next »

[quantumpotato]

[J-Snake]

Apples to oranges comparison as Street Fighter doesn't have its main focus on infighting. But I still prefer Tekken's system to other fighters so far.

[TheClintHennesy]

Same here.

I think Tekken has the most "fluid" feel when it comes to fighting games.

But yes- it is comparing apples and oranges.

And then again- the sad truth about fighting games... They're just so hard to learn execution wise- and that's what makes them fun- but it's so hard to get your friends into it. lol.

[Ordnas]

I watched other video analysis, saying that fighting games are scaling down the difficulty of executions of moves in general, which I agree. I used to play fighting games like Soul Calibur and Tekken with friends and it is fun also with button-smashing, with Street Fighter it was harder to be competitive if you never played it before.

[J-Snake]

This is appreciated. Difficulty of executions is just a cheap and tempting balancing tool, but also an ugly and unnecessary one (except finger-acrobatics are enjoyed for their own sake).

[quantumpotato]

related:

[Ordnas]

Virtua Fighter was one of my favourite fighting games, I played a lot the 5th on PS2, but I think one of the reason that Tekken is more "famous" is that it targets also casual players. I needed to play through the training at least 1 hour for each character if I want to play at normal difficulty against the CPU.

[J-Snake]

None of these fighting games are actually "deep", everything you do boils down to a weighted rock-scissors-paper game (for the most part at least). So it is nothing like chess where initial decisions can affect how you can progress in the later match. But the thrill in fighters is the moment-to-moment mind game. Some games pretend to be deep by putting a more convoluted input-barrier (like Virtua Fighter)between the player, some others (like Tekken) realize it is all about mind games and dive straight into it.

[quantumpotato]

None of these fighting games are actually "deep", everything you do boils down to a weighted rock-scissors-paper game (for the most part at least). So it is nothing like chess where initial decisions can affect how you can progress in the later match. But the thrill in fighters is the moment-to-moment mind game. Some games pretend to be deep by putting a more convoluted input-barrier (like Virtua Fighter)between the player, some others (like Tekken) realize it is all about mind games and dive straight into it.

I think input complexity begets deep mindgames.

[Ordnas]

None of these fighting games are actually "deep", everything you do boils down to a weighted rock-scissors-paper game (for the most part at least). So it is nothing like chess where initial decisions can affect how you can progress in the later match. But the thrill in fighters is the moment-to-moment mind game. Some games pretend to be deep by putting a more convoluted input-barrier (like Virtua Fighter)between the player, some others (like Tekken) realize it is all about mind games and dive straight into it.

The comparison with chess is a bit unfair, chess is one of the most complex game in history. I practised Judo for more that 10 years, and for me the feeling of combat, being at the edge of losing for a projection is definitely there. Even on Judo is a matter of rock paper scissor, but it is more complex to win because much depends on your experience, on the opponent you are fighting on (you can find in 5 seconds if someone is a beginner or not by just looking at how it moves on the arena), simple tricks etc., and the mechanics in fighting games is very good at transmitting that mechanic in a playable fun medium.

[quantumpotato]

Thanks for sharing your real-life  experience.
I watched people play a game recently that had some guessing components in it, simultaneous movements on a board. One player said "Ah he has a XX% chance of moving this piece this turn.." and he ended up losing about 12 "random guesses" in a row, then his opponent says: "I"m in your head!"


J-Snake, see http://sirlingames.squarespace.com/articles/rock-paper-scissors-in-strategy-games.html


Also, many fighting games have preparations similar to Chess (though not as significant as Chess, I agree). For example, the "Set Play" in Guilty Gear features a lot of placing units on the map, then triggering them by action, or by timing. So opponents are playing pieces and deploying them. Virtually every character has some kind of "Set Play", look up Zato-ONE (Eddie), Dizzy, Ramlethal, Zappa, Robo-Ky, Jack-O.

There is also the strategic elements of health, timer, super-meter resources, distance to corner
The "how do they react" to simple tricks, learning their capabilities like Ordnas said
And also, what have they been doing so far (the history of decision making is like moves in a chess game). For example, a world champion of Melee, Ken, was famous for "Conditioning" his opponents. He always reacts to certain situations in a certain way, for example always roll left after getting knocked down by Big Attack X.

Then after he loses a few lives this way, opponent is confident they have figured him out.. and why change pattern now? Maybe they tried attacking Right instead of Left and they missed and Ken keeps rolling left so they keep attackin g left... until Ken decides to start rolling Right. Then roll neutral, then Right again, then Left twice in a row, then Right, etc... opponent cannot keep up and now loses momentum, loses game.

Good fighting game play is about watching each decision your opponent makes and think "why did they make that decision", also influencing them by testing with certain actions, feints or real attacks, observing "how did they respond? Now that they know I can do X, are they actively preparing for X?" It's quite fun

[J-Snake]

I think input complexity begets deep mindgames.

