FGC pros and youtubers are asking developers to stop making fighting games easier

No Depth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,898
As a filthy casual player that still approaches fighting games like I am playing SF2 in 1991 off muscle memory, I largely agree with Max.

Especially when he started discussing roster, STAGES, and content. I expect certain fighting games to feel obtuse or overwhelm with mechanics, and occasionally I will put the time to learn and overcome some hurdles(played enough Blazblue to get some of the unique fundamentals down like air dashing, cancels, even if most still were too frustrating or difficult to manage).

What irritates and turns me away from buying a fighter I may only play briefly is NOT that I can’t perform everything. No, no, no. It’s when you have the same 6 backgrounds to stare at that dulls my imagination and focus. It’s when there is little else to do but go online because of a lack of attention to cater to my desire to not enter the online arena and wish for something else to complement. Practice mode alone ain’t it.

DBZ on paper sounded like the fighting game for me, but I ignored it because it sounded like the matches did have repetitive back and forth play, where surprises were lacking. Even watching matches at launch, it felt like each match lacked identity. Trading similar moves to the point it was hard to determine a skilled player from...me. So I never purchased.

I’ll never be good enough to nail the timing in many fighters for advanced fighters like MK11(fuck it irritates me how often I fail even basic back forward moves), but I’ll buy them because there is more for me to see and do, while marveling at the craziness of what is possible under a skilled master.
 

Graven

Member
Oct 30, 2018
502
I still think this discussion is very subjective. There are many aspects to a fighting game: Execution, defense, neutral, resource management etc.

A game can be harder to in one aspect and easier in others, that's why different players excel in diferent games.

With that said, i think the mindset of the developers nowadays in general is: easy to play and hard to master, and i'm fine with that.
 

[Sigma]

Member
Oct 30, 2017
593
DBZ's scene died (in relevancy) almost instantly after that incidents with the cancelled tournaments though. It's not like it was a gradual drop due to samey tournaments. There was a big drop almost immediately after those incidents.
That was my opinion as well. Players were wondering why all of sudden some events weren't allowed to host it and received dead silence from BAMCO and the event organizers were under hush mouth for some reason. So players began to worry and many flatout were saying they are moving on. Didn't really get any real reply until Karada took over the esports division and said they would continue to support the game. That was just far too long of a wait. We still don't know what that was about. Let me tell, they wanted the game.lol
 

XuandeXun

Member
May 16, 2019
184
You seem to forget one little detail here. The people you were proud of fighting against like M2K and Dabuz dropped the game soon after, specifically because of it's shallow (and sometimes borderline moronic, like tripping) mechanics.That's the entire point Max makes in his video. What good does it do you to get good at the game when most people who are good at these games find the game boring to play and drop it like a hot potato after a few months.

Melee is a very extreme example of execution barriers. Most of those were not intended in the first place and evolved over the years through a community that stuck with it. The only thing in Brawl that developed was Metaknight getting banned and broken as fuck chaingrabs. It is in no shape or form the healthy middleground for fighting games.
I'm fully aware that most vocal players consider Brawl the worst in the series. And in another timeline where I was in the market for a competitive fighting game today, instead of a decade ago, I'm sure I would be doing the grind in Smash Ultimate now, which by all accounts is a better competitive game. I'm not defending Brawl as the ideal competitive standard, but what I am defending is that Brawl led to a better competitive experience for me personally, and that I'm not alone.

I can say that Meta Knight, planking/ledge stalling, high knockback, slow physics, chain grabs, etc make Brawl a worse game. But none of that trumps how Brawl allowed me to make an attempt at the competitive scene, while Melee didn't. From a casual perspective, both games were equally bad for me.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,061
I mean, why not have easier execution while still have mechanical complexity?
I think a big reason why that's difficult for traditional fighting games is because they're mostly digital, with relatively small, limited arenas, and mostly pre-set animations, launch distances, etc. to insure combos work on all (or most) characters 100% of the time.

It's easy for a game like Smash bros to maintain depth and complexity with simplified execution of basic moves because the majority of the complexity is going on behind the scenes or outside of the character.

Areas are larger and different stages have actual, functional difference that influence how you approach, what combos you can and cannot do, where dangerous or safe spaces are, whether you want to kill off the side or off the top, etc. Vs. a traditional fighting game where which stage you're on doesn't matter at all so long as the background animations don't add lag.

Health is dynamic and how much damage a character has determines how far they launch, what combos will work on them, what combos they can do to you, etc. And using too many of the same move in a row weakens that move, which could allow the player the get off combos they normally wouldn't be able to at certain percentages. Players being attacked can influences the direction they are hit towards or decrease they're launch speed/distance in order to survive longer than they normally would, or to get out of a combo if the attackers reads their DI incorrectly. And characters weight, fall speed, and air drift will influence their ability to get out of combos. Vs. traditional fighting games with static health bars, combos that work at any amount of health on basically every character, and almost no ability for the defender to influences what's going on until it's their turn or the combo is dropped.

