next »

[[RM8]]

Ah, "competitive gaming". There's always been a constant trolling between the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Melee "competitive communities". Each community claims their game is better than the other, but the Melee community insists that Brawl is not even a competitive fighter. Which is hilarious because both games were designed by the man who created Kirby, the platformer series that aims to be accessible to anyone. The Melee players argue that Brawl:

1- Is slower
2- Has random 'tripping'
3- Lacks character balance
4- Lacks combos

I personally don't think it being slower makes a lot of difference. Random tripping sucks, that's something I completely agree with them. The game has two notoriously broken characters, that's another point for them, but Melee wasn't exactly the most balanced fighter ever. It had some near useless characters like Pichu and Kirby. But something I've really been thinking about is the lack of combos.

How does Brawl lack combos? In SSB64 and Melee, there was a lot of 'hitstun'. That means, if you get hit you'll be stunned for a brief moment, allowing your opponent to keep hitting you and effectively making a ~combo~. In Brawl, the hitstun was greatly reduced, making it almost impossible to link several attacks, especially with Brawl's floatier gameplay. So instead of combos, Brawl is 100% about hard reads and punishing, making it WAY more defensive than Melee.

As designers, do you think combos are a very important part of a fighting game? Would you think the lack of combos makes a fighter worse than other? I find this weird because Smash lacks a lot of fighting game staples (like meters, walls, hit counters, etc.), I don't see why it lacking Street Fighter combos would be that much of a problem. Sure, Brawl is in consequence much less flashy, but I don't think it completely removes the challenge, or the strategy involved.

[Melly]

The lack of combos is not worse. It's different. A different gameplay style that can work just as well as a combo-heavy game, with proper tweaking and balancing. It creates a different style of gameplay and asks players to behave differently during combat. The complaints from players that the lack of combos make the game worse is just the complaints of people who don't want to adapt to a different gameplay style.

[SundownKid]

That makes no sense... games like Bushido Blade don't have combos or air juggling and get along just fine. If you think you've seen "defensive", try playing the game where one hit kills you. Saying a fighting game without combos is worse is like calling Bionic Commando a bad platformer because you can't jump. It's just not true.

[kenesque]

For the record I play competitive fighting games and have placed top 8 in plenty of tournaments and have won a few.

Combos add more actual decisions into a match, and put in a skill barrier which extends the length of a game (for better or for worse). It adds a "specialty" someone can have which creates player diversity. It also adds discovery to the game, which can allow players a sense of satisfaction when they discover new stuff or figure out something new on their own. Essentially, combos add both some strategy and add "single player" to a competitive game.

The decision making they give is well, not exactly the most deep of things, but generally they make you factor in: risk, positioning, damage, and sometimes a secondary goal (maybe meter gain of some sort, or a gimmick). Depending on the player, you might risk a harder combo, despite knowing you could mess it up. Depending on the situation, you might choose a knockdown or a knockback (giving you an advantage which can allow you to score even more damage) or assured damage (which is guaranteed to kill the person faster).

Depending on the game, character or situation, you may forgo damage for some other kind of utility. A simple example is Arakune from BlazBlue: CS, who instead of going for maximum damage combos, aims to fill a small "Curse" guage which when filled, makes him objectively the best character in the game for a period of time. In other games, such as Hokuto no Ken, there is a system where "Stars" exist, and if you remove all 7 of them (using certain moves), you can kill them instantly. Despite this, you may opt for an actual higher damage combo and only choose to remove stars when you feel you might be able to actually get an instant kill off. Or you could focus the entire strategy of your game on removing stars. Various combos let you exploit these things in different ways.

There is an absolute strategic element to combos. Some of them are arbitrarily very hard and do not really add a lot, and you could easily remove the "technical" aspect of combos by removing any physical barrier of entry and simply give you a choice tree inside of an autocombo for example.

You can give or take on the longevity/depth/exploration aspect, but it keeps people playing a fighting game for longer, and also adds some sort of player differentiation. I have godawful exection in fighting games and generally play the characters with the easiest combos/techniques and focus entirely on reading my opponent. While other players in my area can nail ridiculous combos but have terrible strategy or are blind to many aspects of their opponents actions. This makes our playstyles entirely different, which is something combos add. One player focuses on entirely different strengths or weaknesses.

