It's legit mechanically more simple than aiming and shooting with two analogue sticks and two triggers, but let people have their tired talking points.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
When developers dumb down fighting games, who is it supposed to appeal to?
- Thread starter Waluigi's World
- Start date
It's legit mechanically more simple than aiming and shooting with two analogue sticks and two triggers, but let people have their tired talking points.
The masses are looking for games without arbitrary execution barriers that offer absolutely nothing in the way of depth, like 1-frame links, 720º rolls or the epitome of stupidity, [db],df,db,uf+3P.
The masses are also looking for games they can play with their friends to get better, as opposed to spending hours by themselves in the lab to optimize their combos.
(and yes, by "the masses" I mean me).
i honestly always find it weird people gloss over how actually difficult console shooters are to control but it's mostly because for the majority of people there isn't really a better solution. they can't redesign how controllers work to suit one genre
a quarter circle isn't intuitive. It came about due to limitations of controller mechanics back in the early 90s. Aiming and shooting is something that comes easy.
I'm sorry you personally had issues with it, but mainstream and "casual" gamers would disagree with you.
Take jumping for instance. Somebody coming to smash bro's from traditional fighting games (which I assume you did based on your avatar) might find jumping in the game to be weird because of how different it is from other fighting games. But to someone not well versed in traditional fighting games, they won't have that issue because jumping in smash bro's works how literally every other genre does. Essentially every other genre that has jumping in it accomplishes that by pressing a button. Fighting games are the odd one by having you jump via press up on the stick.
The vast majority of people who pick up one or the other for the first time will have an easier time with smash than a traditional fighting game. Your personal experience may not have lined up with that, but that isn't enough to dispute the series' we'll known history and reputation. The traditional fighting game fan's new talking about about how "well actually smash bro's is just as difficult to get into" is basically revisionism. Yes, the series has a lot of complexity to it, especially on the back end. But traditional fighting games have far more upfront difficulty and complexity when it comes to the basics.
Exactly this. People are confusing complexity with depth yet again, as if they were two labels on the same axis, rather than two entirely separate and orthogonal axes.
Go: Low complexity, high depth.
Calvinball: High complexity, low depth.
A game developer's target is almost always to minimize complexity and maximize depth. Some features introduce both complexity and depth; others introduce complexity with no depth payoff. Execution barriers are almost always in the second category.
You have no self-awareness here. There is nothing about aiming and shooting on a control pad that "comes easy." It's easy for people who play video games because we've all learned how to do it. It's a skill that video games have demanded we acquire. There's nothing natural or intuitive about it, though.
It just is. I tap the direction of the stick with my thumb and it moves where I want it to go without having to memorize some arbitrary steps.
The distinction doesn't matter when people want to label high depth stuff as something they should be able to do as a beginner. Which happens constantly across all genres but some reason really common for people to do in fighting games.
Ah, so that's why you posted that false statement in the OP. Gotta love the fighting game community and its gatekeeping toxicity.
Apparently HE hit one. Read it again: he didn't call your skills personally into question, he just said it's likely that you're in the same camp as the people he described. That you immediately thought he was directly attacking you in particular and immediately started rattling off your digital trophies says a lot, though.
I actually mess up these inputs most of the time, and I like fighting games. I can't for my life do a DP as a punish. Compare that to other punishers from Tekken or SC, which is just a direction plus a button.
Also, there's no DP equivalent on dual sticks. There are no execution that requires you to input a DP or similar motion on less than 30frames.
i truly believe there is a much better argument out there for why motion inputs are "bad design" than "it just is" but i feel like literally every argument against them is extremely subjective and based on preference rather than design. i really feel like if you dislike motion inputs to the point where it stops you from playing the game you probably wouldnt enjoy fighting games very much to begin with. a lot of things in these games beyond a basic level of play have pretty complex and sometimes completely arbitrary inputs (see: option selects ruling a lot of games like SF4)
i also feel like people should look beyond dumb and useless arguments about motion inputs because motion inputs are legit integral to how most fighting games are designed and you'd basically have to redesign the game around it if you were to remove them. sajam did a really informative discussion about it and its pretty enlightening to why they're a necessary part of the genre
Smash Brothers Ultimate has now sold over 20 million copies on a single platform, and is the best selling fighting game of all time. This is partly because the game is very accessible. It can be played at many skill levels due to this and people can still manage to do cool stuff.
Accessibility matters to the mass market. I know casual players that have way more fun with something like Smash than Tekken because it's easier for them to play.
Accessibility matters to the mass market. I know casual players that have way more fun with something like Smash than Tekken because it's easier for them to play.
