|
I don't even mean just fighting games. It honestly depresses me how many games of this generation are over-designed to the point where accidents like conc jumping or magic boxes either don't exist or are anticipated and neutered ahead of time.Hbomberguy posted:You've recommended and defended Vampire Savior so much I want to give it a try. Is there anywhere I can easily get a copy, preferably for PC? First download GGPO: http://ggpo.net/ or if you're behind a firewall you don't personally control, Supercade: http://damdai.com/supercade/ After that you'll need a copy of the rom, which I don't think it's kosher to link but it's easy to google. You'll need two different files to get it to work; Supercade will tell you what you're missing if you right-click the name of the game you want to play, and GGPO will probably let you know via error message. If that sounds like too much of a pain or you want to support the developers, go for the Vampire Savior collection on XBLA or PSN. The console version probably has a larger community as well -- the GGPO guys are really friendly and informative, but that's because some of the best VSav players in America hang out in that channel.  EDIT: Also I'm down to play whenever, I'll drop pretty much any other game to play VSav.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
PLANES CURE TOWERS posted:That's a really nice hitbox! What'd you do for the top plate? Thanks! I got a custom plexi panel replacement from Art's Hobbies. Ran me about $40 total with shipping. I really wanted the Shadaloo logo to be hidden until I plugged the stick it and then it would be backlit, but I couldn't figure out a way to do it at a cost/effort ratio that was suitable, so I just ended up going with an etching instead. When I have some more money available I'm probably going to get some clear/translucent rim buttons and put LEDs in them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Fenn the Fool! posted:That doesn't sit right with me, it's not adding anything any depth or strategy because there's one right answer: if you drop your combo you didn't practice enough. That's not true. Execution gets stressed by circumstances, which creates the means by which people fail at their execution. For example, in most games overheads are reactable if you're sitting there, staring at the screen. But if I put you in a match, and I stress you out with all sorts of other things to react to, you will miss the cue and you will get hit. Now introduce execution: nearly everyone can do a DP from neutral with infinite time. But if you're stressed out and someone does a jump-in at just the right time then someone with excellent muscle memory and who has trained reactions to DP jumps will get the DP, and the lesser player won't. This creates depth, since the players are now playing each other as people, not just bashing together the theoretical limits of their characters. The question is not a mechanical one of "can I fit a jump-in here", the question is "can I get away with a jump-in here." Execution creates limitations that make fighting games interesting. They differentiate the player from the character, which is important. The notion that "if you drop your combo you didn't practice enough" is facile because it can be applied to anything. If you got beaten strategically, you didn't study strategy enough. You can't be perfect at everything, and that's part of what makes fighting games interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
You might say the ideal amount of execution dependency in a game is the point where it is neither more nor less of an advantage than any other skill it tests, because that gives you the most variety of ways to win -- and that makes games more interesting to play and to watch. (This is an oversimplification, not least because the same logic applies to different kinds of execution, but still.) EDIT: Also what you choose to practice becomes an interesting meta-game choice in its own right. This applies both to execution (do you go for absolute mastery of your BnB? do you practice something incredibly optimized for damage at the risk that you might drop it under pressure? what about character-specific combos?) as well as more general questions like practicing a certain matchup. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
At the end of the day I'm not altogether convinced that there's a difference between executional mechanics and strategic mechanics. If you want to do a combo, you can't just look at your character and think 'combo'. You have to grind it out, imprint it on your fingers which buttons to press and when. Okay. But when you're playing Dhalsim, can you look at your character and think 'anti-air'? Can you see that if they jump in at this angle you have to slide, at this angle you have to back roundhouse, and in that case you have to jump back fierce? If there's a couple of pixels separating a successful anti-air and getting stuffed by Honda buttslam, that's a huge variation in the possible results. Can you consistently perform that anti-air without getting a sense for it over hundreds of matches? In any match there are two battles going on: between me and you, and between Ryu and Ken. And there is an executional requirement added in right there, because I am not Ryu and you are not Ken. You don't have to be dexterous at all to play chess, but openings and endgames are as mechanical as anything, and some people are simply cleaner players than others. So Dive and Kick might be just two buttons, but maybe I'm more Dive than you are Kick, and I know the angles and the situations where I can have a free win if I press my button, because I've played a hundred games and you've played one - and so I might destroy a chess grandmaster without a single combo, and there's nothing he can do about it but grind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
