next »

[HyperEXTurbo]

fixed up the blog some more and posted it on BitMob, an up and coming website dedicated to well-written articles about anything gaming-related.

http://bitmob.com/articles/making-an-accessible-fighting-game

I've got a team of programmers now and we are hard at work on the camera and button input system. All we need now are animators and some more exposure to get some attention.

surprisingly, I haven't gotten much feedback from fighting game communities such as Shoryuken.com. Although I've come to realize that a majority of the people there have one goal in mind when playing fighting games: to improve oneself and play at a competitive level. There were only a few people who mentioned that players as well as developers should stop having this mindset for players, assuming they all wish to compete when some players out there are fine playing on a casual level. What do you guys think about all this?

[baconman]

This sort of thing happens in practically every game now. You have speedrunners and pros that compete like it's a virtual sport league, and you have people that play for fun. Doesn't matter how deep your system is, actually. There's a hardcore Smash Bros. league now, and that's about as casual as fighters get.

Meanwhile, the key to approachability isn't to forsake a game's depth, but to naturally progress players through it. A lot of "challenge/mission" modes are made with that in mind. A concept that IIRC, originated in Street Fighter EX, it starts with simply executing special moves, goes into some basic hitstrings, then combines those together with other gameplay factors until the few top-tier missions/combos, which then enter hardcore territory.

[StrictlyDominant]

You can make a fighting game more accessible by introducing features that are universal throughout the cast in the fighting system with simple(r) commands.  

Three of the best examples of this for the current generation of fighting games:
Mortal Kombat 9: Xray attacks (press L+R trigger after you meter is full; highest damage moves in the game)
Marvel Vs Capcom 3: Highest level super attack (L+R Trigger; automatically does the highest level of super that you can afford with your meter.  1bar=1char, 2bars=2char, ..)
MVC3 (again): Universal launcher system.  They dedicated a button to launching your opponent into the air (or knocking them to the floor if they are in the air) instead of needing to input a command for it to work.

All of the current generation of fighting games have control schemes that are VERY forgiving to the player compared to older fighters, but a lot of the higher level players complain about this as well.

It depends on what you really want in making an accessible fighter... Do you just want people with little skill to play your game or do you want both low level players and high level players to play it?

That is what is meant by Jasmines post:

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.

Most high level players won't even touch it for long if you have no options for them to expand their gameplay beyond a few gimmicky specials and a light combo system.

---
High level players see a new fighting game as a platform that they will potentially be using for years to determine their skill level. They are what keep fighting games alive for such a long period of time and make them worthwhile for the developer to create.  

Low level players just see fighting games as "a new game" that will be discarded as soon as they beat the end boss or lose to someone online and don't want to adapt. On some level you have to make the game interesting to them because they like to spend money, but they don't really matter very far beyond the release date compared to high level players who take the game to tournaments, make videos, websites, etc to support it and continue sales.

The lower the price and needed PC specs, the more low level players that will play the game for a longer period of time.  I always wondered how an ad-based fighter would fair.  You could display an ad at the versus screen every match and make it free.

[Superb Joe]

i read the broad strokes of your thing and i have some things to say:

input shortcuts are stupid. there is nothing inherently complex about fireball or dp motions, certainly nothing so difficult as to require a fundamental mechanic change that will affect all players to cater solely to those with terrible manual dexterity/xbox controllers. if you want to have input shortcuts for those people it should be an optional thing that is clearly explained.

you're absolutely right about tutorials. street fighter 4 sold to casuals based solely on its cultural inheritance, in every mechanical regard it is stunningly opaque. the game fundamentally relies on links and fadcing, neither of which are explained at all in the game itself. my younger brother didn't play fighting games growing up and as such when you put him down in front of one he literally has no idea what's going on. explaining what the fuck everything does and why it works like that is really the only thing you have to do to make fighting games accessible. it's probably also a good idea to explain strategy and counter strategy, particularly if your character design involves anything an idiot is going to find problematic (for example children and blanka electricity)

comeback mechanics are heinous and idiotic. they exist to supposedly make games these days "accessible", but nobody buys a fighting game because of a comeback mechanic, and it's detrimental to high level play. if any of the actual mechanical underpinnings of your game are specifically targeted towards bad players to the detriment of high level play then you've fucked up, your shit's stupid, and your game will quickly go to the trashpile while people still play st. the only reason to not design a fighting game entirely around high level play is that it's hard. people who play it to hit buttons and see pretty colours can't tell the fucking difference and will stop playing in short order while the people who will actually put time into the game are lumped with dumb bullshit like x factor.

and of course good netcode is essential because arcades aren't a real thing.

edit: vf4 evo has a really good tutorial

[Superb Joe]

oh and for the love of god please pay attention to the correlation between movement options and walk speed and fun. sf 4 is fucking boring and moves like molasses and has been regressive in pretty much every way except spreading awareness and making lots and lots of money.

