Someone brought up an argument earlier about having more mechanics not necessarily having more depth (namely the tic-tac-toe example). That situation probably applies to Ultimate.
Someone brought up an argument earlier about having more mechanics not necessarily having more depth (namely the tic-tac-toe example). That situation probably applies to Ultimate.
Melee is a more complex game than ultimate.
Ah yes, the "dedicated fanbase" that kept most fighting games on life support during the last generation, where sales for the fighting genre continually slumped. Yes, THOSE people are the ones to trust! Not the sales figures of games from this generation. Let's trust the "fans". They surely have never been wrong, because they love the thing and aren't biased in the slightest.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.
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.
While true, I was talking about Ultimate vs. Melee.
Ah yes, the "dedicated fanbase" that kept most fighting games on life support during the last generation, where sales for the fighting genre continually slumped. Yes, THOSE people are the ones to trust! Not the sales figures of games from this generation. Let's trust the "fans". They surely have never been wrong, because they love the thing and aren't biased in the slightest.
But Melee is still being played to this day, hence the comparison.While true, this thread is about modern fighting game mechanics not a 2001 title
...it absolutely is though. I wouldn't even say that's a positive. But it absolutely is.
That's literally the opposite of what they said. Max specifically pointed out the same thing we know for other games being made in the AAA space. You want more sales? Make better graphics. You want even more sales? Provide a single player story. You want even more and more sales? Add a ton of stages and costumes.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.
But Melee is still being played to this day, hence the comparison.
In short, your reading comprehension is awful.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 think folks have the wrong idea of what "complexity" even is to start withI think there is a distinction missing between making things easier and making them less complex.
I don't define complexity on such termsIt's literally not
Do the math on # of character matchups in Ultimate vs melee. Melee just has more movements options. But there are less than 7 truly viable chars in melee competitively.
My solutions to these arguments, long ago were:
1) give every FG a single player mode like Quest mode in VF4Evo that is meant to augment the lengthy, rich and, frankly, useful tutorial
2) mimic the AI in said Quest mode
3) Force everything to be ranked, but make it so ranking is determined by more than just win/loss and how you won/lost. Your performance in the match actually matters to your rank so that veterans can jump in and play and get to their respective higher rankings faster and leave the ladders of lesser players behind. W/L still matters most, but maybe like 40% or 50% of it, the rest made up on defensive options used, offensive options used, timing of moves and attempted combos. It could still be manipulated but it would be harder to do it, at the very least, due to the granularity.
Why do you have such a grudge against the FGC?
No one is saying "Cater to us you owe us." They're simply showing that methods to draw sales aren't working and at the same time are making an inferior product.
By the way, many of these pros have gone on to help development.
That's literally the opposite of what they said. Max specifically pointed out the same thing we know for other games being made in the AAA space. You want more sales? Make better graphics. You want even more sales? Provide a single player story. You want even more and more sales? Add a ton of stages and costumes.
Content is king. People aren't drawn to a game immediately because of game mechanics being changed. They are arguing if these devs want to sell to a bigger audience they have to do what other AAA studios are doing already.
Someone brought up an argument earlier about having more mechanics not necessarily having more depth (namely the tic-tac-toe example). That situation probably applies to Ultimate.
It's more or less and outline, not a specific number for things, haha. Those details would be ironed out, but everything you do that can be reasonably measured should count. The person getting a perfect would be given points for doing so, of course, but I wouldn't penalize the recipient as much for losing if the data shows it was just an outright blowout. the data for ranking points based on the match would also be available for a given player, sort of how SFV right now does a graph based on your performance, but a bit more nuanced and useful.Just out of curiosity, how would you even rank close won matches versus those won with perfects? What should be more valuable for your ranking?
That's not what I mean though. In fact, I think it's a good thing that later Smash games took away something like L-canceling.Melee has more complicated input requirements for high level play, yes.
That's not what I mean though. In fact, I think it's a good thing that later Smash games took away something like L-canceling.
Two things.
1) I think there is more evidence to show accessibility has led to larger sales for many franchises, and the resurgence of fighting games among gamers. This generation has been much better for fighting games than the previous one, financially.
2) Going on to help development =\= business savvy advice.
Content has always been present. Fighting games have always added more characters, better graphics, costumes, stages, music, CG endings, etc. Sales still declined, because ultimately the games just weren't accessible to a wide enough audience. P
Haha, I'll just say that I'm using complexity to mean depth and that I don't think depth from a fighting game comes from how much "stuff" or mechanics it manages to pack into it but rather depth comes from the nuance and details. One such nuance is the risk/reward balance between options. A lot of newer fighting games have HIGH REWARD/LOW RISK options where you'll be a fool to not apply it constantly in your matches.I agree, and prefer the auto-cancelling they have now.
