Why are Fighting Games so Difficult?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- What is the point of all this mechanical dexterity getting in the way of some good clean fun??
My Twitter: / hqrubbish
2nd channel: / @timesting
Thanks to the patrons who helped make this video possible.
Kaijuninja
Cinroth
KBD
Lyoh
Razz
#FightingGames #ExecutionBarrier #Strategy
All who comment on RB' videos are granted a +1 Broadsword when they die and join the skeleton wars.
You're so ugly
@@nicolo7789 I'm rescinding your +1 Broadsword.
@@HQRubbish Can I get a staff instead and become a lich?
@@drethemage9559 That's a big ask.
I want a witch hat so I can be a Skull Witch plzplz ☠️🧙🏽
I hate the term "Real game". I am firmly in the belief that if you are playing against an opponent you *are* playing the real game. At any skill level you can play with some sort of strategy.
That's because "real gamer" is a mindset, not a skill set.
Nobody talks about soul calibur when they talk about simple fighting games.
It addresses all issues people have with simple 2D fighters while maintaining as much or more depth than a lot of them.
Yall missing out heavily on a tripleA game that has mechanical execution but doesn't require it at all
Thank you! Every time I hear discussions about problems/issues in other fighting games I always wonder why no one points out that the Soulcalibur series as a whole already does the most things right and the least things wrong. Each entry in the series has one or two specific quirks that cause problems in that specific entry, but the overall formula hits the perfect blend of low skill floor with high skill ceiling. I really believe the only reason it's not more popular is because of the 16th century setting and the fact Bamco actually promotes Tekken.
Soul Calibur is one of my go-to games to play with friends that don't generally play fighting games. Always a hit.
This! SC2 is the only FG I own, and actually enjoy. I've played Street fighter, Tekken, Marvel V Capcom, etc since I was a kid, and none of them compare to how Soul Caliber plays.
It’s amazing to see SC getting some recognition, seems like everywhere I go, no one talks about it enough. Been a SC boy all my life and I’m glad that it sparked my love for these games.
I’d argue Teken and other 3D fighters like Soul Calibur or Dead or Alive don’t have this problem because (at least from the ones I’ve played) they have a basic up, mid, and low attack button along with a grab, guard, and special move button. The type of special you perform depends on the direction you push the analog stick similar to smash bros with special and grabs but it’s all a lot more intuitive than this half circle, quarter circle, zig zag, press a million buttons for one move type of gameplay.
Not every fighting game is for you. Some are easier or harder than others. It's up to you to find the game that interests you the most
And then discover that the fighting game you fell in love with has shit netcode
@@freyzerb.castro9124 the struggle is never ending
@@freyzerb.castro9124 after this is why I'm glad to have been born in the age of arcades and couch multiplayer. I hate online fighting games in general because I dislike input lag in time sensitive situations.
Fighting games are 100% about mental and psychological growth as well as emotional maturity and control. If you cant grow as a person then fighting games are not for you.
Counterpoint: Explain Ltg
@@KiTTtheKiDD ltg only proves my point more he never improves and always loses because he lacks the ability to learn. Thats why he sucks
@RandomPerson28337 he doesn't really suck, he went a couple of sets with Themainmanswe, and he made that observation that he plays quite solidly. He's just an awful person
While I agree 100% with the argument, there's a different angle that I think is way a more valuable approach. Feeling like you're "playing the real game" can mean multiple different things. Being able to win is one thing, but that can only take you so far when you're not enjoying the game itself. To paraphrase Leon Massey, "FGs are for everyone, but not every FG is for everyone", and that's a concept that's worth propagating that I just don't see enough.
Back then, Street Fighter 4 kept me from liking FGs because doing 1~2 normals into specials just didn't feel satisfying because I wanted to do the cool combos, yet doing anything that feels even remotely cool in SF4 is very hard to do. Didn't matter that I was already playing the "real game" because just winning wasn't rewarding enough. So I just stayed away from all FGs because I thought they all had the same execution requirements.
Funny enough, the game that actually got me into FGs was BlazBlue CentralFiction. Even if it's far from optimal, the simple stuff in anime fighters (like ABCD into special or some air combos) just looks and feels WAY more satisfying than the simple stuff in SF4. And that's just not something I would have ever thought about because I just didn't know that there was a variety of FGs with very different styles and requirements and that I could love one of them while being bored with others.
It just isn't something obvious for most people outside the FGC how much variety exists in the genre, from Samurai Shodown to BlazBlue or Marvel.
While I agree with that notion, I think it is at best- tenuously related to the topic of the video.
There are lots of fighting games that offer wildly differing experiences (and that is good), but this video is only interested with finding a reason to justify execution from a design perspective (That is, in the games that have been designed with that demand in mind).
