next »

[Conker]

I think smash is the easiest fighting game to get good with, at least in advanced tech and character control aspects.

Anyone want to play fight games on steam? Add me: Conker534 (I'm michman on steam)

[Dragonmaw]

i don't really agree. normal fighting games are pretty simple to understand in terms of screen space, location, etc. there's no platforming, no stage hazards, no complication with direction rolling/shielding, wavedashing, etc. just you, a dude, and some fighting.

smash is the easiest game to start playing simply because it's so goofy and fun and non-punishing in general to newcomers, for sure. but mechanically it's far more complicated (almost detrimentally so) than your average fighting game.

not to say those mechanics are bad. nidhogg/samurai gunn use some smash-esque mechanics in platforming and directional defense that work really well because those games are also exceedingly simple (but nuanced). smash is just a confluence of a hundred different mechanics all smashed (lol) together into the same game.

don't get me wrong, i love the shit outta smash, it's a fantastic game, but it's not even remotely on the same tier as sf4, mvc, kof, skullgirls, etc for me.

(also doesn't help that smash commentators are incredibly awful compared to more established game commentators)

[Fetus Commander]

the biggest barrier for me getting into fighting games is actually the finger gymnastics aspect (or "execution").  that's why Smash seems a lot easier for most people i think, all the moves are just a direction and a button

[J-Snake]

You can also try Tekken games. Convoluted input is kept almost to a minimum so that you can dive into mind games (the actual interesting part) without taking input limitations into account. However you will have to memorize a rather large set of attacks, unlike Street Fighter.

[Conker]

I love Tekken. It's one of those fight games where you don't have to be any good to have fun. Unlike SF or MVC or GG/BB where the game forces you to be so perfect, Tekken is a lot simpler in controls like J-snake said

Memorizing attacks isn't to bad though, just pick a character and the knowledge will come.


How many characters to you main/play at a time? I refuse to learn more than one character usually my whole career in a series (fox through out all of smash until smash 4, scorpion in mortal kombat, etc)

I'm a character loyalist myself. It's really hard for me to abandon my 'main' after a week or so of testing a new games roster.

[battlerager]

I try to play every character a bit, except for characters that I really dislike visually / personalitywise. So I'm not purely about gameplay.

Usually I have like 3 I feel comfortable with at a time, with 1 of them being noticeably more solid than the other 2.

[Glyph]

Yeah, Smash looks easy at face value. Pretty much anyone younger than a certain age is going to have played Smash before. A good chunk will think they are a god at the game and their secret weapon (likely Kirby's Down-B) is enough to beat anybody. I should note that actually getting good at an entry in the series competitively is a different story. The FGC may write it off because it doubles as a hectic party fighter and it's so different, but there's a lot of mental conditioning that goes into playing at a high level and a good deal of tech to master in any of the games (Smash 4: All the 'intended' stuff + perfect pivots, jab locks, B-reversing / wavebouncing).

The problem with tech in competitive Smash is that a lot of the tech that exists wasn't intentional, though, and it leads to some annoyingly frame-perfect stuff. It actually creates an interesting situation where games like Melee can sometimes be more demanding on the user than even a normal fighting game. I mean just look at multishining. The only limit to how much you can do it is your hand cramping up

Anyway I only really play Smash competitively. I've won a few local tournaments so I like to think I know what I'm talking about

[Conker]

Sure smash is a great competitive game and I agree with most of your points (I too played smash in a competitive setting going to tournaments etc) but I don't think smash is ever more demanding than a traditional fighting game in a pure execution sense. It's on par at the level of mind games though


Also multi shines are killer to execute haha

[Glyph]

Yeah, hence the 'sometimes'. For the most part there isn't much execution barrier, but some tech requires a good amount of skill to pull off, and consistently.

[Conker]

Oh yeah. Even just short hopping as fox is a entry barrier with skill. Wavedashing, mutlishines, all that tech really is amazing.

I still prefer 'real' fighting games but I played smash for a very VERY long time and have come to respect the hell out of it as a competitive game.

[Richard Kain]

It amazes me how a lot of these conversations tend to devolve into the technical minutia of fighting games, and their intricate and nuanced systems. There's nothing wrong with that, I know its a big part of the appeal for die-hard fighting game fans.

For me though, the arcade itself and the hardware it contained was always the big draw. Dedicated hardware for video games has just always had an inherent appeal. Maybe part of it is my growing up as a child in the 80s. I was the right age for this sort of thing to have a powerful influence right when it was at its heyday.

So here's an idea for some arcade development. Let me know what you think. Arcade coffee-table. A relatively normal-sized coffee table, with a flat-panel TV built into it's surface. Most likely a sheet of plexi-glass across the top for protection. Built-in controls would be a bit difficult, so I'm thinking either wired or wireless arcade-style controllers using arduino boards for wiring. Micro-ATX board with standard off-the-shelf PC components for internals. (gotta keep the software possibilities flexible)

[Superb Joe]

i sold my stick and havent played a video game properly since christmas 2012, i post here on a video game forum regardless

[cystem glitch]

Marvel 2 was pretty sick

Here are two youtube videos of people fighting against one of the oppressively top tier team compositions and 1) making a nearly impossible comeback with a lone assist character, 2) putting up a fight with a pretty hype low-tier team combination:

1.



2.





Marvel 2 was crazy because they pushed the speed and power of the fighting game elements to the max, and threw in the chaos of having teammates jump out and perform a special move at the press of a button, and allowed linking multiple supers into each other and just an all around abusable system that allowed you to create really incredible combos.