KOF 13 Steam Edition got updated again, and it doesn't seem any better than before. I joined a 3-bar connection and had about a half second of delay playing on the P2 side. I dare say it actually felt worse than the 3-bar connection I had with Brosnan the first night. Juicebox just tweeted that he feels like the netcode has gotten worse with this new update too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
Redmark posted:So Dive and Kick might be just two buttons, but maybe I'm more Dive than you are Kick, and I know the angles and the situations where I can have a free win if I press my button, because I've played a hundred games and you've played one - and so I might destroy a chess grandmaster without a single combo, and there's nothing he can do about it but grind. That's the core of the issue. There's a huge perception that you can simply "outsmart" the other player if all those pesky buttons weren't in the way, but the people who share this perception lack the awareness to realize that the buttons are just an excuse. They're not a genius who could beat anybody, and, even if they were a genius, hard work and experience beats raw talent most of the time. You mentioned the angles in Divekick, and I'd be willing to bet that somebody would use that as an excuse. Ugh, I have to go into training mode and grind angles? Why can't I just pick up the game and win? (sorry, this place is a loving goldmine) Winning is fun, and people don't want to have to address the concept that they have to earn a reward during a leisure activity. Therefore, the common thing to do is move the goalposts and claim that something is ruining your "fun" because you're not winning. If it wasn't combos, it would be special moves. If it wasn't special moves, it would be movement options. If it wasn't movement, it would be matchups. If it wasn't matchups, it would be that whatever you did was unfair or the game isn't letting them play the way they wanted to play. There's a really cool card game called Dominion. It had a lot of interesting choices and was really tightly balanced. However, a group of players decided to make their own game called Thunderstone because they were consistently losing at Dominion. The excuse they made was that they claimed that Dominion wasn't "balanced" because you couldn't just "buy whatever cards you wanted and win," which is like saying that Street Fighter 2 wasn't balanced by virtue of not being able to press any button you wanted to press at any given moment and win. Thunderstone turned out to be a gigantic piece of poo poo and eventually had to get a second edition to fix all its flaws, and the second edition is still worse than Dominion. I blame Rocky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
kidrobotx posted:Thanks! I got a custom plexi panel replacement from Art's Hobbies. Ran me about $40 total with shipping. I really wanted the Shadaloo logo to be hidden until I plugged the stick it and then it would be backlit, but I couldn't figure out a way to do it at a cost/effort ratio that was suitable, so I just ended up going with an etching instead. When I have some more money available I'm probably going to get some clear/translucent rim buttons and put LEDs in them. Art's Hobbies is really awesome. I'm tempted like hell to get one of his cases and make a small stick with a PS360+. Just a heads up as well- UMvC3 and DOA5+ are 10 bucks each for the PS Vita right now on PSN. They're really fantastic ports- probably the best handheld fighters I've played.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:If it wasn't special moves, it would be movement options. I'm gonna pontificate for a second, because I think I know where the wavedashing controversy stems from. I mentioned earlier that the fundamental concepts behind fighting games don't have much overlap in other types of games, which makes them difficult to get into. Smash, however, has a ton of overlap in terms of giving you total movement control, attacks that don't require very fancy inputs, and overall a design that makes sense to people experienced with most action game genres. But things like wavedashing and L-canceling are when the technical side of fighting games start to bleed over into Smash, and that's what tends to rile people up (including myself years ago when I was a dumb teen). They don't make a whole lot of sense from a first impression, the input for them requires a lot of practice to pull of consistently, and the difference between someone who knows how to do it and someone who doesn't will skew the match totally in favor of the former. When you consider all that, it makes it pretty obvious why someone would be against