And that's just a part of it. If Smash had it's easy execution, but everything else functioned like a traditional fighter, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is.
 

Wamb0wneD

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
13,758
I'm fully aware that most vocal players consider Brawl the worst in the series. And in another timeline where I was in the market for a competitive fighting game today, instead of a decade ago, I'm sure I would be doing the grind in Smash Ultimate now, which by all accounts is a better competitive game. I'm not defending Brawl as the ideal competitive standard, but what I am defending is that Brawl led to a better competitive experience for me personally, and that I'm not alone.

I can say that Meta Knight, planking/ledge stalling, high knockback, slow physics, chain grabs, etc make Brawl a worse game. But none of that trumps how Brawl allowed me to make an attempt at the competitive scene, while Melee didn't. From a casual perspective, both games were equally bad for me.
What I got from your first post was that your "casual" experience means that you played with casuals and just stomped them, which wasn't fun for you nor them. And that's the thing, even despite all the concessions Brawl made towards casual players and against pro-players, your understanding of the fundamentals still lead to the skillgap that no simplified mechanic in the world will ever be able to shorten.

Ultimate is an actual middleground in my opinion, and it's great. No L-cancel, no wavedashing, but enough mechanics that need skill to pull off to keep the competitive scene engaged. Brawl barely had any offensive tools, was slow as molasses with no momentum whatsoever. Even if it wasn't even worse balanced than Melee it wouldn't have helped much. It seems you mostly found it more enjoyable because the barrier of entry to competitive play wasn't as ridiculously high as in Melee, but the overall mechanics turned most competitive players off. In that sense it's great that you found more enjoyment in it, but most people didn't for very obvious reasons, and the game's competitive scene dried up super fast as a result.

Which leads me to the question whether you actually think that's a good outcome? Would you like to get catered to if that means you don't even have a healthy competitive scene going you could participate in? Doesn't make much sense to me.
 

Kaguya

Member
Jun 19, 2018
2,269
The right thing is to not make them simpler. You can make the game's controls easy but still keep the game's depth. It's not a one or the other thing.
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,590
Madrid
Whats wrong with a technical execution reward in the videogame equivalent of martial arts?
It's not a reward, it's a penalty. The difference is that a reward is something you give occasionaly in exchange for exceptionally good execution, while a penalty is something you take away occasionally for particularly bad execution. I've already explained what's wrong with it.

Learning how to properly input moves and combos etc is a big appeal
It's an appeal for a small section of the gaming public that loves to go into training mode and practice just frame links and such. It's a huge turn off for a much wider section of the public that doesn't care for anything that can't be learned outside of actually playing. The notion that the first, smaller group's opinion should count more than the latter, larger group because they're seen as "more hardcore" is plain and simple elitism.

but it goes deeper than this. More importantly it lets fights play out in a more organic and unpredictable manner when people can flub their inputs which to me always felt like they just hadn't been practiced, not unlike a real fight, and also happens more often when someones put under pressure, which is another mental aspect that gets gutted along with this simplification.
"Let's make fights more unpredictable" is the exact kind of mindset that gave us tripping in Brawl. No thanks.

"Dexterity worship" just sounds patronizing when it doesn't have to be.
That's exactly what it is. Worshipping dexterity for the sake of dexterity.

There was a thread a while back where someone criticized having to learn Counter Strikes bullet spray and recoil for each weapon, but that's also something that's not necessary for low-mid level players to practice to have fun with, and more just gave the option for everyone who did care to learn the intricacies something more to perfect.
Sure, and there's nothing wrong with this kind of knowledge. The equivalent to these is learning move frame times, plus / minus advantages and hitboxes, and that's something that will always be in fighting games. This thread is about stuff like db [charge], df, db, uf + 3 buttons for a SC / UC. Specifically, it's about people angry that these kinds of things are being simplified by devs. Smash has you holding a button for its Final Smash and it doesn't break the game.
 
Last edited:

Numb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,832
The right thing is to not make them simpler. You can make the game's controls easy but still keep the game's depth. It's not a one or the other thing.
Lowering the skill level in the game doesn't matter much imo.
People will still be good at that and alot of games have done it with autocombos,easier execution,revenge mechanics etc etc
If you look at alot of the fighters nowadays they are easier compared to the past. And that's what this thread is against in the OP.
Making the game easier just to sell more copies isn't a great idea.
It's easy doing that compared to presentation,characters,stages,graphics,robust training and single player,music which cost alot of resources
 

Skyfireblaze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,559
Law has junkyard and dragontail, which can be spammed to victory at low level play. You also may not have learned how to move properly in Tekken - which is really the primary barrier for intermediate play.
You might be very much right that I really can't play Tekken the "proper" way yeah, I mean I can't do wavedashes and other more advanced things but about the spamming, let me answer that below my next quoted post.