One could quite easily argue that your dislike of SFIV and following investment in BlazBlue is entirely divorced from their respective execution requirements. Doing suboptimal stuff "feeling more satisfying" is entirely subjective and not really quantifiable in any meaningful way. Not to mention that arguably- for a lot of characters in Blazblue:CF you are put at a larger disadvantage by doing less optimal combos than in SFIV.
There are lots of intricacies one could aim to design for when creating a fighting game. Often the inclusion of strict execution checks are brought up as meaningless, this is what the video means to respond to. Not the fact that there is a strict necessity for execution in all fighting games, or that fighting games that focus on other aspects are lesser specimen.
@@HQRubbish Fair enough, it really wasn't your point and my phrasing was bad. My comment mainly came from my frustration with a different sentiment I see constantly in the FGC, which is that "game easier/simpler in any way, shape or form compared to another one = game bad and worthless".
Too often I've seen it leveraged at new IPs and at sequels alike as if it all invalidates the game somehow. It was there when both SF4 and SF5 lowered some execution requirements, and more than ever, it's been brought up constantly regarding Strive (as well as almost every other game I've ever seen released, like GBVS, DBFZ, MvCI, BBTAG, etc).
In that sense, my comment is more like an addendum on the topic of execution requirements being a good thing that should exist, but it doesn't have to always exist in the same way (or even exist at all in some new IPs), contrary to how so many people in the FGC feel. It's ok that some games do something different, no need to dunk on them or say it's hot garbage all the time.
@@eduardoserpa1682 I think that is understandably frustrating. I feel like the argument on both sides sadly tends boils down to extremes more often than not.
I've seen a lot of these topics on people expressing that they are interested in fighting games but they don't like x, y, and z. Then someone else will comment on that saying this game doesn't have x, y, and z. Usually this is the games meant to distill the genre and trim the fat as they say. Games like, Fantasy Strike, Divekick, Granblue VS, Power Rangers BFTG, etc. I have issues with both sides of the argument. For one, the side that wants the games to change doesn't care about these relatively niche titles, they want Street Fighter and Tekken to be simplified and slowed down. On the other side, long time fans of these series don't want that (and I agree). I think most reasonable people have no issue with non-fighting gamers wanting a game that has an extremely simple control scheme with short and easy combos, and less ambiguous situations, but I certainly don't want this for legacy titles, at least mainline ones. Perhaps spinoff games could bridge the gap a bit? Idk just spit balling. Additionally, I am of the opinion that if Street Fighter or Tekken had smash-like controls and combos that didn't require tight timing they still would find an excuse as to not play and enjoy them. They would find that the barrier to winning, which is what most people are so upset about, isn't really the execution but everything else. Spacing, timing, having a gameplan, these can't really be done for you like execution and any new player will still lose to someone with even a hint of knowledge 9/10 times in a game where the controls require 0 memorization or execution. I always wanted to make a game that is very easy to play mechanically, though I don't generally think fighting games are that mechanically difficult on the whole, just different from most other genres and therefore muscle memory and legacy skill don't carry over as much, anyway back to my fantasy game. I want a game with minimal buttons and simple sequential combo execution to prove that most of the people who say that's what they want don't really know what they want and would still find the game unfun for "some reason" (they lost). I actually think some would stick around, as easier execution has attracted people before, but I firmly believe that Project L will prove the problem isn't in the games, it's in the mindset of the potential players. Sorry for the long comment I just only really get to think about this stuff on my own as I have no friends who play FG's, nowhere for my discussion to go most of the time.
Make your friends play Phantom Breaker 👌🏽
Since Esports is a thing now and fighting games are becoming more competitive i think a conversation to have is an individual players merit. Some ppl want to compete in locals or go pro, some didn't do athletic sports or have an active hobby so gaming is their only real hobby. Most casuals still won't beat the more serious gamers regardless of the games difficulty because they aren't drilling in practice mode, studying frames and match up knowledge. It's kind of a fact we have to accept that no matter if we simplify games there's always going to be the try hards (lol) or naturally gifted players that are still going to be the upper echelon of players.
I feel this argument basically boils down to someone just liking execution. The fact that it kinda emulates some aspect of real fighting isn't super convincing because there are plenty of things that they don't emulate intentionally , like playing around weight classes in boxing, the physical injuries of fighting. I doubt lot of people would even want those to be emulated. So fighting games are not really beholden to how actual fighting (sports) works. Lot of how fighting sports works is determined how human bodies and physics works, some hits don't have the concussion property, humans just get concussed because hard hits to the head can shake the brain in your skull, you can't really design that away.
In fighting games the design decisions are made by someone, pretty much always. Clearly a lot of people find execution checks aesthetically pleasing from a gameplay point of view, so there is definitely a reason to have games like that. But there are also plenty of people who don't, but find other aspects of fighting games interesting and fun, and that crowd isn't really served at the moment. Also the fact that fighting game execution is steadily getting easier, doesn't mean it's actually easy. 3f links for an average joe are not easy even if older fighting games used to have 1f links. Only actually executionally easy fighting game I can think of is Fantasy Strike, unless you go into heavily alternative categories, like Divekick.