those kinds of mechanics being used in a game like Smash. I know this thread tries to avoid talking about that series, but I'm just interested in the subject of design philosophies and how people react to certain ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Smash has a really awful precedent where the fanbase believes in "techniques" like wavedashing and intermediate-level players will dedicate themselves to discovering these things in lieu of actually learning how to get beter at the game. When it was discovered that wavedashing was found during playtesting and left in, they jumped to the assumption that it was inserted on purpose as a gift from god. These players have good enough fundamentals that they can beat terrible players, but all the terrible players see is the intermediate players' focus on SHFFLing and stuff. Thus the blame game gets started. Back in 2002, before wavedashing in Melee, the common complaint was against people who used c-stick smashes. Kind of a pristine example of the greater discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Back in 2002, before wavedashing in Melee, the common complaint was against people who used c-stick smashes. Kind of a pristine example of the greater discussion. To be fair, complaints of people using superficial control advantages like that tend to be constrained to maybe a few threads on GameFAQs, whereas subjects like wavedashing cause a ton of arguments in various circles, including these forums. I mean, when I was looking through a glossary of fighting game terms earlier, I found out that apparently some people think in-air blocking is cowardly and refer to it as "chicken blocking", which I didn't even know was a topic of contention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
I've never not heard it called "chicken blocking" and learned it as such and I always kinda assumed it was a just weird FGC term like "meaty" or anything that ever comes out of Yipes' mouth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:I mean, when I was looking through a glossary of fighting game terms earlier, I found out that apparently some people think in-air blocking is cowardly and refer to it as "chicken blocking", which I didn't even know was a topic of contention. Chicken blocking refers specifically to holding upback even while being attacked on the ground to defend against high/lows. For example in Marvel 3, if you're not in blockstun already and they approach you on the ground, you can hold up back and as soon as you get into the air you can block. Some games like P4U have frames in the air where you can't block to get rid of chicken blocking, and even in Marvel 3 jumps have start-up frames where you're considered grounded and can be hit low.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:I mean, when I was looking through a glossary of fighting game terms earlier, I found out that apparently some people think in-air blocking is cowardly and refer to it as "chicken blocking", which I didn't even know was a topic of contention. Ummm....what? Chicken blocking is just the general term for blocking in the air, usually to avoid a high low mixup. I don't know specifically why its called "chicken" blocking, but there's nothing contentious about it... mvc3 players might say something like "UP BACK" or whatever, but the idea is the same. Its usefulness depends on the mechanics of the particular game being played. Its most commonly used to avoid high/low mixups, but it can also be useful to block certain types of moves just off the ground, because usually hitting the ground will cancel any remaining blockstun, and potentially allow you to act much earlier and punish moves that would otherwise be safe if blocked on the ground. Among other things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
I always assumed it was called chicken blocking because you're "chickening" out of blocking a mixup by jumping, but nobody actually thinks it's dishonorable or cowardly. It's just a bit of slang - that's like assuming that calling someone salty means they're actually crying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
It was from this page.quote:Chicken blocking, used most often in CvS and MvC circles, used to describe a situation where a player would jump to block an incoming attack in the air instead of on the ground. The idea comes from when you land on the ground it cancels block stun recovery frames, the defending player is no longer in block stun, while the attacker is recovering from his/her attack and is unable to block, leaving them vulnerable to counterattack. Also while airborne you only need to block in one direction thus eliminating high/low mix-ups. Many players referred to this is a "chicken's" way to play. I'm guessing there was a thread on some forum years ago where a dude complained about people doing that and referred to it as "chicken blocking", then it ended up becoming a commonly-used term in the community somehow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