What's funny about SFV is I feel like it's the worst of both worlds. The game is actually pretty rough for complete beginners to the genre because of the game's combo system. Most combos heavily feature links which are both fairly difficult for inexperienced players to perform as well as require game knowledge to know which moves can link into other ones. They also usually end with a special move as an ender, which requires you to do an input that you're probably already struggling to do at all very quickly after the normal hits and is usually unsafe on block. Most other fighters out there you can often do some form of mashing (either by having a magic series combo or move strings like NRS and Bamco games) but with SF you can't mash at all.
The simplifications SFV did largely affected the higher level of play, not the lower level. The fact that Ryu's optimal combo doesn't feature any 1 frame links isn't going to help out someone who can't even get a DP consistently, but it does affect the higher level of the game. So in essence SFV suffered a lot of the downsides of "simplification" while not really having any of the benefits.
The simplifications SFV did largely affected the higher level of play, not the lower level. The fact that Ryu's optimal combo doesn't feature any 1 frame links isn't going to help out someone who can't even get a DP consistently, but it does affect the higher level of the game. So in essence SFV suffered a lot of the downsides of "simplification" while not really having any of the benefits.
The fact that you just misused "depth" as "complexity" says everything one needs to know why the distinction always matters. It definitely does not stop mattering because some arbitrary and subjective goalposts you just made up aren't met.
I agree and that's why people like me want fighting games "dumbed down" as OP put it.
OP
OP
Doesn't that just reinforce the idea that fighting games should be more accessible?
I know I only do that one or two button combos because I only had time to memorize that one and being able to perfectly remember all the combos and perform them perfectly outside a training mode takes so long and just isn't fun to a lot of more casual players.
That is your takeaway and counter to a six paragraph post highlighting the FGC's well documented elitism and hostility towards new players? A dick measuring contest? Methinks someone's nerve was indeed hit.
If you wanted to have a legitimate conversation without anyone getting offended, then opening with such a negatively-loaded term as "dumbed down" to describe "changes accomodating to a specific section of players" is the worst possible way about it. Failing that, you should at least have described exactly what examples you meant by that term. In the same way that a QCF may not be "intuitive" to everyone (and only gamers could think that), what you are thinking of may be very different to what others are thinking of by that term. Do you e.g. consider FighterZ steps towards accesibility a misstep?
Last edited:
OP
OP
User banned (2 weeks): Hostility
How bout u go an fuck off my page then u peice of shit u think I need a stupid fuckwitt like u telling me about looking good who the fuck are u take your worthless advice and get the fuck out of here
But that's exactly how fighting game players get better! They play other people and learn from what went wrong and work on what did better from there.
People really get stuck on this idea of training mode before you play when it's the other way around - play, get questions about what happened and then training mode to find the answers that you weren't able to find in the match.
What the fuck is your issue? Close this thread, the OP poisoned his own well.
I'd argue that it's more natural and intuitive from a logical standpoint. Yes, if I've never played any game that used twin sticks to aim, I will have to learn how to do it and it will take time. But logically, it doesn't really take much to understand the logic of pointing at a thing to aim and shooting it. Also once you do figure it out, you are very unlikely to ever have trouble with it again since it's such a universal concept in any first person game like that. It's like riding a bike. On the other hand, learning fighting game combos is not as intuitive and requires memorization of very specific inputs that differ between moves, characters and games. I know games where I have gone back to after not having played them for a long time and have forgotten how to do the combos. Not so for any shooting game.
Yikes... this thread took a turn.
I was speaking in general terms based on what I've seen and experienced through the years IRT fighting games, not you specifically.
Interesting that you took it that way though. It reinforces my point on hostility, no?
You're a clown dude. Stop being so toxic for no reason.
they don't really know. they just see the sales shooters, smash and MK are getting and desperately chasing that high, looking for the "golden goose" feature that makes these games huge.
its not worth it though. The games have enough fans be profitable as they are and they're just chasing people away
its not worth it though. The games have enough fans be profitable as they are and they're just chasing people away
OP
OP
I'm all for FighterZ's steps towards accessibility but I don't believe autocombos should exist in ranked matches because it removes mid-level play, imo.
Not a very compelling argument. Just watch anybody who has never used a gamepad before. Hell, just watch PC PLAYERS who have never used a gamepad before.
I like my fighting games to be "dumbed down" I guess. It has been years since I took a fighting game seriously enough to actually try to learn every character's move set and all of the mechanics. And this isn't just fighting games either. I also don't really like ultra complicated strategy games or RPGs where you have to micromanage everything.
People have different tastes. *shrug*
People have different tastes. *shrug*
Totally agreed. It's great to see that more and more modern fighters are being built with pads in mind rather than a stick (sometimes meaning 4 inputs vs. 6), as I agree it's not necessary... but it is a perceived barrier to enjoyment; another excuse as to why not to get into them.
Real talk, when people complain about motion inputs...what game are you even talking about? In Street Fighter V(the one I usually hear complaints about) you have many characters that don't have DP motions or half circles. Like, Guile, for one. But even if you don't like charge characters, Ed is basically a Smash Bros character.