Also the real time aspect of fighting games has value outside of execution checks, so "just go play a strategy game" isn't really helpful. Like effective rotation of your options so that the opponent can be blindsided by otherwise reactable option, like charged Dust in Strive. That isn't really executionally demanding, but still relies on the real time nature of the game.
I don't necessarily agree with that, but I suppose that depends on your outlook. I think the argument for their inclusion as to further "the fighting experience" is pretty sound. I guess you could argue that you find them less intrinsic to the idea of martial arts than other aspects the games try to simulate. I don't think that turns it into a "I like this therefore good-argument" however.
Yes, it is absolutely true that games are created by people, and people decide what mechanics make it in or not. However I still think it is pretty uncontroversial to say Fighting Games are trying to emulate competitive martial arts. Including the physical training > put into practice part seems pretty reasonable as a way to approach that experience.
I don't really think saying "Fighting Games aren't beholden to reality" works as counter-statement. Because if they wish to remain recognizably a Fighting Game then some amount of recurring themes and mechanics need to be applied. Whether or not you consider dexterity checks to be one of the available ones is up to you I guess, but I definitely think it fits.
@@HQRubbish Thank you for a response, I just found your channel today, and I'm finding your content pretty enjoyable. The one about fighting game lingo was very good.
I agree that dexterity checks via execution fit in to the genre theme wise, but I don't think they are so inseparable that you couldn't dial them back significantly while still keeping the "essential spirit" of the genre. Also I agree that there is some value tying fighting games to fighting sports on a level of theme, but lot of the time this relation is already very loose even in existing fighting games. Like mechanics wise fighting games are very divorced from real fighting, you don't for example juggle people, or crouch to block and so on. But even on the broad level of theme, there isn't really thematic equivalent to okizeme, or knowing the frame data in real fighting unless you are really willing to stretch. Also fighting games don't really have equivalent for MMA style grappling with is a big part of lot of real fighting sports where you don't automatically win when your opponent falls.
So in short, imo thematic similarities to fighting sports can be useful for a fighting games, but they are not really strictly necessary for making a compelling fighting game, and your game doesn't automatically become better by having stronger thematic connection to fighting sports.
In addition it is worth a mention to say an argument I've seen sajam making and honestly it is true, execution may be part of the game so as any other aspects, he pointed out that people approach the games in different ways and excel in different ways, he used as a example that Justin Wong is arguably one of the best SF and MvC players out there yet he's not even close to the level of execution many pro players have... And why is it that he has success? Because he invested in other parts of the game, parts he might see himself better than execution or simply the ones that he likes the most. The same applies to any part of FGs, you can get better and the great part of them is that no matter how much damage your opponent deals per combo, if they never hit you, you don't get any damage. Furthermore, there are little situations that are unavoidable and 0/10 matchups are virtually inexistent. This ends creating the idea that if you don't make a mistake, you don't lose.
I find training mode very relaxing as well. I wonder if there are personality and brain structure similarities between people who enjoy the lab. My brother for instance despises training mode and we have pretty different personalities.
day9 is great, i fell asleep to his dota videos a lot
Day9 is a blessing to this otherwise somewhat cursed earth.
I don't want to invest time into training mode because I find it dull. I've always enjoyed the Magic Series combo system in Darkstalkers and Marvel vs. Capcom because it let me jump into matches immediately.
Fair enough
Shout outs to Phantom Breaker (Extra/Omnia) before I'm even a minute in 👍🏽
Years ago, I had someone LITERALLY give the same excuse but about chess as being nothing more than a game of random and arbitrarily moves
I am glad I found your video through Mogli. Your argument on what the "real" game is reminded me of Pokemon. Another RUclips channel did a video where he explained that Pokemon can never be perfectly balanced. Pokemon is a role-playing game as well as a competitive turn based game. These two things must be balanced in order to have a successful Pokemon game.
Alot of what you are pointing out is also my problem with the trend of "simple fighting games", with Fantasy Strike being it's forerunner. Good graphics btw!
There is one thing that Fantasy Strike does well though; it doesn't force the way of thinking modern fighting games employ all the time down your throat: defense is good, oki pressure is strong, it doesnt reset to neutral with everything and it has no bs comeback mechanics. Sure it is very easy in execution but a lot of parts remain in tact. I am decently worried about strive because of the "return to neutral" obsession it seems to have.
@@piwithatsme Constantly "reseting to Neutral" (without nerfing Okizeme) actually makes a fighting game more challenging because you have to rethink you next option after every successful encounter and you can't rely on any guaranteed BNB. Its part of what makes Street Fighter as a series stand out.
this is really good
This video was very well *executed*. Liked it a lot.
I've always thought fgs do have an unncessary barrier for entry, but not through an excess of execution, rather through an excess of options.