Probably because the normal moves are super easy to execute (1 button or 1 button + direction) and even button mashing can be somewhat effective at low level. The difficulty in Tekken comes from movement and knowledge of the gigantic movelist every character have. I suppose you didn't start playing Law knowing all his moves and stances, right? This problem got out of hand in TT2, with 60+ characters to learn, so they cut the roster in T7.
This is very much part of it yeah, I don't spam with Law and I have no clue what most of the other characters can do when I play online aside from super obvious things. I don't button mash at all anymore by now while playing Law, what just genuinely flabbergasted me is how easily and organically I could learn his moves thanks to the shortcut-system and the very clear division between different moves and stages of a combo. I was in practice-mode going through the movelist and picking myself a few things I thought would be useful. Then I fought a few players online before I encountered a Mirror Match Law. The other player was clearly better than me and beat me doing a few combos but that's why the "magic" happened:

Just by seeing him using combos against me I naturally started to understand how I can do it on my own without looking anything up. After the match I went into Practice Mode and looked for the missing links in the combos, the normals I didn't know how to do yet, half an hour later I found all the missing moves and it was a breeze to execute the combo from there on, it was like I was putting different LEGO-bricks together instead of worrying about moves and inputs. I just had to keep working on my timing and before I knew it I was easily pulling off multiple combos in actual matches.

Now I know combos alone won't bring me far but it was so much fun and I can hold myself in the Green Ranks online easily with Law, even after a few months not playing as soon as I pick Law and have a DS4 in my hand it all automatically comes back and I have plain fun. This is more than I managed in any other fighting game with the exception of Kasumi in DoA maybe.

It's the simple individual moves and the clear move-division that make Tekken 7 my favorite fighting game because here, even when I lose I actually know what I'm doing and losing doesn't feel bad.

And well of course I do sometimes spam but that's only in the Special Battles in Treasure Mode and in the final Akuma fight because that one was just plain unfair :P

Because Tekken 7 nailed the difficulty.

You can have fun and success at all skill levels, and still have plenty of stuff to learn.
Yeah that's true aswell, Tekken feels really complex but it actually makes me feel like I'm in control.
 
Apr 9, 2018
503
I don't feel like any fighting games on the market have been 'dumbed down' over their previous iterations except for SFV. I think this trend is more imagined than real.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,402
Watched the video.

What triggered this wave of concern over fighting games of the future removing options in the name of accessibility? Momochi isn't quoted as naming a specific game, does he have inside info that he hasn't shared yet? Daigo "wants comeback mechanics to go away?" He made his name playing games with ridiculously overpowered comeback mechanics (super turbo, Guilty Gear, Vampire Savior, 3rd Strike), so that feels like a misquote. What games was he talking about? Max is giving an assenting opinion with Chen, what games did they name that threaten gamer options? Which games of the future actually reduce depth *with the stated reason being a lowered barrier to entry and increased sales?*

This all feels like, I don't know, fear for fear's sake. It's 2009 all over again. A lot of "hardcore FGC gamers" were terrified that SF4's small roster and powerful comeback mechanics would introduce a lot of "09'ers" and the scene would die when they lost interest. A similar fear haunted Marvel 3's first few months when a lot of the broken shit from MvC2 wasn't discovered right away and suddenly this "scrub friendly" game was tamping down the execution/skill ceiling, a fear quickly discovered to be completely untrue.

What game, announced or otherwise, brought this whole talking point about?
 

lvl 99 Pixel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,807
It's not a reward, it's a penalty. The difference is that a reward is something you give occasionaly in exchange for exceptionally good execution, while a penalty is something you take away occasionally for particularly bad execution. I've already explained what's wrong with it.
Practice paying off is rewarding, not unlike training 3-pointers instead of having the ball float to the hoop on command.
You can have a low skill floor and a high skill ceiling. What max is suggesting isn't really about one button inputs, its more about giving people all the optional stuff to get good at which doesn't take away from anything.

It's an appeal for a small section of the gaming public that loves to go into training mode and practice just frame links and such. It's a huge turn off for a much wider section of the public that doesn't care for anything that can't be learned outside of actually playing. The notion that the first, smaller group's opinion should count more than the latter, larger group because they're seen as "more hardcore" is plain and simple elitism.
Its not a huge turn off for a wider section of the public because the wider section of the public doesn't care or even know that these things exist either way.
The people who want to be competitive, but also want drastic simplification are possibly the smallest minority.

"Let's make fights more unpredictable" is the exact kind of mindset that gave us tripping in Brawl. No thanks.
That analogy makes no sense. It's not randomly generated unpredictability, its diversity that spawns from possibility ie. the potential to flub an input leads to variance that would have otherwise simply not existed. Its exponential in this manner.

That's exactly what it is. Worshipping dexterity for the sake of dexterity.
Im not sure why appreciating skill is being portrayed in a negative light. These are the videogame equivalent of sports.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with this kind of knowledge. The equivalent to these is learning move frame times, plus / minus advantages and hitboxes, and that's something that will always be in fighting games. This thread is about stuff like db [charge], df, db, uf + 3 buttons for a SC / UC. Specifically, it's about people angry that these kinds of things are being simplified by devs. Smash has you holding a button for its Final Smash and it doesn't break the game.
Final Smash is purely casual and it breaks competitive play completely, which is why it has never and will never be used in tournaments (you also tap a button, not hold but im sure that was a typo).
 