My first encounter with the term "chicken blocking" involved jumping forward into an opponent's jump-forward attack and blocking it so that you land first and can punish the opponent. I forget where I saw it, but it said that it was called chicken blocking because you were literally playing chicken with the opponent. EDIT: I wouldn't consider wiktionary to be a particularly credible source of fighting game information. Gimnbo fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:My first encounter with the term "chicken blocking" involved jumping forward into an opponent's jump-forward attack and blocking it so that you land first and can punish the opponent. I forget where I saw it, but it said that it was called chicken blocking because you were literally playing chicken with the opponent. Yeah, this is how I learned the term when learning about Vampire Savior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
Someone said earlier that they couldn't much see the difference between A-button auto combos and the magic series combos in Marvel of Skullgirls. And I suppose after a period of time, where you know the normals of a character inside out, there isn't much difference. But the A-auto is a definite 'panic failsafe'. While I know that I can do a different chain of moves that might be more efficient, there are times when I am like "oh gently caress, what do I even do here? MASH A AND PRAY". Sometimes that's what's needed and on the flipside, it's easily punished - that's what I get for taking the easy way out. The way I see it, mechanics like that won't win you games, but they help the people who need it not lose games quite as fast. IMO there needs to be a return of the way Pocket Fighter did combos. P and K were their own auto combos, but you can mix up the two, finish with a special, and all of the attacks looked fun (which means a surprising amount to me). I guess it wasn't a very high-complexity game, though. I really wanted to play VSav, but I spent those MS points on Skullgirls. Which I now have a PC copy of, so I maybe invested that poorly. Oh, for the people who are newer to fighting games in this thread, what in-game tutorials do you like the most? I really appreciate how Skullgirls covers every important mechanic in isolation, even though some bits (like hints on how to pass the mixup lesson and the air combo lesson) could do with more explanation. It would require more text, yeah, but anything to ease the understanding of a complex game, right? I also really like the Combot mode in TTT2, even though some of the challenges they make you do are loving hard (if you're new to Tekken, that first boss fight where you have to step around the bombs while goofy sentai shoot you is THE WORST). The way it introduces a mechanic, and then has you do a few fights where the AI is altered to make the new mechanic the most effective option is super great, and more fighters need to do that poo poo. I've not personally played any of the games that have achievement counters running in the margins (I know the console ports of 3rd Strike and VSav do it), but those also seem really useful for reminding you of important fundamentals to do during play. Are there character-specific ones in those games? When the Skullgirls character-specific tutorials said stuff like "You'll have a good understanding of Parasoul once you've summoned 100 soldiers", I was hoping they'd actually count that for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
Six Of Spades posted:I've not personally played any of the games that have achievement counters running in the margins (I know the console ports of 3rd Strike and VSav do it), but those also seem really useful for reminding you of important fundamentals to do during play. Are there character-specific ones in those games? When the Skullgirls character-specific tutorials said stuff like "You'll have a good understanding of Parasoul once you've summoned 100 soldiers", I was hoping they'd actually count that for you. Ehhh, that's a neat idea but not really how it works out in execution(at least for 3SO) or even what they were aiming for with those. All it really reminds you of is what you've done(thrown a fireball, did a parry, teched a throw etc.) in the past 30 seconds or so of gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
Six Of Spades posted:Oh, for the people who are newer to fighting games in this thread, what in-game tutorials do you like the most? I really appreciate how Skullgirls covers every important mechanic in isolation, even though some bits (like hints on how to pass the mixup lesson and the air combo lesson) could do with more explanation. It would require more text, yeah, but anything to ease the understanding of a complex game, right? I quite liked the BlazBlue: CSE tutorial, it seemed decently comprehensive while also mentioning those little tips and tricks that are obvious to people who've been playing ArcSys games for a while but not to beginners (like the GG-style air-dash shortcut of up-towards, towards).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:Ehhh, that's a neat idea but not really how it works out in execution(at least for 3SO) or even what they were aiming for with those. All it really reminds you of is what you've done(thrown a fireball, did a parry, teched a throw etc.) in the past 30 seconds or so of gameplay. Ah ok, that's less exciting. If it showed you the Tech Throws box even before throws came up in the match, it would mean a lot. I have friends who get incredibly mad if they're thrown a lot, but seem to forget you can break them. Oh, actually - is it normally possible to break command grabs in games that have them? I didn't think of trying to tech Kanji's bullshit when playing P4A. Blazblue Extend's tutorial is pretty extensive (and I really like that it's voice acted, even though that means very little), but it introduces the idea of cancelling very early, and at the time I couldn't do it properly. I could probably do a better job of it now, though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
