed be able to handle it.
We need awarness people! Check out Shoryuken and Dustloop or even David sirlins website. They are full of people actually in tune with community and even the companies and most of them are very well versed in there games and are actice tournament goers. There words hold more weight mabey you'll learn somthing or mabey you should stay away from fighting games. Don't screw up the great thing we have going.
OBJECTION!cidbahamut said:
...This is the word that destroys your argument. My point, and the article's point, is that fighting games should be accessible to new players more easily; that with smart actions and knowledge of how to fight, rather than muscle memory and knowledge of specific characters, new players should win once in a while.
If muscle memory takes time to develop, it is useless to a new player, especially a new player that ever decides to try one character outside of his main more than once a week of constant playing. Also, it's completely non-translatable. I will fully admit I became a REALLY good player of Ivy in Soul Calibur 2; I knew 98% of her moves, AND when to use them. It was really fun; I had the exact muscle memory you're talking about. Soul Calibur 3 comes around, I decide to cream some new players in a college tournament, and just a few key things had changed about her controls that utterly invalidated all my efforts.
Additionally, there are SF4 characters for which I've developed exact muscle memory, and STILL mess up their moves because they require so much exact precision timing WHILE dodging a Hadoken spam.
I think you may be adding a layer of complexity that I was not trying to address. You made it sound as though players were having trouble executing simple stuff, and were having to stop to think of button combinations for something like a dragon punch. The simple things like quarter circles, half circles and dragon punches find their way into muscle memory fairly quickly.
Quite a bogus article if you ask me.
The only fighting game I can remember that has intrigued me with its story mode in the LEAST is the original Soul Edge, and that was because of the world tour/adventure mode where you upgraded weapons etc.
Fighting games have never been about the story, sure its cheesy. Sure the cinematics are sub-par, but have you ever played Tetris for the story? No.
Fighting games are about sitting down with a friend/nemesis and beating the hell out of each other. Its about GAMEPLAY. If a game has good enough gameplay it doesnt need a good story. There have been innovations in fighting games too. I'd say the step to 3d was pretty big. Street fighter alpha 3 introduced 2 player coop mode. The naruto fighting games for PS2 are hectic and incredibly fun, and thank GOD the games are not dumbing stuff down.
Fightning games are about gameplay, moves. Is it really so bad asking the player to memorize something? Putting in a tiny effort? Most/all fighting games have a training mode with command lists. Train away. Fighting games are not for casual players, never have been. If you're having trouble finishing a level in mario odds are you dont have the reflexes/buttonmashing abilities that it takes to play a fighter game, and thats OK! If you dumb fighting games down to cater to people who have barely touched a controller how the hell are they supposed to play against "seasoned" players? And how are you going to make the game interesting for seasons players?
SF4 was a breath of fresh air, not because it had a lot of innovation, but because capcom finally got their act together and updated the graphics, in a spectacular way nonetheless. Personally I dont ask for more.
We have 2d fighting and 3d fighting, innovation is good, but remember to not repair that which is not broken. As long as I have a friend to play with todays fighting games are FINE. If I dont, I'll pick up a single player game.
And at the risk of sounding like an elitist bastard...I'm waiting for SF: Facebook edition...it'll be about as fun as Big Brother season 19.
The only fighting game I can remember that has intrigued me with its story mode in the LEAST is the original Soul Edge, and that was because of the world tour/adventure mode where you upgraded weapons etc.
Fighting games have never been about the story, sure its cheesy. Sure the cinematics are sub-par, but have you ever played Tetris for the story? No.
Fighting games are about sitting down with a friend/nemesis and beating the hell out of each other. Its about GAMEPLAY. If a game has good enough gameplay it doesnt need a good story. There have been innovations in fighting games too. I'd say the step to 3d was pretty big. Street fighter alpha 3 introduced 2 player coop mode. The naruto fighting games for PS2 are hectic and incredibly fun, and thank GOD the games are not dumbing stuff down.