Oct 28, 2017
588
You might be very much right that I really can't play Tekken the "proper" way yeah, I mean I can't do wavedashes and other more advanced things but about the spamming, let me answer that below my next quoted post.



This is very much part of it yeah, I don't spam with Law and I have no clue what most of the other characters can do when I play online aside from super obvious things. I don't button mash at all anymore by now while playing Law, what just genuinely flabbergasted me is how easily and organically I could learn his moves thanks to the shortcut-system and the very clear division between different moves and stages of a combo. I was in practice-mode going through the movelist and picking myself a few things I thought would be useful. Then I fought a few players online before I encountered a Mirror Match Law. The other player was clearly better than me and beat me doing a few combos but that's why the "magic" happened:

Just by seeing him using combos against me I naturally started to understand how I can do it on my own without looking anything up. After the match I went into Practice Mode and looked for the missing links in the combos, the normals I didn't know how to do yet, half an hour later I found all the missing moves and it was a breeze to execute the combo from there on, it was like I was putting different LEGO-bricks together instead of worrying about moves and inputs. I just had to keep working on my timing and before I knew it I was easily pulling off multiple combos in actual matches.

Now I know combos alone won't bring me far but it was so much fun and I can hold myself in the Green Ranks online easily with Law, even after a few months not playing as soon as I pick Law and have a DS4 in my hand it all automatically comes back and I have plain fun. This is more than I managed in any other fighting game with the exception of Kasumi in DoA maybe.

It's the simple individual moves and the clear move-division that make Tekken 7 my favorite fighting game because here, even when I lose I actually know what I'm doing and losing doesn't feel bad.

And well of course I do sometimes spam but that's only in the Special Battles in Treasure Mode and in the final Akuma fight because that one was just plain unfair :P



Yeah that's true aswell, Tekken feels really complex but it actually makes me feel like I'm in control.
It's not entirely clear what you mean by 'combos'. Do you mean juggles or strings?

The thing about Tekken that makes it difficult at a lower level (and high level too, honestly) is really the movement. Most people figure out at some point or another that you can't just backdash normally in Tekken or you get rushed-down/50-50'd to death. You have to be able to Korean backdash, which (given that people are already complaining about shoryuken inputs) requires a level of manual dexterity that a lot of people find difficult. It essentially involves b,b,db,b,b,db inputs over and over again in rapid succession - and that's just to move backwards.

At higher levels, movement becomes even more precise and intricate when you have to recognise opponent's strings/behaviour and move in response to limit their options. The classic example of this is the Mishima EWGF/hellsweep. Both options can be dealt with by stepping left and blocking, but the window for doing so is pretty precise and your opponent can call you on it with a tracking move. Without having the execution, knowledge or response time to move in response to certain moves/strings, some strings just become straight-up overpowered. Again, the classic example is DJ's laser scraper. If you don't know to step right, he can spam it all day.
 

EhieYovach

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
768
I wish devs would expand beyond 1v1 games, more games like Smash or Power Stone would be a great way to get people into the genre. Jumping straight into 1v1 fights is really intimidating no matter the roster, mechanics, or stages. RTS games are in a similar spot, people start in the 3v3 or 2v2 matches instead of 1v1.

Really we just need a team-based fighter so people can blame other players for a loss.
 
OP
OP
Teh_Lurv

Teh_Lurv

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,976
What triggered this wave of concern over fighting games of the future removing options in the name of accessibility? Momochi isn't quoted as naming a specific game, does he have inside info that he hasn't shared yet? Daigo "wants comeback mechanics to go away?" He made his name playing games with ridiculously overpowered comeback mechanics (super turbo, Guilty Gear, Vampire Savior, 3rd Strike), so that feels like a misquote. What games was he talking about? Max is giving an assenting opinion with Chen, what games did they name that threaten gamer options? Which games of the future actually reduce depth *with the stated reason being a lowered barrier to entry and increased sales?*
The wave of concern is because we're on the cusp of a new generation of consoles and this is about the time developers would begin crafting the next generation of fighting games. People want to get their opinions out there now that the current generation's trend of easing difficulty in the hopes of expanding audiences doesn't work. Waiting until specific next generation fighting games are announced is pointless since by then the core game mechanics have already been designed.

Daigo's statement is not a misquote, there was even a whole thread dedicated to just his comments: https://www.resetera.com/threads/what-daigo-expects-in-sf6-wants-to-get-rid-of-comeback-mechanics.118121/
 

Skyfireblaze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,559
It's not entirely clear what you mean by 'combos'. Do you mean juggles or strings?

The thing about Tekken that makes it difficult at a lower level (and high level too, honestly) is really the movement. Most people figure out at some point or another that you can't just backdash normally in Tekken or you get rushed-down/50-50'd to death. You have to be able to Korean backdash, which (given that people are already complaining about shoryuken inputs) requires a level of manual dexterity that a lot of people find difficult. It essentially involves b,b,db,b,b,db inputs over and over again in rapid succession - and that's just to move backwards.