Does anyone really play BB:CSE on Xbox? I got it a while ago, messed around in training and story mode for a bit... Went online, waited for 10 minutes, only to get matched up with a guy running around 1500 wins to 1200 losses. I got a message when I declined begging me to add him and play him, he won't even use his main team! I just went back to AE after that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
Six Of Spades posted:From what I understood, even though every character has a ton of special moves, you only need to know a handful! Something that hits hi/mid/low, something that homes, something that launches and bounces, and a few moves you can turn into a simple juggle. That's like, 10-12 moves, which is pretty much like learning what every normal and special move of a Street Fighter character is. The problem is, you also need to know all of those (realistically closer to 15-20) for every character to play against them, and what sort of punishment you can or cant get if you block, if they can be stepped or ducked. It doesn't help having more than a few moves that look a lot less or more safe than they are. EDIT: On the plus side, most of the combos in Tekken are pretty easy/lenient compared to other games, and you'll only ever need to know a few per character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
I can't learn how to get instant while running moves in tekken. Like I know how it works, I know what to do but I just can't ever loving get them to work. I've never encountered something that eludes me as much in any fighting game. It keeps me up at night, tossing, sweating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
dangerdoom volvo posted:I can't learn how to get instant while running moves in tekken. Like I know how it works, I know what to do but I just can't ever loving get them to work. I've never encountered something that eludes me as much in any fighting game. It keeps me up at night, tossing, sweating. f, fF ff, F Letting the stick return to neutral where the comma is. It's a pain in the rear end, but bot THAT many characters use the tech. (King, Dragunov spring to mind)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
HoboWithAShotgun posted:Does anyone really play BB:CSE on Xbox? I got it a while ago, messed around in training and story mode for a bit... Went online, waited for 10 minutes, only to get matched up with a guy running around 1500 wins to 1200 losses. I got a message when I declined begging me to add him and play him, he won't even use his main team! I just went back to AE after that. I think one had to really like Blazblue to pay for it a 3rd time. I hardly remember anyone talking about it here when it came out. Chicken blocking is cool, how else you gonna deal with wolverine divekick? Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
I thought it was called chicken blocking because it's like how a chicken will jump into the air and flap its wings when startled, not because it was somehow cowardly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
HoboWithAShotgun posted:Does anyone really play BB:CSE on Xbox? I got it a while ago, messed around in training and story mode for a bit... Went online, waited for 10 minutes, only to get matched up with a guy running around 1500 wins to 1200 losses. I got a message when I declined begging me to add him and play him, he won't even use his main team! I just went back to AE after that. CSE is pretty dead because it's not great and CP is coming out in a couple months. BB does have a pretty decent online following most of the time though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I thought it was called chicken blocking because it's like how a chicken will jump into the air and flap its wings when startled, not because it was somehow cowardly. I also thought that. Makes sense in my head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:That's the core of the issue. There's a huge perception that you can simply "outsmart" the other player if all those pesky buttons weren't in the way, but the people who share this perception lack the awareness to realize that the buttons are just an excuse. They're not a genius who could beat anybody, and, even if they were a genius, hard work and experience beats raw talent most of the time. I agree with your general point, in that actually bothering to figure out how to play the game should be paramount in order to win. The problem those people are having is that fighting games are so very fast-paced that 'outsmart' doesn't even make sense as a concept anymore. You need to out-instinct people by learning the game. That's not to say there are no mind-games, just they function on levels of speed and timing very differently from what