Fightning games are about gameplay, moves. Is it really so bad asking the player to memorize something? Putting in a tiny effort? Most/all fighting games have a training mode with command lists. Train away. Fighting games are not for casual players, never have been. If you're having trouble finishing a level in mario odds are you dont have the reflexes/buttonmashing abilities that it takes to play a fighter game, and thats OK! If you dumb fighting games down to cater to people who have barely touched a controller how the hell are they supposed to play against "seasoned" players? And how are you going to make the game interesting for seasons players?
SF4 was a breath of fresh air, not because it had a lot of innovation, but because capcom finally got their act together and updated the graphics, in a spectacular way nonetheless. Personally I dont ask for more.
We have 2d fighting and 3d fighting, innovation is good, but remember to not repair that which is not broken. As long as I have a friend to play with todays fighting games are FINE. If I dont, I'll pick up a single player game.
And at the risk of sounding like an elitist bastard...I'm waiting for SF: Facebook edition...it'll be about as fun as Big Brother season 19.
I hate to break this to you, but BlazBlue isn't anything new or innovative.
Being made by the same developers, its a spiritual successor to Guilty Gear, in almost every way from its graphical motif to its gameplay. Anime stylings? Check. Plot relying on wacky metaphors? Check. Consumable-use command counters? Check. Super-move build up gauge? Check. The only thing new distingushing it from Guilty Gear is that characters can now jump 3x screen lengths with aerial combos, but that's been in fighters for at least as long as Street Fighter/X-Men. Now that's not saying its a bad game... I don't personally care for it, but I can see the appeal.
If Fighting game developers start thinking too far outside of the box, they'll miss what makes games like Street Fighter so popular. These take existing formulas and study the mathmatics behind them. The timing and precission in Street Fighter 4 is so much more evolved than Street Fighter 2.
When developers do try hard to innovate or make it more accessible, they'll end up alienating crowds. Take Super Smash Brothers for instance, which was quite innovative at the time, but its also very ambiguous between being a Fighting game and being a Beat-em-up. Folks that play Street Fighter competitively will stay Far, FAR away from any Smash Brothers competition, because Street Fighter is almost all about how precise your inputs are, while Smash Brothers is more about positioning and item usage.
Oh, and wave dashing is for pansies :x
Being made by the same developers, its a spiritual successor to Guilty Gear, in almost every way from its graphical motif to its gameplay. Anime stylings? Check. Plot relying on wacky metaphors? Check. Consumable-use command counters? Check. Super-move build up gauge? Check. The only thing new distingushing it from Guilty Gear is that characters can now jump 3x screen lengths with aerial combos, but that's been in fighters for at least as long as Street Fighter/X-Men. Now that's not saying its a bad game... I don't personally care for it, but I can see the appeal.
If Fighting game developers start thinking too far outside of the box, they'll miss what makes games like Street Fighter so popular. These take existing formulas and study the mathmatics behind them. The timing and precission in Street Fighter 4 is so much more evolved than Street Fighter 2.
When developers do try hard to innovate or make it more accessible, they'll end up alienating crowds. Take Super Smash Brothers for instance, which was quite innovative at the time, but its also very ambiguous between being a Fighting game and being a Beat-em-up. Folks that play Street Fighter competitively will stay Far, FAR away from any Smash Brothers competition, because Street Fighter is almost all about how precise your inputs are, while Smash Brothers is more about positioning and item usage.
Oh, and wave dashing is for pansies :x
There is only one thing I agree with in the article, and that would be the intimidating presence of fighting games to newcomers, which is a combination of learning curve and community.
Fighting games are quite simply not the place for telling complex narratives. In fact, in this era where people keep trying to make movies that allow for occasional button presses as opposed to games with some cinematic moments, fighting games continue to serve as a reminder for how to keep things simple. So, it doesn't really bother me that there's some loosely related, highly generic premise for getting a group of people to want to beat the crap out of each other. The real allure of fighting games is in their characters, not their stories. People rally around an avatar who appeals to them, and then they want to win with that avatar. If you remember old-school beat-em-ups like the Simpsons arcade game (or even newer beat-em-ups like the X-Men Legends series), that very principle holds true--pick your favorite character, and proceed to kick as much ass as you can. People don't rally behind characters' stories in fighters because the stories are awesome; they rally behind characters' stories because they identify with the characters.
