next »

[HyperEXTurbo]

I just finished writing up a blog concerning how hard it is for new players to get into (traditional) fighting games. I also proposed some methods for developers make the genre a bit more accessible and lastly, I outline my own way to making an exciting fighting game that all fans, fighting or not, can sink their teeth into without dropping the controller.

Was wonder if anyone could feedback. Either on how the blog itself is written, or the methods I describe to make fighting games more accessible.

You can find the blog here: http://tagproto.blogspot.com/

[Hangedman]

While there are those far more familiar with the nuances of fighting games than I, I can still hazard a suggestion

You should probably link us to the blog

[zeid]

You should probably link us to the blog

^ This.

Also I am currently working on a fighting game at the moment and accessibility is one of the main aspects I am trying to achieve so I will likely find this some interesting reading.

[HyperEXTurbo]

WOW, totally slipped my mind, sorry guys. Link has been added.

The blog doesn't use much heavy fighting game slang, it is meant for readers with a general knowledge of video games and at least some knowledge of traditional fighting games (Street Fighter for example).

[zeid]

Well it was an nice read.  Though there wasn't much for me to sink my teeth into.

I was expecting more on your thoughts with regard to the issue of input complexity; Providing the player with beginner friendly training options;  Presenting fighting game concepts like resets, controlling space and so on in the actual game as oppose to it only being mentioned in fighting game communities;  Or perhaps some comparisons on games like smash bros vs the street fighter franchise or similar examples of accessibility.

I feel the main problem with making a fighting game accessible is the shear amount of depth arisen in their game-play due to the competitiveness of their communities.  One of High level player's goals is to find design flaws or a dominant strategy they can exploit to win.  Combos in SF2, where after all, a programmer error and Kara throws are another such example of where high level players have taken advantage of design/programming flaws.  These things became known in the fighting game communities and used at the higher levels.  However over time they have been made more accessible to less experienced players, combos now require less rigid timing so that less experienced players can feel like they are doing something flashy.

I also think as such a fighting games depth comes from the one-on-one conflict against another person.  A computer AI, however complex will probably never be advanced enough to push a player to explore the same level of depth as versing a player will.  As such splicing a fighting game with an action adventure may give a fighting game a much more compelling story, and expose it to a greater audience.  However that audience likely wont intend to explore the fighting system in the same level of depth as a fighting game enthusiast.  They will explore the system to the shallowest level needed in order to complete it.

P.s. I kept reading through your blog and liked the line drawing idea for a pen and paper RPG.

[rivon]

There imho isn't any way how to make them easier. They just need the depth. The same as duel FPSes like Quake or RTS games like StarCraft, Warcraft etc.
If newbs could win over pros it wouldn't be fair...

[HyperEXTurbo]

Well it was an nice read.  Though there wasn't much for me to sink my teeth into.

I was expecting more on your thoughts with regard to the issue of input complexity; Providing the player with beginner friendly training options;  Presenting fighting game concepts like resets, controlling space and so on in the actual game as oppose to it only being mentioned in fighting game communities;  Or perhaps some comparisons on games like smash bros vs the street fighter franchise or similar examples of accessibility.

I feel the main problem with making a fighting game accessible is the shear amount of depth arisen in their game-play due to the competitiveness of their communities.  One of High level player's goals is to find design flaws or a dominant strategy they can exploit to win.  Combos in SF2, where after all, a programmer error and Kara throws are another such example of where high level players have taken advantage of design/programming flaws.  These things became known in the fighting game communities and used at the higher levels.  However over time they have been made more accessible to less experienced players, combos now require less rigid timing so that less experienced players can feel like they are doing something flashy.

I also think as such a fighting games depth comes from the one-on-one conflict against another person.  A computer AI, however complex will probably never be advanced enough to push a player to explore the same level of depth as versing a player will.  As such splicing a fighting game with an action adventure may give a fighting game a much more compelling story, and expose it to a greater audience.  However that audience likely wont intend to explore the fighting system in the same level of depth as a fighting game enthusiast.  They will explore the system to the shallowest level needed in order to complete it.

P.s. I kept reading through your blog and liked the line drawing idea for a pen and paper RPG.

Thank you VERY much for the feedback, it was quite helpful. It's true that there isn't much info for fighting fans to sink their teeth into. It was because the blog was targeted for a more broad audience that understands some general idea about fighting games. However, getting more in-depth doesn't sound like a bad idea and it would help me address some more issues with fighting games like complex inputs as you pointed out.