someone who thinks they're a video game god can willingly accept the first time they get their rear end beat because mashing attack doesn't actually work. You have to develop the instinct by learning the game. That's my one real criticism of fighting games as a genre, you have to 'get into' them and some people, god forbid, don't want to have to do that. So it's more a criticism of people than the actual game. People suck. In Divekick, trying to bait an opponent into making a move you know how to easily beat can sometimes get you killed because the other player was grinding meter and wasn't even thinking about attacking you and you accidentally moved right into their attack. This is because fighting games are not chess, and they're not trying to be chess. They're boxing. If you want fighting games to be chess, play chess. I don't even mean that as an insult, Chess is a great game that's been around for what, thousands of years, perpetuated by being fun to play? That's fine. That's great! But there are no falkbeer countergambits in Skullgirls. There are seria cancels. So learn those if you want to play the game. I should suffix this by pointing out that I completely suck at all fighting games but I know that's my fault not the game's (and also my controller is kind of busted and might actually not work properly for fighting games so I should get a new one). If I was actually good at the game I'd feel more confident making these assumptions. I make the comparison to boxing because one of the Fight Night games, I forget which one, is basically one of my favourite games ever (but definitely NOT a 'fighting game') because all the moves flow so naturally that anyone can pick the game up, understand what does what, and from then on you're immediately in the one-on-one mind-game 'juke your opponent' territory that makes lots of versus games so fun. It's the game people who think they'll be great at Divekick should be playing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
People make a lot of comparisons between Street Fighter and chess, (in particular to more strategic and careful matchups like Ryu mirrors or Dhalsim versus Ryu) but I find that they're not that similar besides that they're slow and you have to think ahead (most games require players to think ahead, anyways.) I think that comparing fighting games to chess is pretty silly. When you have faster games like Skullgirls or Marvel or GG, they aren't usually compared to chess, which I think is fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Sure, fighting games aren't chess, but I don't really understand how your example implies this. If you get killed by a random mash, that's just because Divekick is a one-hit game. Over many rounds or in a game with longer health bars you would presumably be able to adapt to your opponent's play, whether that means playing smarter or 'dumber'. I assume the same principles apply to chess as well, though perhaps the age of the game makes for more homogeneity in playstyles; I wouldn't really know. And there are definitely gambits in fighting games, even though a Gootecks shimmy doesn't quite have the gravitas of a Queen's gambit declined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:That's my one real criticism of fighting games as a genre, you have to 'get into' them and some people, god forbid, don't want to have to do that. So it's more a criticism of people than the actual game. People suck. Then they shouldn't be surprised when they lose against people that do take the game seriously. You don't have to take fighting games seriously, you can play your friends, play arcade/story modes, only play the barrel buster minigame in sf4, whatever you want to do. You can play against good players and not really care about winning and just be Dan and taunt all the time and if that's what you want to get out of the game then go for it. What people have an issue with are players saying they should be good at a game and insisting that the parts of the game they can't immediately handle are bad game mechanics (combos and throws being the most popular cries from the scrubs of cheap and unnecessary mechanics). Getting rid of dribbling in basketball would make it more accessible and also a worse game. That very criticism you have of the genre is a great part of why people stick with fighting games and continue to play and enjoy them. There's a motivation in uncovering depth, dexterity and reactions to compete and improve among their friends, online, or in tournaments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Redmark posted:Sure, fighting games aren't chess, but I don't really understand how your example implies this. If you get killed by a random mash, that's just because Divekick is a one-hit game. Over many rounds or in a game with longer health bars you would presumably be able to adapt to your opponent's play, whether that means playing smarter or 'dumber'. I assume the same principles apply to chess as well, though perhaps the age of the game makes for more homogeneity in playstyles; I wouldn't really know. My point was that, while fighting games are still in essence about beating your opponent using the skills/tools available to you (the essence of ALL competitive games anywhere), fighting games move so