I've been playing fighting games for tens of thousands of hours ever since Street Fighter 2 (and before, but I don't think you guys want to hear my old man tales about Exploding Fist and Barbarian). Believe me, I know exactly how the work, and how, for the most part, the best way to get better is to play against other people. Pokes, footsies, etc. they all come naturally as an intuitive byproduct of playing against others for long enough; you don't need to study them if you don't want.
But the key words here are "for the most part", and that is precisely what this thread is about. Some games include combos that both give you a competitive advantage, and require some extremely precise execution. There's really no reason for these to exist in a fighting game. None whatsoever. The only thing they add is a disadvantage for the player that doesn't want to spend however number of hours you need to get down the exact timing of the combo, and then spend however more so that you can perform it automatically without thinking in the middle of a match.
Games like FighterZ have demonstrated that you don't need strict timing or any input more complex than a QCF to have a combo-based game that still plays and looks great, and this is one major reason for why it's become so hugely popular.
You seem to have skipped over the entire point of my argument. I agreed with you that if you don't have experience using twin sticks to aim in a game, it will be difficult to learn so why are you repeating that point? My point was that it takes less hard memorization and more orientation to learn. The concept itself is intuitive, you just need time doing it to orientate yourself to it. Once you do learn it, it's a universal skill that you hardly need to relearn.
For example, I never really played FPS games until Overwatch so I KNOW what you are talking about with it being hard to learn how to aim properly. But I did learn eventually and that skill applies to every OW character and every FPS game I have played with little inconsistency. I have taken months-long breaks from Overwatch and have never really forgot how to aim. I can't say the same for any fighting game with a robust execution barrier to doing simple moves.
Mortal Kombat and Injustice are not easy at all, wouldn't be far off SF in terms of execution and depth at a competitive level
The new MK i agree but the I wouldn't put the whole series in the same vain
I'm assuming you mean dial a combo, but that's just their string system like Tekken, soon as you got online you getting washed
It's easier to pick up than let's say SF but soon as you jump online to try your chances at winning you going to quit, the execution /creativity ceiling can go a lot higher than people think
But yeah they getting dumber, I3 is obviously going to be more dumb down
The entire point behind the game(and most games with any competitive aspect in general) is that the person who practiced more wins. Inputs that you have to practice is just one way that manifests, and a good way to still have a gap between players once gamesense has been mastered.
The mass market appeal, sales, and player numbers must not prove aiming with a controller or M&KB comes easy no?
If aiming was just as difficult or harder than learning combos in fighting games then why are fighting games much less popular among casuals like me then shooters?
No, it's not. Who told you that? :D
The point of the game is that the better player wins more often. The definition of "better player" has many components to it, with practice being only one of them. This is true for literally every game. They don't hand out gold medals or chess championship awards by measuring the time each participant has spent practicing.
Unpacking "better player" is the crux of the issue. Who is a better player? Is it someone who spent more time playing against human opponents? Is it someone who spent more time perfecting their combos in practice mode? That is up to the designer to decide, indirectly, by giving more weight to skills learned with one or the other kind of practice. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no universal "this player did this so they should win". It's all up to the game's designer.
Now, given a choice, would you rather play a game you get better at by, you know, actually playing the game against other people? Or one that you get better at by training in practice mode by yourself? If the answer is the former, you'll prefer a game with low execution barriers. If the answer is the latter, you'll prefer a game with high execution barriers. And that is perfectly fine, as long as you understand where people with the opposite preference are coming from, and why.
Last edited:
OP
OP
It still doesn't change the fact that you called my post beforehand hostile when it wasn't, lol. What should I have said other than dumbed down mechanics? Less complex? Genuinely curious.
I skipped it because you're making pretty arbitrary statements and acting like they're definitive. How is using twin sticks to aim intuitive? Sure, it's something we're all familiar with, but as an abstraction of using a gun TWIN STICKS is pretty random if you think about it.
I could rehash old arguments about how the original design for fighting game inputs were intended to be intuitive too. They rhymed with the animations performed by the character, but actually that argument would be just as arbitrary as yours.
Where we agree is I don't think traditional fighting game inputs are very intuitive. Where we disagree is I don't think video game inputs in general are very intuitive. It's a language players must acquire to enjoy the hobby.
You acquired the language to play FPS games from Overwatch. That makes sense to me. If you acquired the language to play SFII back in the 90s (like damn near EVERYBODY who played video games back then, from the most casual to the most hardcore we all played SFII), you would have been able to apply those skills to the last 29 years of 2D arcade fighting games as well.
i know this is a little irrelevant the point but the amount of people who grew up with arcades readily available now is so minuscule it makes a lot of sense why a lot of people feel like fish out of water with the genre. arcade nostalgia is mostly limited to people who are already really into (japanese) arcade games or people who had them in their area (i.e korea, latin america)