[gimymblert]

One thing that is important, maybe the most important:

NO SKILL CEILING EVER.

Actually each gain in skill should lead to another level of play. While smash bros is frown by traditional fighter, that's one thing that make it rise from a mere distraction (like most its wannabe) to a parallel scene. This rules works well with combinatorial movement.

Now reading superjoe, you must also decide if you want to appeal to traditionalist or try to create a new but solid scene that will embrace your approach. That's consistent with skill ceiling, if it's interesting it will lead to a scene as people get engulf in the depth of the gameplay.

[shig]

 You can have comeback mechanics and random stage hazards or item-drops as long as there is an option to turn them off. Random stuff is good for party play and shit, and comeback mechanics make watching other people play more exciting because there is a much bigger chance of comebacks.
 Of course there are ways to make comebacks more likely to happen without having a real comeback mechanic. For example, nearly every fighter nowadays gives you meter for being hit, but the guy hitting will also be getting at least as much meter, so you don't get rewarded for being hit like in sfiv but there are still good chances for stuff that changes the pace of the match since the guy getting beat down gets meter and wakeups and shit.
'
i agree that vf4 has a fuckawesome tutorial. also go read the skullgirls dev team's ideas about teaching new players about fighting games.

[shig]

Also I think it's dangerous to think of DOA as some sort of design bible cause it is pretty limited.

[HyperEXTurbo]

i read the broad strokes of your thing and i have some things to say:

very good call, easier inputs should be an option, although it really isn't as dramatic as you made it out to be

[gimymblert]

I think a lot of people confuse comeback with rubber band. Come back mechanics is to make sure you don't have slippery slope, If the first to land a hit win, it makes the game very boring to play and very little about skills.

SF4 is a total disaster as it have rubber band AND slippery slope in a single mechanics.

On easy input: VF series HAS easy input, but placing them is a distinct things.

[shig]

"comeback mechanic" in SRK-slang means basically anything that makes you potentially more dangerous when you get hit or fuck up in some other way. In other words, things that reward you for screwing up.

also how can something have "rubberbanding"(reducing the distance between the losing and the winning player) and "slippery slope"(first to land a hit win) at the same time anyways

[gimymblert]

Comeback is not just a fighting slang, in the general game design field its certainly broader. There is subtle difference with rubber band which is about leveling the difference between player while comeback is a particular rubber band, it's offering option, generally risky to shorten the gap. Bad comeback mechanics (as in most fighting game) translate in permanent advantage and may guaranty winning (losing to win) ie goes beyond the gap.

On the apparent contradiction.
Imagine a king who had two son, he give them one rules, the horse that came last win.

Ultra in SF4 is basically that, the more you win, the more you will die in one hit. When I play Fighting game I generally play it 2P (or more) at someone machine and I have no time to train but in the go. It happen that I dominate all the early match with contact character such as cammy even against fireball spammer and long range turtle such as sagat or akuma. The fact is that my friend discover that ultra can kill someone once place with half is bar. As I have no time to train I always have difficulty with stupidly complicate input and I cannot place them easily, also no button configuration too (not my game) wo I have to deal with poor placement. What happen is that I still dominate (half bar versus one square) but they train themselves when I wasn't playing about ONLY placing ultra. Basically when their health is low enough they turtle and carefully spam fireball, jut wait an opportunity to ULTRA my ass, that was manageable until they discover that ultra were comboable, I had no more chance. BAD comeback, and special where already bad (aside from providing little spike of climax).

Now that's why I favor test of skill about playing the game not playing the input, that's just a silly aspect of the fighting community and it borderline on fetishism.

On items and stage hazard: I won't blame people not being able to understand their balance as they are NOT random. Since they only want to play the same game will baby sit. Also the fact I played a very different melee game (more high stake and thoughtful) because of isolation from world's community (item drop maximum, sudden death, time, dynamic level). Items are actually weakness and remove degree of freedom, they have a clear drop pattern and being the one without one is more than often the advantage. At high level they are only useful for feint and strategical positioning, more like an rts game where you must own the field by using its idiosyncrasies. Even when I look at official tournament that allow items I see how they are weak at items, but our play was the equivalent of playing bullet hell games. But sure all those advance techniques like L-canceling and dash whatever was unheard of us.

A good explanation of items like style was seen in skull girl with fortune detachable head mechanics. It's a trade off.

But yeah BRAWL jump the shark badly

[shig]

gimmy you are terrible

if you really want to be that pedantic about it, then "rubberbanding" is a particular comeback mechanic, not the other way around, because it is there to make it easier for the losing player to win in the end.  

the good comeback mechanic is the one that doesnt exist

didnt read the rest lol

[gimymblert]

Nope

Rubber band even the field, it can be by adding friction to the winner, then it's not a comeback as it's not the loser who get an advantage.