Spectators gravitate towards fighting games that have a character whose fighting style and aesthetic appeal to them. From there on, it keeps it simple. One person fights another person, the last one standing wins. At its core, reflexes, pattern recognition, adaptability, input memorization and basic psychological manipulation are what make fighting games so enjoyable. While other genres also make use of these elements, nothing feels so personal and 1-on-1 as a fighter. Nothing. Ever.
You say fighting games are stagnating? I say you're missing the point of them and aiming to make them into something that they're not.
If there were anything that needs to change, it's not so much the learning curve of a fighting game as it is there needs to be a much smaller tier gap. Tiers are inevitable, but as people get more skilled with a game, they should feel like the difference between their characters and others, if any, is small if not non-existent, so they feel like they can win with who they want to as opposed to who dominates the meta-game. Human error should be the bigger determinant of victory/defeat than character meta-game. That's what I think drives people away from fighters; the character they want to champion sucks horribly and the only way to win is to pick a character they just don't gel with or outright hate. Nothing is more uninteresting than a fighting game that has no characters you want to play. Character appeal/style is the most important part of a fighting game, followed immediately by balance and mechanics. Give me a character I care about playing with, and I will get good with that character no matter how difficult it is or how long it takes.
Also, as others have said, the rise of online multiplayer in fighters is probably the biggest factor in the decline of fighters. Fighters are personal games, pitting you against an opponent in real-time. While online multiplayer always gives you human opponents to face off against, add input lag and put the other person on the other side of the planet with no face to react off of and no immediacy of trash talk and the once personal fighter becomes incredibly impersonal. Yeah, I can still get together with my friends from time to time to have a few laughs, but that's becoming increasingly rare.
Fighting games are quite simply not the place for telling complex narratives. In fact, in this era where people keep trying to make movies that allow for occasional button presses as opposed to games with some cinematic moments, fighting games continue to serve as a reminder for how to keep things simple. So, it doesn't really bother me that there's some loosely related, highly generic premise for getting a group of people to want to beat the crap out of each other. The real allure of fighting games is in their characters, not their stories. People rally around an avatar who appeals to them, and then they want to win with that avatar. If you remember old-school beat-em-ups like the Simpsons arcade game (or even newer beat-em-ups like the X-Men Legends series), that very principle holds true--pick your favorite character, and proceed to kick as much ass as you can. People don't rally behind characters' stories in fighters because the stories are awesome; they rally behind characters' stories because they identify with the characters.
Spectators gravitate towards fighting games that have a character whose fighting style and aesthetic appeal to them. From there on, it keeps it simple. One person fights another person, the last one standing wins. At its core, reflexes, pattern recognition, adaptability, input memorization and basic psychological manipulation are what make fighting games so enjoyable. While other genres also make use of these elements, nothing feels so personal and 1-on-1 as a fighter. Nothing. Ever.
You say fighting games are stagnating? I say you're missing the point of them and aiming to make them into something that they're not.
If there were anything that needs to change, it's not so much the learning curve of a fighting game as it is there needs to be a much smaller tier gap. Tiers are inevitable, but as people get more skilled with a game, they should feel like the difference between their characters and others, if any, is small if not non-existent, so they feel like they can win with who they want to as opposed to who dominates the meta-game. Human error should be the bigger determinant of victory/defeat than character meta-game. That's what I think drives people away from fighters; the character they want to champion sucks horribly and the only way to win is to pick a character they just don't gel with or outright hate. Nothing is more uninteresting than a fighting game that has no characters you want to play. Character appeal/style is the most important part of a fighting game, followed immediately by balance and mechanics. Give me a character I care about playing with, and I will get good with that character no matter how difficult it is or how long it takes.
Also, as others have said, the rise of online multiplayer in fighters is probably the biggest factor in the decline of fighters. Fighters are personal games, pitting you against an opponent in real-time. While online multiplayer always gives you human opponents to face off against, add input lag and put the other person on the other side of the planet with no face to react off of and no immediacy of trash talk and the once personal fighter becomes incredibly impersonal. Yeah, I can still get together with my friends from time to time to have a few laughs, but that's becoming increasingly rare.