I have to admit having the X-men characters be badasses and look and feel really close to their 90's versions is a huge nostalgia draw, so results may vary if you are a younger person. Also, the game was very popular for like a ten year period so high level play devolved into a very narrow set of best options and abusive scenarios (guard breaks that can prevent incoming characters from playing in some situations, infinites, extremely favored top tier characters). It's still fun to play though, it can be like crack if you really get in to it.

[Conker]

Wired up my control panel for my cabinet, everything worked and it played great. God fighting games are more fun with a stick.

[InfiniteStateMachine]

Yeah, Smash looks easy at face value. Pretty much anyone younger than a certain age is going to have played Smash before. A good chunk will think they are a god at the game and their secret weapon (likely Kirby's Down-B) is enough to beat anybody. I should note that actually getting good at an entry in the series competitively is a different story. The FGC may write it off because it doubles as a hectic party fighter and it's so different, but there's a lot of mental conditioning that goes into playing at a high level and a good deal of tech to master in any of the games (Smash 4: All the 'intended' stuff + perfect pivots, jab locks, B-reversing / wavebouncing).

The problem with tech in competitive Smash is that a lot of the tech that exists wasn't intentional, though, and it leads to some annoyingly frame-perfect stuff. It actually creates an interesting situation where games like Melee can sometimes be more demanding on the user than even a normal fighting game. I mean just look at multishining. The only limit to how much you can do it is your hand cramping up

Anyway I only really play Smash competitively. I've won a few local tournaments so I like to think I know what I'm talking about

That's not unique to smash. The entire concept of links was unintentional.

It amazes me how a lot of these conversations tend to devolve into the technical minutia of fighting games, and their intricate and nuanced systems. There's nothing wrong with that, I know its a big part of the appeal for die-hard fighting game fans.

For me though, the arcade itself and the hardware it contained was always the big draw. Dedicated hardware for video games has just always had an inherent appeal. Maybe part of it is my growing up as a child in the 80s. I was the right age for this sort of thing to have a powerful influence right when it was at its heyday.

So here's an idea for some arcade development. Let me know what you think. Arcade coffee-table. A relatively normal-sized coffee table, with a flat-panel TV built into it's surface. Most likely a sheet of plexi-glass across the top for protection. Built-in controls would be a bit difficult, so I'm thinking either wired or wireless arcade-style controllers using arduino boards for wiring. Micro-ATX board with standard off-the-shelf PC components for internals. (gotta keep the software possibilities flexible)

Do you mean a pacman style arcade machine? I couldnt play fighting games on that.

These Japanese ones I really like. They are practically made for fighting games.

[Richard Kain]

Do you mean a pacman style arcade machine? I couldnt play fighting games on that.

You're thinking about a traditional cocktail-cabinet. I'm thinking lower to the ground, like an actual coffee table. And built with a flat-panel display.

I'm also not necessarily thinking about running fighting games on it. (though it would be possible) And I specifically wasn't thinking about having the arcade controls directly attached to the system. (either wireless, or alternative control system)

[ProgramGamer]

If I'd want to get into fighting games which one would I pick as the "entry level" one?

[Alevice]

street fighter 2

[ProgramGamer]

street fighter 2

Aight thanks!

[JWK5]

If I'd want to get into fighting games which one would I pick as the "entry level" one?

I recommend the Soul Calibur games, they are pretty forgiving when it comes to the newbie but there's a lot to learn and develop when it comes to the mechanics. Starting with SC5 is not a bad way to go, though going online with it can be problematic because it has been out for a while and the only people left playing it are either ridiculously good or are a poor unfortunate soul who popped on just to see what the online's like and hasn't yet realized they don't have a snowball's chance in hell. However, SC5 has a good array of single player activities and also let's you create a custom character if you like.

Marvel vs. Capcom 2 or 3 require button inputs that can be rough for people new to fighting games to get down (as is the case for most 2D or side-view fighters) but for the most part are pretty newbie-friendly. My kids play them and do admirably well so, even despite one of them struggling with the inputs required for the moves (quarter and half-circle moves, for example).

If you have access to something that can play PS1 games Bushido Blade is ridiculously fun if you can get someone else in on it.  Getting a CPS or NeoGeo emulator (or both, such as Kawaks) and a decent rom set will give you a nice range of fighting game pioneers to sample and get a feel for (most of their conventions are still used today, or in the case of Street Fighter and King of Fighters are used today).

Injustice or Mortal Kombat (9) are pretty beginner-friendly. Most of the moves are just simple three or four step inputs (for example: down, forward, punch) and the timing on the inputs is pretty forgiving. The only caveat with these games, at least on the PS3, is that it can be tough to find beginners online to play with as most of the people playing now have been at it for a good while (especially where Mortal Kombat is concerned). However, they both have a robust collection of single player modes and are great games for squaring off with someone on the same couch.

Ultra Steet Fighter 4 is not a bad option, at least on the PS3 (which is what I play it on) there is still a good range of begginer to pro players. It plays a lot like the earlier Street Fighter games (most of the moves are exactly the same) so you can get a feel for what you'd be in for by emulating (CPS2 via Kawaks, PS1, SNES, etc.) if you can't find a copy to borrow, buy, etc.

You can get a PDP versus fighting pad for pretty cheap (I got mine for $10) and it works like magic for most games that require complex inputs (Street Fighter, King of Fighters, etc.) or feature a lot of diagnal input (Soul Calibur), but you probably wouldn't want to use it for games like Mortal Kombat and Injustice, with those you are better off with something that has a D-Pad (for example, the basic XBOX360 or PS3 controller).


I hope that helps.



EDIT: If you want even more beginner-friendly fighters, the first 4 Dead or Alive games are really forgiving and are probably the easiest of the 2D/Pseudo-2D fighters to get into. Any of the Super Smash Bros. games are about as beginner friendly as you can get but can become pretty tactical at higher levels of play.