But if that's the case then I don't know what you're talking about. So I assume we just don't use the term "complex" to mean the same things. So it's likely we'll just be talking past each other if we continue because it's unlikely we're gonna come to an agreement. lol
Which is fine. It happens.
That's just not true at all. Street Fighter 4 has developed way more content than 3rd strike and sold better. Street fighter 5 has sold worse despite it being a clear example of gameplay changes emphasized over content.
Marvel Infinite as max pointed out is the second example of a game trying this strategy and suffering in sales.
Every Smash game sold better than the last and the amount of content generally has gone up. Every MK and Injustice since MK9 has sold better than the last by adding more content.
There is a point to be made about how fighting games suffered during the start of the 21st century but I doubt any of them look favorably content wise to their peers in the same time period.
Haha, I'll just say that I'm using complexity to mean depth and that I don't think depth from a fighting game comes from how much "stuff" or mechanics it manages to pack into it but rather depth comes from the nuance and details. One such nuance is the risk/reward between options. A lot of newer fighting games have HIGH REWARD/LOW RISK options where you'll be a fool to not apply it constantly in your matches.
A good example of this is Super Dashes in dragon ball fighterz. Doing a super dash can outright win you the game, grant you a ton of damage on your opponent, or grant you a very advantageous situation. In neutral, you always have to expect to deal with a super dash because it's literally that powerful with few risks. Yes, there's counter play to it but one of it's best counters literally requires your opponent to be sitting still waiting for it. So the literal application of a super dash is important than just the threat of doing a super dash because of its risks versus reward.
You're arguing for content while ignoring the accessibility changes as a catalyst. Injustice and MK are incredibly accessible to casual audiences, and the quality of those games over previous NR titles (MK titles previous to 9) was abysmal. Combining good accesible gameplay with a significant jump in visual presentation = big win. We can look to Tekken, KI, and MK as titles that all streamlined their gameplay to a degree and did very well this generation.
The argument that making the games harder will make them sell better is grounded in fantasy only. Limiting your audience to hardcore players only will not make those players spend more money. The people spending money are the casual goofs with money to burn who really like the way Character A's special looks, etc.
Content has always increased in almost every fighting game since the dawn of the genre. There are exceptions where sequels debuted with less content, but as a general observation, the amount of content has almost always increased in every franchise.
That's still a ton of reward for simply doing a super dash.Combos off of raw super dash require assists to extend or get hard knockdown and have some of the lowest damage in the game. It can be 2H'd on ground or in the air, and has only ki blast invul, so you can be jabbed out of it.
A better example is raw tag, which is almost unpredictable and costs nothing.
Haha, I'll just say that I'm using complexity to mean depth and that I don't think depth from a fighting game comes from how much "stuff" or mechanics it manages to pack into it but rather depth comes from the nuance and details. One such nuance is the risk/reward between options. A lot of newer fighting games have HIGH REWARD/LOW RISK options where you'll be a fool to not apply it constantly in your matches.
A good example of this is Super Dashes in dragon ball fighterz. Doing a super dash can outright win you the game, grant you a ton of damage on your opponent, or grant you a very advantageous situation. In neutral, you always have to expect to deal with a super dash because it's literally that powerful with few risks. Yes, there's counter play to it but one of it's best counters literally requires your opponent to be sitting still waiting for it. So the literal application of a super dash is important than just the threat of doing a super dash because of its risks versus reward.
Combos off of raw super dash require assists to extend or get hard knockdown and have some of the lowest damage in the game. It can be 2H'd on ground or in the air, and has only ki blast invul, so you can be jabbed out of it.
A better example is raw tag, which is almost unpredictable and costs nothing.
Street Fighter 2, Fatal Fury, Mortal Kombst 1&2 no crazy mechanics, watched and played 109's of hours and still found it engaging. But sure, make the barrier of entry higher so that way it can sell as well.as SFV
You realize people are AGREEING with you on regards to Content, right?
Also again, people aren't saying "MAKE THE GAMES HARDER!" They're asking to stop dumbing down mechanics in the hopes of attractive new players, which DOESNT WORK. Good Graphics, Single Player Content and Presentation are what helped to sell the game.
Look at Guilty Gear XRD, BEAUTIFUL game and not dumbed down for the most part, and it did fantastic.
That's still a ton of reward for simply doing a super dash.
EDT: Wait it's hard as fuck to jab people out of a super dash no? You have to have gifted hitboxes.
As far as 2hing it goes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lyLBONXYKE
I would bet $100 you see at least one raw super dash in every single set in EVO top 8.