Generally PURE Rubber band (like an actual rubber) are looser as the field even itself, so the advantage is never too strong and allow the winner to stay a winner because of its skill but allow a sudden surge of skill from the loser to compensate for the deficit.

The problem with most fighting game is that the advantage is stored, even when the dominance have shift. It's the whole losing to get advantage to win.

I like it this way because it make communication of clear concept more precise.

[StrictlyDominant]

I disagree with you also Gimmy as just about every high level player would.  If both players were to start off at the character select screen, both players are allowed to choose any character they want.  That is completely fair and even.

If they both start the match with the same amount of life, that is completely fair and even.  I don't understand how you could think you could improve on being completely fair by adding a new element that exists solely to cause imbalance.

A huge part of fighting games is momentum and those comeback mechanics stall the momentum of the game once they are available.  Not only that but they can allow the momentum to change hands to the other player, depending on which comeback is available.  Once that is done the player that was initially ahead may not have as much time or opportunity to use it.

You shouldn't be rewarded with anything from losing other than death.  You can argue that if the player was skilled enough then it wouldn't matter, but then why would you be arguing in favor of a feature that consistently supports lack of skill to begin with?

[gimymblert]

Yep but the context here is not high level play ONLY. It's about playing a game available to a high range of player AND hi level player. It's about accessibility without sacrificing hi level.

However If you read previous quoted wall of text of mine, I highlight how to make comeback less painful by adding mind game and risk through punishment. The idea is that a skilled player can still maintain momentum, but the trailing player still have a chance and remain in control.

Also game where the outcome are decide in advance are just lame and not fun, a competitive scene would hardly rise if a game is not fun to begin with.

[HyperEXTurbo]

Well, like someone mentioned before, high leveled players should not be playing against low leveled players in the first place, so no comeback-mechanic or any sort of rubber-banding should be needed at all. If you read the rest of the blog, you can see my methods on how to separate player skill level so those with similar strength can compete against each other. Also did not mention any comeback mechanics either. If you are on the losing side, it is your fault and the only thing that can save you is yourself. It's not unforgiving, it's simply fair.

[gimymblert]

It's an aesthetics choice (root in basic competitive thought) But as long there is no "slippery lock" and comeback is possible that's fair.

[StrictlyDominant]

The second player does not always have access to their comeback mechanism in fighting games, so it is not entirely fair.  You can't assume that one player is better than the other and assume that the comeback mechanisms never work.  They almost always work, at the very least to give chip damage.  And it's not always solely the comeback mechanism that ruins games, it's the mechanism in addition to all of the available moves that the character has.

If two skilled players are playing each other using the same character and both of them can earn a 30-40% damage comeback mechanism if they reach, say 80% damage, then the player that is winning has to play conservatively (i.e. has a limited range of viable attacks) when p2 reaches 80%.

p2 can potentially keep the comeback for as long as they like which will theoretically limit p1's moveset the entire time, giving p2 the advantage.  When p2 inevitably beats p1 (because he/she has more viable options) they can use the comeback mechanism anytime p1 is has 30-40% of their life left to kill p1 which will deny p1 the opportunity to have the same amount of options in a match as p2.... for being the better player.

That's why high level players don't like comeback mechanisms.

High level play does not refer to the skill level of a player, it refers to the highest level of strategy that can possibly be used used in a match.  High level players only try to recognize the best possible strategies and try to use them.

[gimymblert]

In my previous post I was talking of simply one player making a come back NOT the mechanics. A game should always allow a player to make it back even in desperate case (see evo 2K4 justin vs daigo).

However what you describe is a BADLY implemented mechanics (as in most fighting games) because it give permanent buff and not relative buff. Also a comeback base on percent of damage is not a comeback mechanics since if both are "in the zone" they benefit the buff. A good comeback mechanics must not guaranty win (ie never give clear advantage) must be counterable and must be relative to the GAP between player.

Another exemple of bad comeback mechanics is mario kart as the advantage are too strong and made irrelevant skill of any sort during most lap of the game and putting good player in bad position at the last lap.

The thing is that sort of mechanics works well when the leading player can also secure a great deal of advantage, The comeback mechanics (good one) is here to loosen the burden on the lesser player.

But a better way of reasoning is about starter, middle game, end game and climax. Super are bad comeback mechanics, what they do right is upping the stake cyclically to allow variety and context, they span from middle game to end game and are a gameplay of resource management.

Good example of comeback mechanics is the damage in smash bros, the knockback give more control to escape combo, but also increase the risk of being ring out, It also shift the context in which move affect each other and then strategy over time. It's a subtle mechanics, not one most people would see as a comeback mechanics, but that's an ideal one for me and a solution to stun lock (I tend to see any lock as bad).