My purpose for creating a Fighting Adventure hybrid is to ease players in with the single-player. Sure, they will be fighting AI the entire time but if enemies start off easy and get progressively more skilled, players will find themselves improving on at least a basic level. In turn, players will feel much more comfortable jumping into multiplayer when they've already got a grasp on the fighting mechanics, instead of jumping into multiplayer blindly with no direction at all. You could say my purpose is to make a good stand-alone singleplayer experience for a fighting game, and as a result, produce a nice gateway into the competitive side of the genre. BUT, not all players wish to play at that level (me for example. I'm casual, but I know what I'm doing), and so, players still have the option of enjoying the game at a casual level and still get an engaging experience thanks to a dedicated singleplayer campaign.


oh, and thanks for reading that Pen and paper RPG idea I had, haha. It's something I should expand on someday, since making pen and paper RPGs and board games are a good start for a game designer career.

[baconman]

New people can learn these high-level combos in most fighting games the same way superpro players do - in the Challenge or Mission modes of the game. In fact, that's kind of the entire point to them. Kinda the same way that Scenario Modes work in FPS games, they teach basics.

Usually, I find that the singular sticking point in teaching people new to fighters is special move cancelling. Once they learn that they don't have to wait for, say a crouching medium punch animation to finish before the execute a special or super move; that's usually the launching point for them. Fighters like Tekken are a little different, but in that case there's usually 5 or 6 easy-to-do tactics for space control and pressure per character, which in conjunction with universal strategies like throwing and counters, can give anybody a good starting point. ("Right counters" all the way - n00b flailers LOVE their left punch/kick buttons. And you can tell them from who they pick.)

Personally, while it may be harder to track them down now; I think Neo Geo Pocket Color or Game Boy fighters are a TERRIFIC starting point, with the way they simplify their button layouts, often to Punch/Kick or Light/Hard; from there, it's way easier to distinguish the dual-row functions. (Here's your "punch row," here's your "kick row.")

Art of Fighting 3, Garou: MotW, Street Fighter III series, BlazBlue: Continnum Shift and Marvel vs. Capcom 3 are excellent bridges from "classic" fighters as far as feature breadth go, and with maybe an exception to that last one, their pacing isn't so frantic that it's hard to control. Even in MvC3, the controls and combo system are simplified enough that the pacing wouldn't prevent players from systematically advancing, too.

[s0]

There imho isn't any way how to make them easier. They just need the depth. The same as duel FPSes like Quake or RTS games like StarCraft, Warcraft etc.
If newbs could win over pros it wouldn't be fair...

"Newbs" and "pros" shouldn't even be playing against each other. That's the real problem of almost every competitive game in existence.

[Uykered]

Match making systems are the best (when done right).

[gimymblert]

It doesn't really matter to make control or combo accessible:
http://www.wiipals.net/Forum/f146/footsies-and-spacing-essential-in-every-fighting-game-79725.html
Learning how to read a game is more essential and truly make the differance.

[HyperEXTurbo]

Don't cripple a game by bringing all players down to a common denominator. Just partition players by skill, and help them find their place relatively swiftly.

Skill should be something players can admire in others, and endeavor to improve in themselves. It should not be something that becomes meaningless because the game makes it meaningless.

that's exactly what I'm talking about and thanks for pointing it out, because I think some more information is in order for the blog.

I'm not really sure how I'm bringing down ALL players, I'm providing an engaging experience for newer players to learn the mechanics and most importantly of all, to have  fun. Those who are already acquainted with fighting games can go straight into multiplayer or ramp up the difficulty of the singleplayer campaign to find an experience more appropriate for their level.

Fighting games are a test of skill, but learning isn't always interchangeable with fun, which is why many unfamiliar players drop a game in the first place. What I intend to do with this project is to accommodate new players with a campaign that acts as a very subtle guide, and still appeal to the veterans by having a deep combat system

If newer players do not wish to get on the more competitive side of things, then that's their choice, and they still have a campaign to enjoy. What's good about this is that players can still have a fun experience offline. Whether their skills are on a basic level or not, why should it stop them having fun? It's also no concern for the veterans who wish to compete with other veterans anyway. This hybrid is meant to have options for players of all skill levels. The key word is "options," and like you said, these options will help players find their place relatively swiftly.

[the_dannobot]

well, if you want to make an accessible fighting game, you are going to need to tear apart all the gameplay mechanics that have been piled onto that genre over the years and sort them out. 
Which mechanics are the "fun"? 
Which mechanics is the inaccessability coming from?
Can those mechanics be changed to increase fun and decrease inaccessability?
If not, can they be taken out all together?