fast that traditional concepts some people have of how to 'outsmart' an opponent don't apply in the same sense. My divekick example is meant to show that fighting games, even one-hit two-button ones, can move so quickly and have so many moving parts that simply playing it the way one would play Chess, as it were, is going about it all wrong. My example works for me at least because that really happened to me, and the instant it happened something finally clicked in my mind and now I finally understand how to play fighting games. Winning or losing, from this point on I'm actually engaging with the game rather than expecting it to engage with my own conceptions of how strategy should work. I think a lot of people (who hate fighting games) haven't had that moment yet. Ixiggle posted:That very criticism you have of the genre is a great part of why people stick with fighting games and continue to play and enjoy them. There's a motivation in uncovering depth, dexterity and reactions to compete and improve among their friends, online, or in tournaments. It wasn't a criticism of the genre, more a criticism of some people who play it with the wrong expectations. I probably didn't make it clear enough by saying 'people suck'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
I'm not sure I really understand your point but my guess is you are underestimating chess. Some people aren't going to like fighting games, they are high pressure and there's no team to blame when you lose ala dota.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Thank you, Keits, for this new generation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The problem those people are having is that fighting games are so very fast-paced that 'outsmart' doesn't even make sense as a concept anymore. You need to out-instinct people by learning the game. That's not to say there are no mind-games, just they function on levels of speed and timing very differently from what someone who thinks they're a video game god can willingly accept the first time they get their rear end beat because mashing attack doesn't actually work. You have to develop the instinct by learning the game. That's my one real criticism of fighting games as a genre, you have to 'get into' them and some people, god forbid, don't want to have to do that. So it's more a criticism of people than the actual game. People suck. I disagree -- at least partially. Fighting games are fast (some crazily so) but people aren't just playing by instinct and autopilot. Especially not with certain characters. The more you play the game, the more the game will seem to (obviously up to a certain limit) 'slow down' to your brain. There's stuff I can do in the few games I'm actually hafl-decent at now that when I was brand new I couldn't even perceive or understand, where it seemed too fast to possibly wait for <x> to happen before doing <y>. While you might not be able to react at the speed of "Oh, hm, I notice that ryu is jabbing, obviously I should..." sort of timeframe, not all of the game takes place in those moments. While you're blocking their combo, or setting up okizeme on them (along with countless other times) you should be thinking ahead and/or in parallel. What kind of situation are you trying to set up? YOu should be constantly reevaluating the situation. Oh, they seem to be turtling a lot, and sitting on a life lead? My main character in my main game involves me sitting at the extreme of my range (minimum) ideally for a lot of the match, if not trying to get even further just to set up some annoying gimmicks off off of semi-persistent projectiles, I am literally running a constant stream of thoughts in my head of "okay, if he does this, I'll go for this other thing, He's never falling for this, maybe if I switch to running away he'll be bad enough to jumpblock a bola and I can get a beam setup. If not, I'll go for the unsafe slide that I can cancel to bait out a response blah blah" (bad example, I can't think of it, but I'm constantly thinking like that in that game in particular) edit: would you say that deciding in the middle of a match to do a move 4 times really predictably to train their expectations is not traditional 'outsmarting'? Because that's a thing that can happen just fine in fighting games. Just one of many examples.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
FG's would be like chess if you took turns entering a button motion then waited 30 seconds for the other player to enter their reactive input, then consider and react. A bit like Toribash, I guess. I think Toribash lets both players enter commands for their dummy, 5 seconds are then progressed to let these commands start to occur, then pause and wait for another pair of commands which it then plays. Always found than an interesting concept, just FG's at 1/200th the speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
Fighting on instinct is a great way to lose horribly because it almost always means you end up using subconscious tells and patterns that an observant opponent will exploit. Pretty much all the traditional concepts of strategy still apply. Speed doesn't erase them, it just means you have to keep up before you can participate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 17:15
|
|