Imagine if chess had 3 x the piece types, but only the original ones were of any use to win. The new ones can function and have an unique way of doing so, but learning them is a waste of your memory up until you reach high level.
Suddenly as a new player, you have to navigate in an ocean of pieces to learn, while also struggling to deal with them on the opponents side.
I definitely think there is room for fighting games to get better in a multitude of ways, ranging from tutorializing better to streamlining certain gameplay elements.
That being said I do think homogenizing and limiting toolsets specifically is a slippery slope. Not only can you dramatically impact the risk mitigation game at higher levels of play, but you also severely limit player freedom and individuality (in an already somewhat limited genre).
There are ways around this ofc, but generally they come at the expense of other things, e.g. Melee having relatively low amount of attack options but supplementing that with an extremely dense and deep movement system.
I don't think there's an easy answer, but seeing devs do more research on where and how casual players turn into intermediates would be great.
Man I just wanna do the flashy special moves consistently. If I button mash and wiggle the control stick I can sometimes make it happen but even after learning what the inputs are, it feels impossible to actually execute them.
I’d argue Teken and other 3D fighters like Soul Calibur or Dead or Alive don’t have this problem because (at least from the ones I’ve played) they have a basic up, mid, and low attack button along with a grab, guard, and special move button. The type of special you perform depends on the direction you push the analog stick similar to smash bros with special and grabs but it’s all a lot more intuitive than this half circle, quarter circle, zig zag, press a million buttons for one move type of gameplay. That’s my biggest turn off and one I’m trying to overcome because conceptually and artistically fighting games are amazing. But it’s such a hurdle to learn the damn controls.
Roll 3 combat dice in attack?? Sign me up for death.
I think that in order for fighting games to have such free form combo systems, some difficulty will always be a side effect. ALWAYS. Because optimal combos are, just that: optimal. The best there is. And oftentimes that involves high execution barriers as a consequence.
to me the issue with fighting games is how horribly inaccessible and steep the curve is
I blame the "fighting games = chess" mindset on alleged serial abuser James Portnow of the Extra Credits RUclips channel.
The video, iirc, suggested multiple choice tests to be implemented in trials modes.
Seems pretty out of touch
I find players are more tolerant toward execution barrier when the constituent segments of a "technique" each have some consequential/branching outcome. Execution in this way can be extremely tight/difficult, but logically translates into play and is thus tolerated.
Rather, I find players are put off by long strings of arbitrary inputs that have one consequence. These are NECESSARY to compete in some games, and FLIMSY approximations of irl technical mastery or physical skill. In other words, their hardest - almost entire - impact is on new players who don't want to stall in training for a dozen hours just to get off the tarmac.
I havnt even started the video but I hate the fighting game as chess comparison. Chess is about positioning MULTIPLE UNITS. Fighting games are about controlling (usually) one unit as a time. You control space with your one unit. There's no units that are placed somewhere, and left there to control the area. Fighting games lose this, but get the excitement of inputs and combo skill.
I love both tabletop games and fighting games. They're both my two biggest hobbies. At the end of the day of both, the games are about figuring out what your opponent is going to do and be ahead of them, chess or street fighter. In street fighter, you need to learn you bnbs and frame data-in chess you need to know your openings and ways to mate from different situations.
Sure that's definitely true, but it doesn't make me feel like I'm participating though.
I think it is perfectly fine to not enjoy execution checks, and I think it is good that alternatives that are more lenient exist (and hopefully more to come). The video isn't trying to convince anyone that they should enjoy strict games, just that there's a reason for the strictness to be included.
@@HQRubbish It is perfectly fine to not enjoy them. I was more lamenting that I can't find them fun, despite wanting to enjoy fighting games.
@@YokohamaKaidashi If it's the execution that turns you off, there are games like Samurai Shodown, Killer Instinct, Dragon Ball FighterZ and Fantasy Strike that let you feel like you're participating with little to no execution requirements (playing "the real game", if you will).
If it's the player interaction itself that doesn't satisfy you, I feel ya.
@@eduardoserpa1682 I've tried some of those. I think for me, I have a tough time making fighting games feel rewarding. Lots of people talk about "not making winning the goal". But whenever I sit down to play, my brain autopilots to trying to win the match. It would be comical if it didn't make me so upset. Even if I say to myself at the start of the match "Just try to anti-air." my brain will just get upset and frustrated at myself whenever I inevitably mess up. It's very discouraging.
@@YokohamaKaidashi Ah, yeah, that's a very frustrating one. And there's no use in forcing it if it's not being fun.
To be fair, it's a problem that never goes away, no matter how good you get. High level players also mess up supposedly easy things very frequently because the opponent is good enough to force dumb mistakes out of them (be it in FGs, be it in StarCraft like in Day9's examples).
Doesn't make it not frustrating, but at least helps me shrug it off when I mess up and makes it feel more rewarding when I don't.