For example, you've suggested trading PVP for a PVE action-adventure.  If you do that but leave in difficult things like SRK motions and charge characters, you've still left in serious barriers to entry for novice fight game players.

Keep in mind the fighting game community is very insular, they are not going to be receptive to drastic changes to gameplay mechanics.  in order they want better netcode, balance, and hd graphics.  Accessibility and better AI are at the bottom of the list.

anyway, i've done a bunch of work making weird little fighting games that are easy to play, so I bookmarked your blog.  It'll be interesting to see what you come up with.  Holla!

[HyperEXTurbo]

well, if you want to make an accessible fighting game, you are going to need to tear apart all the gameplay mechanics that have been piled onto that genre over the years and sort them out. 
Which mechanics are the "fun"? 
Which mechanics is the inaccessability coming from?
Can those mechanics be changed to increase fun and decrease inaccessability?
If not, can they be taken out all together?

For example, you've suggested trading PVP for a PVE action-adventure.  If you do that but leave in difficult things like SRK motions and charge characters, you've still left in serious barriers to entry for novice fight game players.

Keep in mind the fighting game community is very insular, they are not going to be receptive to drastic changes to gameplay mechanics.  in order they want better netcode, balance, and hd graphics.  Accessibility and better AI are at the bottom of the list.

anyway, i've done a bunch of work making weird little fighting games that are easy to play, so I bookmarked your blog.  It'll be interesting to see what you come up with.  Holla!

thanks for the feedback and those insightful questions (and the bookmark ^^). Now I realize I have to make something very clear in the blog: PVP wasn't traded in at all, PVE was simply ADDED to the formula, so the fighting game community have not been stripped of anything since the core fighting mechanics are still there. The PVE adventure is there to give exposure to the mechanics, starting with the basics and progressing from there.

I've been busy with a contest lately, but I will definitely take the time to add much more information to the blog. Addressing the fighting genre in such a general manner has made the blog unexpectedly vague, so again, thanks for the feedback ^^

[gimymblert]

Fighting game as a test of skill is incomplete definition of fighting game, because there is many skill to test in a game, generally control complexity is just "gate" to mind game skills which is the nut and bolt of fighting game. So a more accessible game would also provide easier way to read the game.

Consider smash bros vs street fighter. In smash bros the control are easy but the game is hard to read for a novice player, attack don't have visual cue of their relative efficiency, priority, etc... a lot of information is highly contextual. In contrast street fighter have more complex control but they are easier to read, character and movement are visually readable and spell out clearly their efficiency. Also the complex control give personal sense of mastery that grow along the familiarity with the game ie along the mind reading skills, they basically work as a gate from one sense of mastery to another. You can play smash bros for year and not even come close to understand the depth if nobody show you the details, one mastery does not lead to the other.

I would say simplifying control is not exactly the best way to make fighting game more accessible, the readability is also important as the player need a way to reason about the game and learn from observation. That's why the brute force moment evo 2K4 with daigo vs justin is so spectacular, the mind game was minimal and lead to a huge skill gate, but even if you don't have the skill you get what's happening and why it's awesome. By contrast smash bros best match are too complicate to follow for novice who just see random stuff happening.

[baconman]

It really comes down to pacing. You can have all the advanced tactics in the world, and if the game is slow and smooth enough, rookies can master it. It wouldn't make for a very exciting game, mind you; but it would work. Also, some earlier fighters used bonus stages to illustrate gameplay concepts. I remember back in '92-'94, it was like a rule of thumb! Every good fighter had to have an equally good couple of bonus stages in it.

You want a good, simple fighting system? Have a light-medium-hard attack that chains together, and different directional "hard" attacks gave you different space-controlling moves, similar to most games' special move sets. Back to block, any two buttons to throw (/counter kara-throw*). Have a couple of combos or counters result in building super levels - BUT! The super moves simply use the ordinary directional commands that most specials would use. This gives the player a good, satisfying reward for mastery of a simple special move command, and teaches them about basic setups and two-in-ones.

For instance:
Light = poke attack, can sometimes chip 2-3 hits and still combo
>Medium = stuff like uppercuts, sweeps, stuns, knockbacks
>>Hard = light dragon punches, burning knuckles, lightning kicks, etc.
>>>Special Command = super moves

Any two buttons = Throw that can land against opponents in contact range, or against basic attacks that hit you within 2-2.5 ms of executing.