It is a balancing tool as mentioned, but not a necessary one. And balance is only a necessity for depth, but it is not sufficient.

There is also the strategic elements of health, timer, super-meter resources, distance to corner

That's correct, and probably super-meter being the most potent one. That is why I said "for the most part". Tekken, Virtua Fighter, and many other fighters don't have a super-meter like some Street Fighter variants. As for cornering, health bar and time limit, none of them are very potent means of increasing depth. Time limit is forcing you to be more active and eventually to take some more risks, but the whole concept of fighters is already built around this nature. Cornering is most often a binary affair, not a deep progression, as there can be so many possibilities to turn the situation around (especially in 3D fighters).  

The point is, no matter how your time limit and health-bar looks like in Tekken or Virtua Fighter: At any time you have the same (for the most part) range of actions potentially causing the same range of damage. There is no progression in depth, or just a very short lived one that can be quickly reversed. It is a repeated rock/scissors/paper game, only that you have to adjust the weights according to the current urgency: risk/reward-situation.

[quantumpotato]

I think input complexity begets deep mindgames.

It is a balancing tool as mentioned, but not a necessary one. And balance is only a necessity for depth, but it is not sufficient.

I don't know what you mean by "balancing tool" here. If we can agree that "Fighting is like doing RPS really fast", then we can say "RPS has low mindgame depth" whereas literally real-time movement has a high amount of depth, because of the input complexity. Your opponent has to figure out if you're actually punching or just feinting, what will your follow up be, when you switch stances what does it mean.. this is why if you can see some fighters shuffle their feet. The constant shuffling is rapidly changing their weight distribution and momentum - if you think it's just for show you might be surprised when they lunge forward thanks to the momentum boost. So the input complexity (fast feet movement) begets mindgames (what will they do next?) Now you have to watch and calculate everything they do, faster and faster..

I maintain that input complexity yielding mindgames is a property of having input complexity, not a balancing tool (real life fighting isn't "designed"). Maybe Ordnas can speak more to this.

--

In Virtua Fighter, "Fuzzy Guarding" is input complexity that begets mindgames. In some situations, if you attack as soon as you can, your opponent can "Fuzzy Guard" by pressing different kinds of guards, crouches & throw escapes in a sequence which will avoid any of those attacks that you threw out. By varying your timing and attacking slightly later than you could, you can beat their fuzzy guard. You are mutually predicting each other. The difficulty of precise timing (physical) and variance in game state (mental) creates depth.

Virtua Fighter has a limitation on how often you can get a heavy-wall stun, so you can't abuse certain combo situations in a corner.

Corner is far from binary. You can optimize combos for "corner carry" -- taking your opponent closer to the wall (or edge), for damage, for knockdown, for timing (doing a shorter combo that leaves you at a relative advantage), for positioning (doing a combo that lets you get a crossup opportunity)..

Most games have knockback on hit&block, and if the defender is in corner the attacker gets pushed back. So the attacker can mix-up the defender by not attacking as many times in their sequence, running up and throwing.

When you're in the corner the gameplay is not just "Hm I am in the corner so my opponent can do more damage", you are looking for ways to escape. If your opponent reads you correctly they can intercept your escape and deal more damage. The attacker's options are affected by how close they are to the corner.. they can stay next to you, they can backdash, they can jump straight up, jump towards you & not cross up, jump towards you and cross you up.

[J-Snake]

this is why if you can see some fighters shuffle their feet. The constant shuffling is rapidly changing their weight distribution and momentum - if you think it's just for show you might be surprised when they lunge forward thanks to the momentum boost. So the input complexity (fast feet movement) begets mindgames (what will they do next?) Now you have to watch and calculate everything they do, faster and faster..

There are two things here which demand a clean distinction:

1. There is necessary input complexity, and there is unnecessary input complexity. I am not talking about limiting the actions, but limiting the overhead and difficulty of inputting them.

2. It is possibly better if I am more precise:
What I talked about are the typical properties of fighters, arising from their fundamental rules and mechanics. It is the "mechanical depth" (not to confuse with variety in move sets) which is not their strong suit (usually). However there can be indeed depth in mind games. The more information you gather about your opponent over time, the more interesting it gets adapting your strategies according to it (that's the thrill for me). And the more the game allows to express yourself through the actions, the better you can be read (that's an equal advantage/disadvantage for both sides). This is why match results get less random the more the opponents played against each other. The first few matches are rarely that interesting, initial losses can be turned around to wins and vice versa later on.

When you're in the corner the gameplay is not just "Hm I am in the corner so my opponent can do more damage", you are looking for ways to escape.

To reflect what I said on this statement, here is a simplified example but the nature is the same, to get a better idea what I am talking about. In case you are familiar with Tekken: You also look for ways to escape once King has you in his throw-combo (literally a nested rock/scissor/paper game between each throw). But does it mean that getting grabbed in the first place is some consequence of deep mechanical progression? Unlikely, as the moment-to-moment gameplay sees often opportunities for that. It can however be a result of deep progression controlled by the mind game, that is an important distinction to understand.