Do you actually play fighting games? Or do you only talk about them
Yeah, pretty much. Fighting games are hard because the difficulty is a part of the game, along with any other.
Problem is that the games won't teach you that. And if you go in fresh, you don't see anything else either, just combos and execution. And that prevents you from noticing the strategy or anything else that's not just "hundreds of precise button inputs to deal 20% damage."
Which, in my opinion, points at the problem that fighting games aren't necessarily hard(er than any other competitive genre), they're just not intuitive. And you might enjoy just mashing buttons, but at some point you'll realize that not only you don't know what you're doing, you also don't know what to do, or even how to find out.
Also something something, there's no incentive to learn. So if you don't want to get good on your own, the game won't even try to "trick" you into spending time with it.
Anyway, good video, I really enjoyed it. Cool editing, too.
I agree that this is an issue that makes the genre harder to get into.
I definitely don't believe the execution aspect of fighting games is the biggest hurdle in terms of difficulty. The video title being what it is being a downside of the platform.
@@HQRubbish Fair enough. It's just something I see a lot and I think it makes a lot of sense. Execution and too much information that you "have to" know.
(Honestly, people seem to believe that you need to know ALL of the frame data.)
So then, what would you consider as the biggest hurdle? Or maybe the problem lies not in the difficulty, but somewhere else?
@@_Adie @Adie I suppose this is technically outside of the actual games themselves. But I feel like the single one biggest hurdle for new players is way fighting games are presented.
Bet that in terms of the imagined requirements for mechanical dexterity, large amount of studying- or the heavy emphasis on the concept of "fairness".
I think there are lots of things fighting games could do better, but I also feel like the genre is heavily misrepresented by a large majority of its player-base. And that sucks.
@@HQRubbish Yeah, good point, can't argue with that.
Great video, really enjoyed seeing your thoughts on the topic, good shit. Also, I couldn't give your editing more kudos, it's fucking godlike!
good video
I'm just glad there exists 'easier' fighting games. One button special Rising Thunder and Fantasy Strike; DiveKick and Footsies are pretty fun too. And Yomi Hustle, a turn-based fighting game is making waves nowadays. (there are card games, Yomi 1 and soon 2 which are still distinctively fighting games)
I might not be old, but the 'standard' of 3 frames for a quick jab, most games de-facto adopted, is too fast to think during gameplay for me.
Love the editing and presentation of the video. Keep up te good work man.
Ok as a fan of xcom series brood war sounds very my speed
Problem is theres pretty much no fighting games for people who dont enjoy those aspects of fighting games. Esp if you want the stylish high quality presentation of some of the better fighters
If losing were fun in fighting games i wouldnt mind. Other genres make losing fun WAY better. Shooters for example. Smash is one of the few that make losing fun
this is a good video
engagement
Anyone knows the game at 9:07? I would be grateful
Buriki One
Another great video on your channel. Thanks a lot and best wishes from Russia:D
This video is one of your best so far! I like the way you presented your arguments.
4:08
People want shit handed to them🤷♂️
Fighting games is like gym sometimes you feel hyped, some days you can't be bothered. But you get extreme amounts of dopamine when you see yourself making huge progress.
❤
Hey this was pretty good. Most people try to make excuses for "execution" saying stuff like "well you can't have X or Y in the game if you didn't have it" but you actually said the most important part, Execution IS the game.
ay lmao new video
Also, this is the perfect video that explains why I personally play "For Honor." I really loved how it felt like one was wielding a weapon, fencing, from many parts of the world. And it required all of these knowledge to simulate and execute and reward me. But then they started implementing "patches" for "The real game" of for honor, some unwritten rules, and it became so Diluted that I don't know how to feel anymore.
For example: you used to be able to anticipate and block a weapon while dashing if you had the read for it. But they got rid of that because it was "too OP" at high level. Even though, this is something you very much do in a fencing match.
Man, I hate whiny fanbases. Particularly in fighting games because that's the kinda thing where the losers are vocal lol.
Ai, thanks!
Was just watching a vid by another creator where they just listed all of the options on a topic they were talking about, and offered no analysis. Felt like watching a Wikipedia entry. I immediately went to one of your vids to wash the taste out of my mouth. I hope 2023 is the year you get the recognition you deserve, your production value is unmatched, and I love your analysis too.
When execution matters more, strategy inherently matters less. I can only speak for myself when I say that exectuion does not need to be 'needlessly' difficult or unintuitive (Buriki One). Some developers design attacks or characters that are unusually effective but then "bALaNcE" them with execution barriers (as in, they're trying to discourage players, even pros, from always using these obviously superior moves or characters because they know that the reward is too high and they need to create a risk: dropped inputs) instead of thinking 'hey, maybe this long distance attack shouldn't be an unreactable guardbreaking combo starter that gives you a full super meter if you input 7 button presses within 1/60th of a second" in the first place. Balance the moves, don't *needlessly* up the difficulty.