Edit: Combos are not the most important aspect obviously, but I am delving into what makes combos interesting and why they are a mainstay in the genre. They objectively make a game deeper and harder, but generally you could execute them in a way that doesn't make them harder if you designed a fighting game really, really well but keep the strategic element.

[Fallsburg]

That makes no sense... games like Bushido Blade don't have combos or air juggling and get along just fine. If you think you've seen "defensive", try playing the game where one hit kills you. Saying a fighting game without combos is worse is like calling Bionic Commando a bad platformer because you can't jump. It's just not true.

Agreed.  I would say that fighting is the most important part of a fighting game.  Combos, special moves, different characters, etc. are just different tools that the designer can use.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't think combos are a mainstay of the genre -- even street fighter 2 had no combos -- at least not intentionally; it had sequences of moves that could not be avoided once the first one came in, but it didn't have a combo counter and it wasn't intentionally built into the game. the first and probably best fighting game, karate champ, has no combos.

maybe this is just because i prefer fighting games of the 80s and early 90s to modern ones, but i always kind of thought combos were somewhat stupid, or at least silly, and turned fighting games away from their roots. they've become less about fighting and more about artificial systems, power bars with exotic names that you build up, etc. etc., and not about their roots: games of paper-rock-scissors and reaction time.

that said i don't like the super smash bros series all that much either, because they still don't feel like real fighting does. but neither does my favorite fighting game (although i'm sure purists will laugh at this), which is battle arena tohshinden 2; that game just felt really good, even though it did have some of the problems of other fighting games (such as arcane button-direction combination-sequences which lead to super moves).

but basically i think special moves ruined fighting games, and combos were the nail in the coffin. they now have nothing to do with fighting anymore (although this can be seen as a good thing, i guess. but it's an inaccurate label for the genre: racing games at least slightly resemble real racing, but fighting games are so far removed from real fighting that it's funny).

and the result is that fighting games have evolved into something that are not accessible to outsiders who never played the genre; they're like shmups and jrpgs in that regard, but even worse. which again isn't necessarily a bad thing, enclosing yourself off into a niche of devotees has good qualities too, it's just that it doesn't really favor innovation or change, and all the games do is just repeat the same basic game with differences which seem major to the people in it (three power bars instead of four!) but minor to everyone else. it also leads (and this probably does *not* have a positive side) into devotees of fighting games criticizing any game which doesn't do the standard fighting game things (as here, with combos) and not giving those games a chance.

[[RM8]]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with what you all have said. I personally don't believe combos are a must-have, but I understand their positive effect on a fighting game. I just really don't like when they're the main focus of the game, when being hit once means you're dead and the game temporarily turns into Guitar Hero, without you being able to do anything about it. Because, you know, you got hit once. This is a especially big problem when the game lacks balance, like MvC2.

when you perform a "combo" in Brawl is not because you're correctly timing a button sequence, it's because you're reading your opponent's moves smartly and punishing accordingly. Sure, it's more random and doesn't require memorizing long button combinations, but it still requires skill and it still creates a "barrier" between beginners and experienced players.

[jwk5]

Combos are a weapon in your arsenal not a guaranteed means to win a fight. Even in Street Fighter 4, a lot of defensive players can beat players skilled at combos simply by using a smart defense and making one or two hit counters when the opportunity presents itself.

In most fighting games zoning, wake up strategies, "footsies", "pokes", throws and counter-throws, etc. are more important than combos (unless we are talking  Killer Instinct, a few of the Mortal Kombat games, etc.). By far the most important aspect of any fighting game is mind games (i.e. being able to predict and counter your opponent). I highly recommend you read David Sirlin's article on "yomi layer 3".

Fighting games can definitely be fun and full of depth without combos. Look at Bushido Blade, it doesn't have much in regards to combos and its fights can end in a single hit, yet matches can go on for 30-40 minutes with both opponents desperately trying to get that hit (and avoid receiving one). Good game play is good game play, regardless if it has combos or not.