At higher levels, movement becomes even more precise and intricate when you have to recognise opponent's strings/behaviour and move in response to limit their options. The classic example of this is the Mishima EWGF/hellsweep. Both options can be dealt with by stepping left and blocking, but the window for doing so is pretty precise and your opponent can call you on it with a tracking move. Without having the execution, knowledge or response time to move in response to certain moves/strings, some strings just become straight-up overpowered. Again, the classic example is DJ's laser scraper. If you don't know to step right, he can spam it all day.
There's where my scrub-ness shines through. I basically meant launching the opponent, then juggling them, adding a screw and after that applying a finisher. For some reason Tekken makes each component very clear and distinctive to me unlike every other fighting game I played.

And I will be honest, the whole second part of your post goes way over my head, I tried practicing Korean Backdashing before but I couldn't pull it off and what frustrated me, I had no feedback if the back-dash I did was actually correct or not. I know that I have to side-step some moves like the laser and Devil Kasumi's weird flying attack, I can also relatively consistently low-parry this one combo of Kazuya but that's about it.
 

Quebaz

Member
Nov 15, 2017
134
A team-based fighting game that would accomodate standard, competitive/pro tournament playing fields and be supported for them.
Team based fighting games don't get big enough because people don't support them. People don't support them because they aren't big enough.

The Gundam VS games have been at EVO through side tournaments and the like since the first PS3 game, even.
 

Auto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
758
Street Fighter 2 had motion inputs and an execution barrier but despite that it sold more copies than any Smash game back then. I'm thinking people these days are just looking for instant gratification and don't want to practice anything, even for 5 minutes. Attention span is historically at an all time low.
 

FluxWaveZ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,830
Team based fighting games don't get big enough because people don't support them. People don't support them because they aren't big enough.

The Gundam VS games have been at EVO through side tournaments and the like since the first PS3 game, even.
Are those games released internationally close together, or do they highly prioritize Japan and arcades? What about the netcode? Are they the kinds of games that multiple people can play at once on the same screen? And does the publisher of those games support them competitively with pot bonuses and the like? Those are the kinds of things that matter a lot if a team-based fighting game were to make it big in the scene.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,402
The wave of concern is because we're on the cusp of a new generation of consoles and this is about the time developers would begin crafting the next generation of fighting games. People want to get their opinions out there now that the current generation's trend of easing difficulty in the hopes of expanding audiences doesn't work. Waiting until specific next generation fighting games are announced is pointless since by then the core game mechanics have already been designed.

Daigo's statement is not a misquote, there was even a whole thread dedicated to just his comments: https://www.resetera.com/threads/what-daigo-expects-in-sf6-wants-to-get-rid-of-comeback-mechanics.118121/
"get rid of comeback mechanics" is a simplification. He doesn't like SF4 style ultra meters and acknowledges that he might be reaching too far in asking that getting hit shouldn't build meter. He's far from calling for the abolition of comeback mechanics. Even Max likes comeback mechanics in Tekken 7 so he's also not strictly planting a banner against games lowering their barrier to entry by giving new players something fun and powerful (e.g. 'DON'T MAKE GAMES EASY'), the broader topic appears to be about what sacrifices get made prior to a new game's release, and all I see is a lot of handwaving about 'options' and vague fears that some part of the new game will come out that will make the community unhappy because now it's too scrub friendly, which again we saw exactly ten years ago and it was fine.

Feedback is fine but a lot of this talk seems to stem from a lack of sourced information. The games of tomorrow will find way to change their mechanics one way or the other and the topic of 'lowered barriers of entry' feels like a lot of wagon circling so that folks can say "I told you not to make this scrub-friendly" when even max says it's a complex balance between appealing character design, roster size, stage variety on top of mechanical depth that drives game sales (although scorpion vs. batman doesn't hurt). The thread title feels like it's just a continuation of the horridly toxic Sekro 'easy mode' deluge of hardcore gamer tears, and even if it wasn't your intent the "stop making fighting games easier" issue is a lot of smoke with no visible fire. Say you didn't like SFIV's ultra meter. Say you think getting hit shouldn't over-reward you with a powerful stock of resources, but don't panic over the worst case scenario without any concrete info that things are heading in that direction.
 

FluxWaveZ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,830
Say you didn't like SFIV's ultra meter. Say you think getting hit shouldn't over-reward you with a powerful stock of resources, but don't panic over the worst case scenario without any concrete info that things are heading in that direction.
I'm not sure what you mean. X-Factor exists. Sparking Blast exists. Fatal Blows exist. There are several examples of dramatic, swingy comeback mechanics in modern fighting games.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,402
What are the comeback mechanics in those?
super turbo: Low health characters deal dramatically increased damage. it is the original comeback mechanic
All the other games build considerable meter (maybe less so in GG/3S) when you get hit.
I'm not sure what you mean. X-Factor exists. Sparking Blast exists. Fatal Blows exist. There are several examples of dramatic, swingy comeback mechanics in modern fighting games.
I mean 'deliver specific feedback on features you wouldn't want to see in future fighting games instead of being vaguely afraid of a lowered barrier to entry'
I'm not opposed to features like x-factor/sparking/FBs/ICs or building meter when getting hit. I actually sort of disagree with the premise of the thread. Neither Max or Daigo are guilty of being "vaguely afraid" but this thread sure is stoking it.
 