For example, Setsuka having easy options for her just frame inputs in SCVI is not a problem (I actually prefer using aB, 2143aB, etc), it's the fact that the developers either punish newer players for doing the move the 'easy/wrong' way, punish them for attempting and failing to do it the 'correct' way, or punish experienced players for not doing the move 'even bettEreR' than the 'hard/correct' way by missing out on the safer/more damaging just frame version of the same move. Olympic level fencing is all mindgames because at that level the difference in physical skill is so minuscule it's negligible. Pro FGC players do everything in their power to find exploits (plinking) and reduce their mental stack (option selects) to gain a competitive edge with *consistent performance* aka no dropped inputs aka no unexpected outcomes aka no randomness. I want what new players AND what FGC pros want: *intentionality*. I see nothing wrong with a reasonable execution test to weed out deliberate choices (the DP motion) vs wild scrubby mashing since there is LITERALLY no downside. Everyone benefits. If 'pros' start losing to "sCrUbS" and whining like LTG does then they were never actually good at fighting games, they were good at DMC (juggling helpless enemies/training dummies). A fighting game based on a high mechanical dexterity skill floor may be more 'physically fun' to play than Fantasy Strike for some people, but if the gameplay always boils down to one optimal choice gated behind an execution barrier (rather than a choice to spend meter or not) then the game isn't much deeper than FS.
In conclusion... just play the Soulcalibur series.
Oh, I liked the part that talked about the so-called real game, so it's nice to see there's a more recent video on the topic. Onto the next one.
good stuff
Halfway through the video you express that your point is that fighting games are supposed to have these execution barriers because that is what makes the games the whole game, rather than just the "real game" beyond the execution. You have, like so many other people in that twitter thread, missed the entire point that Killmikaself was trying to make.
There are franchises of fighting games that exist without the execution barrier. That doesn't mean easy automatic mode in Bayonetta or the automatic mode in that Persona fighting game. Naruto Clash of Ninja on the gamecube and sequels on the subsequent consoles like the Wii is a prime example of a fighting game series that keeps all of the complexity and timing and spacing and strategy that makes fighting games fun, but REMOVES the execution barrier.
There are no motions in that series. It's not that the player "can do whatever they want", the player can only do what is in the range of the character they picked. Just like any other fighting game. They still need to manage the special gauge, hitboxes, spacing for different moves, speed of the character, health sacrifices, extra gauges, and everything else. The difference is that anyone can pick it up, look at the movelist, and actually DO the attacks without sinking years upon years into them just to get over that execution barrier. So yes, they are able to get to the "real game" from the get-go like any other genre. Fighting games almost never do this. Everything you listed except execution; spacing, timing, mixups, reactions. That IS the real game. People can't even begin to get to those with the execution barrier in the way. Which is why people give up on fighting so often and it is a niche genre. This is what makes fighting games categorically bad.
People like yourself who say that this is supposed to be part of fighting games, because people are supposed to struggle with them (like music or martial arts) are missing the entire point. It's like saying that people should have to walk miles to a water source and bring it back to their home in the morning to make a cup of tea, because that is part of making the beverage. That's insane. Everyone knows that's insane. There is no need for an athleticism check. This is not an actual combat sport. This is a video game. People just want to play a video game. What you have presented is not a sound argument for execution check. You have just parroted more elitism like everyone else defending this categorically bad game design in fighting games.
I'm unsure as to why you feel that you specifically get to decide who "people" are? Lots of people do seemingly enjoy fighting games that require complex mechanical dexterity to play at a high level. And I generally would tend to side with the people that currently enjoy a thing over those who say that they would if it changed.
Either way, this is not the argument being made. I have no interest in telling people that they ought to enjoy a thing that they do not, nor that all Fighting Games ARE or SHOULD BE made with these concepts in mind. The thesis of the video is that they CAN be argued for in a coherent fashion.
The viewpoint presented in the video (all parts of the experience is what makes the experience what it is) seems to me a lot more coherent than yours. It might feel a lot better to cherrypick which parts of the experience count and not, e.g. "Getting the water is not part of making the beverage", but what parts are and are not part of it are entirely arbitrary. Maybe one considers all parts of "making" completely irrelevant to the "real" experience which is pouring the ready made beverage into a cup? Sounds like we ought to abolish all non pre-packaged alternatives because they represent an elitist view of the world.
In your example of the Naruto game - spending time to practice strict combos is categorically not part of the "real game", because it doesn't exist within the whole. But for a lot of fighting games that is obviously not true. And for a lot of players that is also quite obviously something they enjoy and further seek out. Whether or not you want to explain that experience as mimicking parts of something real (the martial arts comparison) or something entirely unique is in the end completely irrelevant. People do enjoy these things and finding ways to explain why they do might bridge the gap of understanding instead of making people buttmad.