[HyperEXTurbo]

You bring up some very good points Gimmy. I know a few people who are very adept at Street Fighter IV, yet they have no idea what is going on in a game of Smash Bros.  The same goes for my friends who play Smash. They know what's going on in a Street Fighter match, but when they're behind the controller they don't know how to function too well. and yep, a lot of people would say that simplifying the controls are the way to go, but all we need is good pacing as baconman mentioned and control feedback that is easy to read.


I think I've been going about the project the wrong way. The plan was to build a prototype that focused on the fighting engine, but in full 3D graphics. Been having a real problem finding 3D modelers to volunteer (< really, that shouldn't be a surprise, lol) as well as programmers who specialize in Unity though. So I think it's best to make everything 2D for now and find some sprite artists who are willing to come on board.

The reason why I wanted the prototype (and the final product) to be in full 3D is because I wanted players to run around freely like in any other action-adventure game, and then see for themselves how a simple shift in camera and controls can seamlessly transform an action game to a fighting game.

If the prototype is going to be in 2D however, would you guys recommend a specific engine to work with?


I'll also post here whenever I update the blog with additional info. wonder if I should make this a devlog, haha

[gimymblert]

Concerning 3D, I would say sticking with 3D is a good bet (but it's only my opinion) you don't need final model to prototype and animation can translate among multiple version of a model without having to redo anything. In 2D animation is particularly expensive, 3D is vectorial.

For prototyping it's invaluable. D'on't try to have the final graphism first, have a proof of concept first with place holder, or you will never finish. You can use free model, retexture them quickly and modify the proportion of mesh and armature to start without final model. I can find you some model you could modify on blender yourself without having to modelize them.


I'm glad you appreciate my thought, I hope you will be able to finish your game, it's interesting to see people tackle the problem of accessibility in fighting game, I will watch your progress.

It was the short version, here is the long version I cut it out from my former answer. I just put it here for posterity please ignore it to not bleed your eyes!

Some game you might look for is dead or alive 2 and bloody roar Game cube.

Dead or alive have a very readable system that emphasis mind game while keeping simplicity of command and street fighter aesthetics (well more likely virtua fighter, but you get the point: 2 on 2 opponent on a line). Noob pick up the game faster than veteran fighter new to the game because of this. The RPS system with Throw/attack/counter is very effective, counter is itself a nested RPS system with High/low/med level. There is still combo and complex movement but they act as reward and generally are riskier which balance things up, you can totally own the game with the basics.

One main complain is that counter seems too effective against attack and favor defensive player, the complain is not valid and is only a perception problem based on prior fighting game experience which translate into bad habit (thoughtless combo). The way to play is to vary pacing and height to remain offensive and not letting the opponent "read" your next move.

But as the goal is to have an accessible game for veteran and noob alike while still keeping them right in the core of the game this perception should be fixed. The designer try to make the move less readable to counter this perception (in DOA4 it's harder to tell which move is med/hi or low) but that is silly and remove the noob in the equation and teach veteran bad habit from the get go. A better idea might be something like the soulcalibur 2 counter which does not punish the player but leave an opening. Soulcalibur also allow player to vary pacing of attack duration to play with the other player mind. The problem is the counter loop where player are stuck in counter of counter. The problem of counter is that it break the flow in favor of the player who is turtling, it also end the mind game session ...

In bloody roar primal fury in the gc, they have another idea, most combo where canned spammable attack and button mashing is always fun but not very deep. To counter this the dev had a spammable dodge move, if the player press at the right moment it makes a dodge, if too early it make a light block (protect himself with a quick blocking gesture instead of a full protection) and too late he takes the hit. The effect was awesome as the game pick between two animation each time for low and med level, it make the defense look cool and had a layer of technique to defense too. More importantly it teach the player timing of combo as it encourage noob to use this.

The system wasn't deep in bloody roar, but it could be use to fix counter, dodge did not stop the flow of a combo by punishing the attacking player it only move the mind game one step further and eventually allow the defensive player to time something between attack. It is also a more spectacular but easier counterpart of street fighter 3 perfect counter who lead to daigo vs justin evo 2k4 moment, which lead me to the next part...

Another problem of noob vs veteran is the loss of control I called cinematic moment which also lead to pure qte fest. It's okay that fret on fire is hard and a test of skills, but it's not exactly deep, it's not engaging too when you are on receiving end, you are not the one playing and having fun. Combo lead to that, there is nothing to do but watch. In the evo 2K4 moment there is only 2 moment of mind game, the first being when justin unleash the super which lead to a freat of fire moment lead by when daigo unleash his super. It's super impressive because it's hard but there isn't really much happening.