Numb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,832
I don't feel like any fighting games on the market have been 'dumbed down' over their previous iterations except for SFV. I think this trend is more imagined than real.
KOF14 is easier compared to 13
Tekken 7 is easier and has put in mechanics to help newer people and even characters like Katarina intended for new players
MVCI has one less character to manage
DoA put in auto combos and universal reversals for meter so people don't have to guess the hold system
MK11 slowed down the movement so that you don't get rushed to oblivion like 9 and X. X tried with the stamina too
Removing 1frame links isn't the only way to make a game easier for people
 

8byte

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,741
Kansas
So in short, the argument from these communities is "stop being profitable and cater to my needs exclusively!"

Got it. What could POSSIBLY go wrong there? Clearly this is a sound and scientifically backed position to hold.

Give me a break.
 

FluxWaveZ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,830
MVCI has one less character to manage
MK11 slowed down the movement so that you don't get rushed to oblivion like 9 and X. X tried with the stamina too
I guess, but slowing down a game being equivalent to dumbing it down or simplifying it sounds really wrong to me. Like, BlazBlue: Cross Tag Battle removed the ability to walk and forced everyone to dash all over the place specifically to simplify movement for newcomers. That is dumbing down a game and removing complexity. Slow games can be much more technical than pressing Super Dash and zooming across the screen.

And even Max talked in his video about how MvC:I was just as complex as MvC3, but in a different way.
 
Oct 28, 2017
588
"get rid of comeback mechanics" is a simplification. He doesn't like SF4 style ultra meters and acknowledges that he might be reaching too far in asking that getting hit shouldn't build meter. He's far from calling for the abolition of comeback mechanics. Even Max likes comeback mechanics in Tekken 7 so he's also not strictly planting a banner against games lowering their barrier to entry by giving new players something fun and powerful (e.g. 'DON'T MAKE GAMES EASY'), the broader topic appears to be about what sacrifices get made prior to a new game's release, and all I see is a lot of handwaving about 'options' and vague fears that some part of the new game will come out that will make the community unhappy because now it's too scrub friendly, which again we saw exactly ten years ago and it was fine.

Feedback is fine but a lot of this talk seems to stem from a lack of sourced information. The games of tomorrow will find way to change their mechanics one way or the other and the topic of 'lowered barriers of entry' feels like a lot of wagon circling so that folks can say "I told you not to make this scrub-friendly" when even max says it's a complex balance between appealing character design, roster size, stage variety on top of mechanical depth that drives game sales (although scorpion vs. batman doesn't hurt). The thread title feels like it's just a continuation of the horridly toxic Sekro 'easy mode' deluge of hardcore gamer tears, and even if it wasn't your intent the "stop making fighting games easier" issue is a lot of smoke with no visible fire. Say you didn't like SFIV's ultra meter. Say you think getting hit shouldn't over-reward you with a powerful stock of resources, but don't panic over the worst case scenario without any concrete info that things are heading in that direction.
I’ll disagree with Max and say that Tekken Rage Arts are an example of a comeback mechanic designed to appeal to new players which makes the game worse overall. RAs ruin the flow of the match, slowing the end stages of the match down to a crawl as you try to bait out the inevitable RA. They don’t add anything meaningful to the game.

Rage drives are an example of a comeback mechanic done right - but they also require game knowledge (and frequently execution) to use effectively and aren’t as flashy.
 

Fugu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
808
I'd really like to see comeback mechanics die with this generation of fighters. As a spectator, I didn't hate the ultra meter, but when they essentially added x-factor to my game (BB) I was finished with the series despite pouring thousands of hours into it to become a tournament caliber player. Comeback mechanics completely undermine fundamental game concepts like neutral and advantage. And what for? They don't make the game any more exciting (they have the opposite effect) and I have to believe they just confuse beginners because they don't really understand how to take advantage of them and they're highly counterintuitive given that they undermine all of the game's other systems.

The difficulty with fighting games has always come from the focus on playing other players. The solution is good matchmaking (with a ranking system that inasmuch as is possible prevents new players from simply getting beat down by more experienced players), good netplay, a tutorial that understands how people will actually play the game and teaches accordingly, and a conscious effort to keep the game mechanics as simple to understand as possible.

super turbo: Low health characters deal dramatically increased damage. it is the original comeback mechanic
All the other games build considerable meter (maybe less so in GG/3S) when you get hit.
Building meter for getting hit in the way is usually implemented is the most minor form of comeback mechanic. It's not at all comparable to having, say, a separate meter that primarily builds when you get hit such that the losing player in a close match is likely to fill the meter before the winning player. Generally, games that pay out meter for getting hit dole out considerably more meter for landing hits such that it's always advantageous, from the perspective of meter, to be the player doling out hits.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,402
I gotta say, it's absurd somebody has this opinion while simultaneously complaining about fighting games being easier. Rage arts are as braindead as comeback mechanics come. Some of them are even armored.
max is a hype animal so I understand why he likes them because of how satisfying he finds them when they connect or get punished. his rant is a little all over the place though haha.
 