But then again, maybe not : )
@@HQRubbish I'm unsure as to why you feel that you specifically get to decide what people enjoy about video games?
Anyway, your counter-argument is incoherent, elitist, and riddled with irrelevant ad hominem attakcs. Like so many defenders of this genre, you fall back on fallacies to champion a horrible, limiting, unnecessary, and out-dated game design failure.
This isn't a discussion worth having with you. You can't understand it.
@@lemontop881 Alrighty
My only problem with "execution" isn't with execution, but with only motion inputs.
The fact that some things are quicker on some controllers over others muddies the original intention of motions.
Fighting games moving to consoles made that mechanic worse. Combo execution I'm fine with - since there's nothing about them that inherently advantages one (legal) controller over another.
To me those are two entirely different discussions and the water gets very muddied if you try combining them.
it's common for complainers to think they deserve to participate because they paid for the product, but games are luxury items and not mandatory to purchase them, just ask for a refund and go back to dark souls :P
The concept is well explained, but I think there's a base assumption that is flawed.
As you said, you can split a common fighting game into strategy, nerves (which doubles down in real time game, as opposed to turn-based games, since you also are in a hurry to make those choices) and execution.
Strategy is chess.
I can't think of anything that's pure nerves, perhaps public speaking?
Execution is Guitar Hero.
Strategy+Nerves is speed chess.
Strategy+Execution is perhaps Starcraft?
Nerves+Execution is playing the guitar live.
All three are a (common) fighting game.
The experience I'm looking for, and plenty others probably, is a less deep speed chess with cool animation, sounds and manly characters (they're my shit, I play big and slow characters) beating each other's ass. If you care about the execution part, good for you, almost every fg around has some level of execution. If you don't care about execution, like me, your choices are only FS (great game), Rising Thunder (I don't really enjoy specials on a timer, but I guess it's personal tastes. I'm looking forward to Project L either way), Tough Love Arena (it lacks a couple of things, but it's minimalistic and still implements a lot of cool concepts) and not much else (I'm talking only fully-fledged fighting games, as much as I like FOOTSIES it doesn't fit in, nor does Divekick).
What I'm saying is not that the next Guilty Gear needs to give up on motion and charge inputs, but that there aren't many good options for people who want to play fighting game-themed speed chess. The closest I've gotten is the card game Yomi, from the Fantasy Strike universe, which checks most of the marks (especially if played on fast timer) besides it not actually being a fighting game.
This is not to say GG is bad (heck, I kinda want to pick Strive because of how GORGEOUS it looks, and how stupid Potemkin is), but that we do need alternatives, instead of reiterating on the same concept for the hundredth time.
From a business point of view, I get why companies are making "traditional" fighting games but making them slightly more accessible with every iteration: you want to retain the old concepts since you are sure they work fine, and also want to get some more audience.
From the same point of view, they don't want to make my speed chess-fighting game hybrid because you'll need to spend A LOT in advertisement to get something started that you are not sure if it would hold well, since there's no precedent for it.
FS wasn't too big of a success, but it didn't have any big name behind (Sirlin himself is the biggest name behind the game, and it's only known to some in the FGC and they don't care about a game without much in the execution department) nor a large budget to use.
TLA is getting by with absolutely NO advertisement, which if anything makes me positive that if it does get more popular with time it might help some companies decide to take the risk.
The Execution Barrier is a myth.
most SFV players are in Silver/Bronze.
You can literally beat most SFV players by using 3 buttons. One button for anti-airs, second button for sweeps, third button for throws. Just block when necessary and eventually they'll jump or walk into sweep range and you kill them.
It's not flashy but it works.
Pretending that "motion inputs are keeping me held back from playing fighting games" is like saying "Aiming in shooters is keeping me held back".
Like sure you can learn to aim perfectly in a shooter but that isn't the only skill that matters or even the main skill of some games.
You can learn to do motion inputs perfectly but it's not the only skill that matters or is even required to win rounds.
Pretending like the execution of fighting games is a giant wall you have to climb up is dumb.
Fantasy strike didn't take off because once someone learns the game, they've learned it. There is no experimenting with characters or situations. Once you've seen one pro player use Painter, you've seen everyone play Painter.
Once you've seen someone play Rook, you've seen everyone play rook.
Player expression doesn't exist in Fantasy strike, and that's okay but it isn't what make people like a game more.
For example:
The SF community going from SF4 to SF5 didn't like the removal of a lot of mechanics which made player choice unique. Focus attacks and FADC made a lot of different choices possible for players and opened up opportunities that otherwise couldn't have been introduced.
In SFV you can notice even top players struggling to find a unique way to use characters to the point where one of Daigo's most watched SFV videos is him talking about how his Guile is the most unique in the world right now from a single decision he makes differently than other Guile players.
Fantasy strike will never have a Daigo and that's fine. The game doesn't aim to be a "high profile big money" fighting game, even if Sirlin wants Fantasy strike to be played at Evo on the big stage somehow.