I think Max is wrong about how he's defining making a game easier or harder tho. That's my point. He thinks that adding easy to do combos, auto-combos, and big buffer windows make a game easy. I think he's wrong on that front because people still drop combos in those games, people still find harder-to-do optimal combos to do in those games, and people even seek out easier characters or easy teams to play to mitigate the difficulty and risk of dropping combos ( see top players playing Ruby/Gord in Blazblue Tag as an example).Well, I wouldn't use complexity to mean depth if I were you because they really aren't the same thing and you'll continue to run into this scenario where people don't understand what you mean or disagree with you.
Beyond that, yeah, nothing you're saying is incorrect (well, idk about the super dash, so maybe that's incorrect, but I get you're point either way). You can't just add shit and call it a day. Like the tic-tac-toe scenario from earlier. My point is I don't believe Ultimate just has more stuff. I'm saying I believe it has more stuff and that stuff makes up for what it doesn't have because it incorporates into the core of the gameplay in ways that increase the game's depth, allowing it to match Melee via different means.
But anyway, as far as the actual topic of the thread is concerned, I mostly agree with Max. Mainly coming from the perspective of whether or not a game series is old or new. For an older series, if it was known for being at a certain level of complexity, and people who played it really liked it because of that, it would probably be good for the devs to maintain that and attempt to attract a larger mainstream audience via means such as visuals, content, story modes, etc. Whereas a new IP can go in either direction. Why not make a few easy fighting games here and there along with difficult ones?
But outside of a few exceptions I think the genre is in a pretty good place right now.
The argument that making the games harder will make them sell better is grounded in fantasy only. Limiting your audience to hardcore players only will not make those players spend more money. The people spending money are the casual goofs with money to burn who really like the way Character A's special looks, etc.
It takes practice to jab superdash, but it isn't hard. Every character can jab super dash in the air. As far as LK's video, raw tag beats all of those scenarios. The only real broken thing about super dash, in getting a 50/50 off an assist call with it like you can with Adult Gohan's assist.
I wouldn't take that bet because no shit you will see raw super dashes, my point is that it isn't going to be the sole factor that wins a match, nor do I agree that damage converted off of it is anything super significant without over extending resources like meter, assists, or sparking.
I'm not arguing that super dash is broken just that the reward for doing it is high versus the risk of it failing. So the application of Super Dash establishes player presence versus the threat of doing it.It takes practice to jab superdash, but it isn't hard. Every character can jab super dash in the air. As far as LK's video, raw tag beats all of those scenarios. The only real broken thing about super dash, in getting a 50/50 off an assist call with it like you can with Adult Gohan's assist.
I think Max is wrong about how he's defining making a game easier or harder tho. That's my point. He thinks that adding easy to do combos, auto-combos, and big buffer windows make a game easy. I think he's wrong on that front because people still drop combos in those games, people still find harder-to-do optimal combos to do in those games, and people even seek out easier characters or easy teams to play to mitigate the difficulty and risk of dropping combos ( see top players playing Ruby/Gord in Blazblue Tag as an example).
He also seems to think that having more stuff and more mechanics is what's going to make a game more challenging skill wise and proposes that many new fighting games are stripping away mechanics and thus are getting easier. This is false. Maybe some games have but there's a ton of games on the market right now that have a ton of mechanics baked into them. BlazBlue, Blazblue Tag, UNIEL, Dragon Ball Fighterz, etc. all have a lot of mechanics and stuff in them but Max doesn't seem to be championing those games at all.
Furthermore adding more stuff doesn't increase skill ceilings or depth or whatever word you think applies. We seem to agree on that point tho. What makes a fighting game truly complex is its nuances and details. How weak are these options? How strong is this option? whats the risk/reward in doing this? what's the counter play to this? These are the important questions.
Haha, I'll just say that I'm using complexity to mean depth and that I don't think depth from a fighting game comes from how much "stuff" or mechanics it manages to pack into it but rather depth comes from the nuance and details. One such nuance is the risk/reward balance between options. A lot of newer fighting games have HIGH REWARD/LOW RISK options where you'll be a fool to not apply it constantly in your matches.
A good example of this is Super Dashes in dragon ball fighterz. Doing a super dash can outright win you the game, grant you a ton of damage on your opponent, or grant you a very advantageous situation. In neutral, you always have to expect to deal with a super dash because it's literally that powerful with few risks. Yes, there's counter play to it but one of it's best counters literally requires your opponent to be sitting still waiting for it. So the literal application of a super dash is important than just the threat of doing a super dash because of its risks versus reward. I think this is an example of making a game easier. Creating very strong high reward but low-risk options.