Doa fix that by forcing the attacker to vary his pacing and the defender to read the opponent pattern to counter, special also lead to that, you either dodge it or take it until the hit counter run out. Smash bros fix that with DI and damage level, DI allow the defender to outmaneuver the combo character who need to anticipate the next move, but it's not really implemented on the game more like an emergent gameplay due to the property of the game, the attacker must also take into account the percent of damage as it influe on the knockback, hence the combo he can do, there is also a nice feedback that allow high damaged character to have more DI range (thanks to higher knockback).

But that's not all, one problem of smash bros VS the fighting world (aside from cute character) is the problem of perpetual comeback and climax. A game where you can endlessly come back, able it harder and harder, is less satisfying to watch when climax drags too long. The evo 2K4 moment work great because it happen at a climax, a close game that end on a visceral demonstration of skill.

One big aesthetics in fighting game is the punishment, combo and super while robbing the game from control are usually good punishment because they have predictable outcome that seal a match or a moment. When some player win in smash bros a tense air fight under the pit by edge grabbing is effectively robbing the winner from the punishment, the game punish the loser for mistake but the winner is not owning anything, at least in perception it's a weaker owning that direct confrontation.

A good fighting should therefore encourage owning by direct confrontation and reduce the coming back ability by trading off higher risk. Ie bigger and more complex attack should also be more risky to put out. The complex movement usually just do that, make it easy to miss it, but ultimately it create a divide between pianist and other player, by moving the risk into gameplay (start up or cooldown are obvious way to do it, other effect can be thought like loosing the ability to guard for a moment). Because strong attack is an easily counterable placing them became the skills not execution.

Fatality is a neat simple way to reward player like this, it's a ultimate showdown after the match and let the winner owning the victory completely, it's not deep but work well, a better implementation is the ultra combo in killer instinct where the player must initiate a move while fighting (killer instinct had many way of letting the player own his victory, if the winner did not initiate a fatality it also had a last chance mechanics that had tension adding risk as a trading off of owning, after all you could play it safe and have a lackluster simple punch to end the game).

Another way to bring a climax is the idea of "pot"  from noob friendly game like dbz or naruto, generally damage pot where damage accumulate during a counter, were the game end by a spectacular punishment proportional to the pot as the "dance" end. Instead of having a separate mode of counter mini game like those, it should be build directly into the counter system as a counter combo system: the more you counter the more damage the pot accumulate that will unleash itself on the loser on the dance, counter became a risky move you may not engage because it could return itself against you, or you can bait an opponent to a counter dance to mind game the hell out of him into a devastating move.

Ultimately all fighting game are satisfying has the stake ups, noob or veteran play the game for this, to feel the adrenaline rush into the spine. A readable game allow for such a rush as risk and safe move are real option. Therefore the game should always move itself to a close match and always moving toward the end with meaningful bet. The problem is that a game with too many counter and defensive option tend to stale, generally designer try to fix that by reducing the defensive movement but it's not satisfying as it remove control and option from the player, we need to keep it's agency.

Another way traditional fighter try to fix this is by having a super that fill on damage taken, but it's weak as the player is not doing anything and is just reward for losing, it's not on the player control as taking damage is a weak way to interact. The infuriating Ultra in SF4 is the way to get it wrong, the more I lose, the more I win, If I have only one bar of health and my opponent have half his health I still win, I only need to place the move, it became a game of placing ultra, lame! Rubber band is good mechanics to let player come back to a close match, but it should not go beyond that and let them win.

Taking damage should be a desirable option as it's a way to make the game come to an end (when damage is the primary mean to end a game) but it should be a deliberate option in the player's end, a variation of the counter where instead of preventing damage the player store it as a special bar to unleash later is effectively a bet.

It's fucking long  and I didn't even quote game like tobal

[HyperEXTurbo]

I already have a working prototype in Unity with 2 placeholder models to use actually. They have standing and running animations. Also have a stock level to use (a race track, haha). My programmer was working on the camera system and studying about how to program input buffers and the like for the fighting system. Since he's quite busy now however, progress has pretty much halted as he is my only programmer. So I am scrambling for other Unity programmers to help out. I won't put too much emphasis on finding a 3D artist but it would be nice to get some of my artist's characters in 3D to attract some attention.

sticking with 3D does sound much more convenient, so I think I'll just keep it 3D, thanks for the input.

I read your whole post ^^. You really know your fighting games and a great range as well. I will definitely keep the info in mind when I get to the more technical side of things.

[HyperEXTurbo]

I fixed up the blog a bit, with many more details added to Section 1. hope this is an improvement

http://tagproto.blogspot.com/