Plus, you never mentioned Soul Calibur as an example at all.
Soul Calibur 2 and Soul Calibur 6 have one of the highest execution ceilings of any fighting game but also have one of the lowest skill floors.
The basic tools in SC2 and SC6 are some of the best in the game but you still have to know all your situational moves/combos. The games are quite literally everything you describe and more.
The concept of "speed chess" has already been done.
Firstly, thanks for watching and engaging with the topic!
I definitely think developers can (and should) make fighting games that are less mechanically involved (for many different reasons). If I came across in the video as arguing for the NECESSITY of execution in fighting games, well.... then I have failed in my communication.
The point I was trying to get across, is not that mechanical checks are necessary for fighting games. Rather, I am just trying to illustrate that they are not an arbitrary decision by a developer. They dramatically impact how the games that include them function. If you removed them from a game that originally included them, you wouldn't be left with the "real game".
@@HQRubbish I absolutely agree with that.
To be fair, as I mentioned I do play Zangief and it's pretty satisfying landing walking 360s and buffered 720s. I once was completely against motion inputs (and still am on a purely competitive level), but I do agree that they do make some games more fun the same as shiny visuals and over-the-top voices do.
It kind of did came across as "execution is a necessary part of fighting games", but it might have been my misunderstanding either way.
@@brohham3078 Uh, okay. I guess there has been some misunderstanding: I don't think execution is the big wall that stops you from ranking up at the lowest levels. I'm a big BIG fan of Press Button Win's "Think don't mash" series that emphasizes how a base game plan can be used to climb up the lower levels without any execution check AT ALL (and I did do that).
My beef with motion inputs is that they require specific training to master, and until you do they are a random element in your gameplay. I personally only use training mode when strictly necessary (i.e. a setup my opponent used that I couldn't figure out no matter what I tried in game), because I find it VERY boring. I know some people find it relaxing or even enjoy to practice stuff in training mode, but I guess everyone has different tastes.
For this very reason, I believe that some games should not require you to play in training mode to just be able to translate what you are thinking into what you are doing consistently. Nothing feels as bad as "I have the biggest read on what they are doing, I just need to pull off this motion and I'll get a huge reward" and instead you get a random cr.MP or whatever.
Again, I get that some people are different from others. I'm just saying that the current trend in fighting games is heavily geared towards those who don't feel bad practicing inputs and combos in training mode rather than towards those who just want to play and get better while playing.
Also, I completely agree with your point about being able to express yourself in gameplay. I too feel sad about the removal of FADC (despite never having played SF4, but it was a blast to watch), but I wouldn't have never attempted to try them because I couldn't care enough to spend hours in training mode getting consistent with them. Point is: you don't need complex controls to add complexity to your gameplay. TLA has roman cancels and burst, and those allow for a great deal of player expression as opposed to how little it asks of the player. The one thing I can say for certain is that complex inputs do NOT add player expression to the game, it's mechanics that do that, and nothing stops you from having 1-button FADC in your game if you want to make one.
As far as the thing about FS goes, yeah, I do agree. I LOVE FS, but I eventually stopped playing because the skill ceiling wasn't high enough for me (although top players still could beat my ass). You didn't have many choices at any given time, nor a great deal of mechanics (literally attack, block, throw, no cool cancels nor anything like that). I'm not saying FS is better than SFV, T7, SC or whatever. I'm saying that it is a good step in a great direction for players like myself.
If GGStrive turned out to be FS with more mechanics I'd be EXTREMELY happy to play it. However, the largest fanbase of GG wouldn't, and thus the game would fail horribly, making it impossible for ArcSys to release it in the first place.
"Speed chess" has been done by TLA and SC (according to you, I haven't played it yet but plan to). The "standard" FG has well over hundreds of GOOD entries (if you count any FG that has some sort of execution barrier, you'll probably get well over the tens of thousands, but I do not have a good estimate).
FS isn't even "speed chess" because of how few gameplay options you have, IMHO.
@@leodip97
"My beef with aiming in FPS is that it requires many hours to master"
The argument of motion inputs being "mechanically required to win" is still false.
Separately from that, my 10 year old little brother learned how to do the Heritage for the future timestop,
The Iron man infinite, and the Zangief720.
Anyone complaining about learning motion inputs is weaker than a 10 year old(soon to be 11) lmao
Okay, and just to answer the question of the title of this video:
Because they were made in a time, when game development was still in its infancy and the usual method to make something was to throw shit at wall and see what sticks. Then several bugs that were made features consolidated the genre. And since then the genre didn't really develop at all, only minor changes, they're stuck in an archaic gameplay style, based on frames, animation cancels and very few buffers.
Basically like modern Speedrunning. Like, they also work on their execution of certain skips, animation cancels and whatnot.
I like your points. 🙂
:)