[SaturnineGames]

Personally, I liked fighting games in the Street Fighter 2 / Mortal Kombat days. As they moved toward focusing on combos and complexity, I lost interest in them. Since then, I really only play Smash Bros, but I've been playing all 3 versions of it a ton since the original was released.

The speed of Brawl vs Melee is a taste thing. Tripping, yeah, it sucks.

Neither Brawl nor Melee really had balanced characters. Melee tournaments were just Fox, Marth, and Falco. And people largely played those characters because they could exploit physics glitches. It's really a choose your poison thing.

Combos though, I'm happier without. They reward people who focus on the minute details of the game rather than on the overall picture. To me, Smash Bros isn't about chaining moves, it's about working with the environment you're given and taking advantage of it. That's a far bigger strategic element. Of course, the tournament people play on Final Destination, so they're removing a major aspect of the game.

[[RM8]]

Actually, there are currently 22 tournament legal stages in Brawl, and 'counterpicking' is an important part of tournament play. Unless you're facing Meta Knight, who doesn't have bad stages.

[the_dannobot]

Personally, I think that combos are only one of many tools in the fighting game designer's toolbox.  When designing the game, the designer should take all the little gameplay mechanics one at a time and examine them, "Does this make the game more fun?"  If the only answer is "No, but every other game has it" then maybe it should be left out or augmented to fit better into the overall gameplay design.

That being said, dropping a big ass combo on some scrub in Marvel is hella fun.

Ah, "competitive gaming". There's always been a constant trolling between the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Melee "competitive communities".

funny because the lead designer of the Smash games doesn't care about "competitive communities" or "hardcore gamers":
smash is meant to be played to have fun

[[RM8]]

Yup, that's actually what caused the latest trolling wars between both communities.

[jotapeh]

As far as SSBB and SSB:Melee are concerned, all I can tell you is that Melee held my attention for much longer

Brawl I had trouble forcing myself to play the entire single player campaign and to unlock the characters.

[the_dannobot]

I had trouble playing Brawl because it was a cluttered mess.  Did anyone else realize that there is always a great big floating glowing number over each character's head, otherwise they would be totally lost in the background?

Enough about shitty smash though, let's talk more about Bushido Blade and how awesome it was.  Why hasn't anyone made a decent sequel yet?  Or did someone make a decent sequel, and I just wasn't paying attention?

[SaturnineGames]

I had trouble playing Brawl because it was a cluttered mess.  Did anyone else realize that there is always a great big floating glowing number over each character's head, otherwise they would be totally lost in the background?

Honestly, I thought Melee was MUCH worse with that. The higher speed made it a lot harder to keep up. It took me a while to get used to that. With Brawl's slower speed, I had no issues with it.

[s0]

The only thing I know about "competitive" Smash Bros. players is that they play the game in the most boring way possible.

[SundownKid]

Nidhogg (the indie game) simplified the "1 hit kill" idea and added the twist of respawning after a couple of seconds. It seems more luck based than having any element of strategy, though. Bushido Blade still has the leg up... the crippled leg, that is!  

[man of doom]

I wouldn't say combos were the most important part of a fighting game - balanced and varied character roster is. Combos are simply a mechanic that can help add depth to a fighter, like special attacks, super moves, throws, reversals etc. None of these things are necessary but when used well can be a lot of fun.

On the topic of Smash Bros, I found Melee much easier to control and more balanced, a lot of the characters in Brawl seemed unwieldy and superflous.

[Dustin Smith]

Enough about shitty smash though, let's talk more about Bushido Blade and how awesome it was.  Why hasn't anyone made a decent sequel yet?  Or did someone make a decent sequel, and I just wasn't paying attention?

Actually, our very own Turbo Brother made a demake I like more than the original
playthisthing.com/bushido-edge (not trying to be self-aggrandizing here, but nobody else really wrote about it)

He also made a sequel that makes use of stances, but I haven't gotten to play that yet. My little brother is back in town today, so I'll definitely give it a shot shortly.

[J-Snake]

Read the last posts of the thread here (competitive vs. "just for fun") to hear my answer. In short: Combos alone are just stupid and there is no value to them