Clefargle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,609
Limburg
So in short, the argument from these communities is "stop being profitable and cater to my needs exclusively!"

Got it. What could POSSIBLY go wrong there? Clearly this is a sound and scientifically backed position to hold.

Give me a break.
I feel like smash Ultimate is a recent example of “doing it right” in regards to balance and accessibility. They added directional air dodging and made the game universally faster. But the roster itself is more balance than the other game and less stratified than the last one.
 

infinite

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,952
I think new players or mid-level players want a different kind of complexity. People like Max, who I think of as fighting game fans but only mid-level players at best, want games to just have more "stuff" in it.

More cancels, 3 or more different meters/gauges, several super moves, box jumps/tri jumps/short hops, etc. are the stuff that they want that they think will add complexity to their game they're playing. Meanwhile, there are games on the market right now that offer all of this "complexity" that they don't seem to be interested in. You have Blazblue, Blazblue Tag, Guilty Gear, and Under Night and Birth to name a few that all offer what people like Max seem to be craving but I don't see him anywhere championing these games.

They also look at easier combos, auto combos, huge buffer windows, etc. with disdain and they think are making fighting games easier. Meanwhile, people still drop combos at high levels in games that have those features. High-level players even purposely pick certain characters or teams where they can do the easy thing that makes them without being too concerned with dropping combos. Very common in games like Dragon Ball and BBTag both games with auto-combos.

I personally don't think complexity is added to a game by how many gauges or movement options you put into and I don't think complexity is taken away from a game by nature of big buffer windows and auto-combos existing in them. The complexity of a fighting game comes from its nuances.
 
Last edited:

Numb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,832
I guess, but slowing down a game being equivalent to dumbing it down or simplifying it sounds really wrong to me. Like, BlazBlue: Cross Tag Battle removed the ability to walk and forced everyone to dash all over the place specifically to simplify movement for newcomers. That is dumbing down a game and removing complexity. Slow games can be much more technical than pressing Super Dash and zooming across the screen.

And even Max talked in his video about how MvC:I was just as complex as MvC3, but in a different way.
To casuals watching the movement in BBTag is more intimidating before even playing compared to MK11
Alot of the times slow games are more techinical i agree but the optics make it seem easy. That's why new people get killed with footises and don't know what to do
I gotta say, it's absurd somebody has this opinion while simultaneously complaining about fighting games being easier. Rage arts are as braindead as comeback mechanics come. Some of them are even armored.
Getting comeback mechanics from losing sounds bad but only if there isn't risk in using them if you fail to hit or get baited
It sounds annoying to be careful watching an almost dead character get this move but they aren't a win button and can be countered
 

8byte

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,741
Kansas
I feel like smash Ultimate is a recent example of “doing it right” in regards to balance and accessibility. They added directional air dodging and made the game universally faster. But the roster itself is more balance than the other game and less stratified than the last one.
I can agree with this, they really nailed it with Smash Ultimate, the game feels fun, and my friends can come over and pick it up without having to play for 30 hours to understand all the mechanics (though clearly they aren't competing at the same level, but they're still having a lot of fun).
 

Neoxon

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,374
Houston, TX
I can agree with this, they really nailed it with Smash Ultimate, the game feels fun, and my friends can come over and pick it up without having to play for 30 hours to understand all the mechanics (though clearly they aren't competing at the same level, but they're still having a lot of fun).
But even then, there isn't as much depth as Melee. That's not to say that Ultimate is a bad game by any means, but (as far as we've seen so far) the skill ceiling isn't as high.
 

XDevil666

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,555
Yes please :) that’s the main reason I stopped playing Killer instinct - I spent along time learning that game and I rubbed me the wrong way when they introduced the easy system
 

infinite

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,952
But even then, there isn't as much depth as Melee. That's not to say that Ultimate is a bad game by any means, but (as far as we've seen so far) the skill ceiling isn't as high.
You're correct but the funny thing there is most of the complexity melee has in comparison to smash ultimate is not as a result of them making things easier or removing mechanics. In fact, Ultimate objectively has more mechanics and features. This throws a big wrench into Max's argument
 

8byte

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,741
Kansas
But even then, there isn't as much depth as Melee. That's not to say that Ultimate is a bad game by any means, but (as far as we've seen so far) the skill ceiling isn't as high.
Maybe, but it's selling like gangbusters (as is the DLC), and more people are enjoying it long term, and it has pretty much ensured that the franchise will continue (though this wasn't much of a problem for Smash, comparatively to other franchise games).