[Ordnas]

I can't speak too much about fighting game mechanics as an expert, I played them as a gamer but not in a competitive level (I just joined a tournament of Street Fighter 4 once, I lose miserably   ). Without going too deep in the details, I think that fighting games are complex, otherwise anyone in a couple of days could become an expert and win against who plays everyday. Fighting games are fun to play, professionals can play without too much problems (a part from "balancing" rules changes on new game release), I do not think there is the necessity to find a new mechanics because these games are not bad. For the most the complexity is there. Also I do not think there are alternatives or something to reinvent.  

[J-Snake]

Just in case you are under the impression:
I never claimed they are trivial to play. The initial step to get anywhere is knowing your moves and mastering the execution first, to the point it becomes your second nature. So most of the people already fail (especially in Street Fighter and Virtua Fighter for that reason) before even tapping into serious mind games. And I also don't imply that more mechanical depth would make them better for everyone. We play different types of games for different purpose/experiences.

[Peace Soft]

1. There is necessary input complexity, and there is unnecessary input complexity. I am not talking about limiting the actions, but limiting the overhead and difficulty of inputting them.

I'm not seeing how to make a clean distinction there. A lot of high level stuff in Street Fighter, like links and OSes, is difficult to input because the game is trying to help you input SOMETHING ELSE, or just reading the buffer and going "yeah no this doesn't look like anything on the list", so you have to drill some exploit at the corner of frame data & input processing into your muscle memory. It mirrors the complexity of the game itself; a lot of these inputs aren't designed at all, rather players dig em out from the gray areas in their search for a competitive edge. So a 1F link or an OTK combo in Marvel often aren't balancing tools but unbalancing tools.

Or maybe i'm totally reading you wrong and you know all this and you just mean like, e.g. the shoryuken input is dumb, which, yeah

What would a fighting game with way more mechanical depth look like?

[J-Snake]

Or maybe i'm totally reading you wrong and you know all this and you just mean like, e.g. the shoryuken input is dumb, which, yeah

Yes, something along these lines. However, I wouldn't call it "dumb". It rather reflects a different philosophy: The advantage of a super move can be counterbalanced by its input complexity. It means the effective advantage of a super move is dependent on the execution skills of the player, instead of being bound to a level ground for everyone (by offering direct input and counterbalancing the advantage by a longer startup phase instead, for example). This emphasis on input overhead offers more to master and makes it more challenging to evaluate strategies since everyone has to take the limitations of his individual input skills heavily into account. But on the other hand, there tends to be an imbalance in the effectiveness of mind games vs input skills. A player with a strong mind game, but somewhat weaker input skills, might not outdo a player with a weak mind game but stronger input skills. In the end, it is a matter of taste what kind of challenge and design is actually enjoyed. Some people prefer to heavily rely on input prowess while many others don't. Personally, I think Tekken strikes a good balance here.

What would a fighting game with way more mechanical depth look like?

There can be many ways. One concept to imagine depth (but not necessarily one I would enjoy) can be a stamina system: the level of fatigue affects properties of your actions (like damage output etc.)

To illustrate a moderate level of mechanical depth (not too much, not too little, for a game with relatively short rounds) without referring to "static" board game examples, I can just take the vs mode of the minimalist platformer Jumponaut I made. I think it is easy to see how the game works:





Now imagine the vs mode: The mechanical depth arises from the level geometry, which is not static, but a consequence of previous actions. The level geometry affects the frequency of incoming crates, and the possibility space and the difficulty of moving around within the level. For example, a player who can manage incoming crates at high frequencies well might try to stack up a high crate building to make life harder for the other player, while the other player might try to destroy it as quickly as possible to stay safe. A mechanical property here is that the building can neither be built nor destroyed instantly, it is a gradual process. So previously accumulated actions have corresponding physical repercussions with a weight to them, because they cannot be undone instantly or in a matter of few seconds (but they can still be undone and reverted to initial conditions within the same round (because the building can get completely destroyed), which is actually desirable). (However, deadly instant traps can be formed during the process, but it is an equal advantage/disadvantage for both of the players.)

[quantumpotato]

It can however be a result of deep progression controlled by the mind game, that is an important distinction to understand.

yeah, this. A lot of fighting games is in "neutral", compared to Chess piece development.But the mindgame progression is real, as is the resource management aforementioned.

A fighting game with more mechanics looks like an RTS 

[J-Snake]

In an RTS you usually control several distinct units independently and indirectly. Not the typical fighter experience. Given a certain threshold, "more mechanics" and "more mechanical depth" are orthogonal to each other. A fighter with rich mechanics can still be "flat". And a fighter with a moderate set of mechanics can still be deep. I just showed a minimalist game which has a "mechanical depth" component to it, which is closer to the fighter genre and not an RTS.