Thing is, a lot of fighting games were on life support, so them being more popular now is great, because it means we can all play them longer with more entries into the series. If that means we'll get a slightly lower "ceiling" then so be it, I think that's a good trade off for hundreds of people to keep their jobs, and for us to continue to get games to play with friends.
 

Stellar

Member
Oct 26, 2017
406
super turbo: Low health characters deal dramatically increased damage. it is the original comeback mechanic
All the other games build considerable meter (maybe less so in GG/3S) when you get hit.
If you're comparing things like reverse rage, super meter on hit and GUTS in games like ST, GG, 3S etc to Ultras and V-triggers and X-factors you kind of don't really know what you're talking about and are just arguing against yourself, not actually things anyone has said. GUTS has been a mainstay in the FG genre for a very, very long time. The amount of people I've seen complaining about it in the last 10 years could probably be counted on one or two hands. None of the comeback mechanics in those old games were anywhere near as impactful and game changing as the ones in newer Capcom games.

That being said, I don't think comeback mechanics are really the problem as SF4 showed that you can have both strong comeback mechanics and a complex + rewarding game full of depth. Like others in this thread have said the problems with SF5 have more to do with how Capcom went out of its way to specifically make neutral, a component largely responsible for a lot of the depth in SF games, less important. Granted, the game isn't as bad in that aspect now as it was during S1 and 2, but at the end of the day it's still SF5.

MvCI was also very shallow mechanics wise and the game never evolved the way other Marvel games did. The gem system was just not a good substitute for a 3rd partner and the free tag in system just kind of turned the game into a blockstring simulator thus vastly reducing the amount of neutral play in the game. Maybe MvCI could have improved if it had gotten a revision update, but the game flopped so hard it never got a chance to.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,061
But even then, there isn't as much depth as Melee. That's not to say that Ultimate is a bad game by any means, but (as far as we've seen so far) the skill ceiling isn't as high.
Nonsense. Melee has more complicated input options at higher level play overall, but Ultimate has a lot more going on outside of that. More universal or unique options like footstools, burying, paralyzing, etc. A better ledge and off stage game with more interplay and less basic gimps. Parrying is a more well rounded feature than perfect shielding so players can capitalize on it in more reliable ways that the audience can actually comprehend. Not being able to tech grounded spikes leads to more combo set ups. Other attacks after a certain threshold are untechable, requiring defending players to be more active in their DI in order to make an untechable attack techable again. More unique and more viable characters/character types including far more interesting projectile interplay (like what we see from Link or Pacman) and more viable heavies. Ultimate equals or exceeds melee's depth easily, but does so via different means. Not to mention it also has the potential for complicated inputs like attack cancelling that will continue to be optimized and better implemented as time goes on.

Melee is great, but in no world is Ultimate lacking in depth in comparison to it. I'm not saying any of this to put Melee down, it's just that depth can come from a lot of sources, and the way Melee achieves that is very different from how Ultimate does, and it is not inherently superior.
 

Thorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,702
So in short, the argument from these communities is "stop being profitable and cater to my needs exclusively!"

Got it. What could POSSIBLY go wrong there? Clearly this is a sound and scientifically backed position to hold.

Give me a break.
You're not getting it even in the slightest.

The point is "What you think is profitable isn't, and instead only alienates your dedicated fanbase." Lowering the skill ceiling and floor does NOT improve sales.
 

Neoxon

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,374
Houston, TX
Nonsense. Melee has more complicated input options at higher level play overall, but Ultimate has a lot more going on outside of that. More universal or unique options like footstools, burying, paralyzing, etc. A better ledge and off stage game with more interplay and less basic gimps. Parrying is a more well rounded feature than perfect shielding so players can capitalize on it in more reliable ways that the audience can actually comprehend. Not being able to tech grounded spikes leads to more combo set ups. Other attacks after a certain threshold are untechable, requiring defending players to be more active in their DI in order to make an untechable attack techable again. More unique and more viable characters/character types including far more interesting projectile interplay (like what we see from Link or Pacman) and more viable heavies. Ultimate equals or exceeds melee's depth easily, but does so via different means. Not to mention it also has the potential for complicated inputs like attack cancelling that will continue to be optimized and better implemented as time goes on.

Melee is great, but in no world is Ultimate lacking in depth in comparison to it. I'm not saying any of this to put Melee down, it's just that depth can come from a lot of sources, and the way Melee achieves that is very different from how Ultimate does, and it is not inherently superior.
I'm not saying that Ultimate lacks depth in of itself, but rather that Melee's skill ceiling is simply higher.
 

balohna

Member
Nov 1, 2017
638
Tekken is really honest in that you KNOW you're bad for quite a while. I find slowly improving to be really rewarding. Not sure if people that kept up with the series feel similar, but coming back to 7 after having not played at all since 5 (which I just played casually)... it felt like learning a foreign language compared to other 3D fighters.

Basically, the game is super hard to me but I make enough progress that I'm having fun. Individual moves and combos aren't super hard to do, but it's tough to learn what to do and when to do it. It's rewarding.