New Evolutions in Fighters?

**Wolffen** · 21 Feb 2003, 11:24 AM

Masaka, that's kind of the idea, in some respects. My goal wasn't so much to alter the dynamics of the fighting genre as much as create fighting game with higher replayability in single-player mode (unless you're drooling at the graphics). Most fighting games get pretty boring in single player mode after awhile. I wanted to change that, as well as allow the player the capability to not just choose a character that matches their style of play, but also make a character for their style as well. It'd still be a logistical nightmare though.

**Masaka** · 21 Feb 2003, 12:24 PM

Andrew your ideas are flawed for several reasons. Based off of what you described on page 4, if I were playing that game, I would sit and wait for the other person to do something, because there's less risk involved. Here's how I picture a round of that game going:

ROUND 1: FIGHT!

*sit*
*sit some more*
*move back and forth*
*throw out some whiffing attacks*
*sit*
*sit*

*repeat ad nauseum*

TIME OVAH.

Because of the emphasis you put on reversals and the ability to get around attacks, the risk/reward for attacking is badly skewed. That's one of the problems with CVS2, and why turtling is so prevelent. It's simply easier and more worthwhile to sit, wait and react to what the other person is doing. What you're proposing would be on the same scale, only multiplied by a factor of 10.

Arjue is right, we can't argue your dislike of motions for doing special moves, although I honestly can't understand it. So we'll leave it at that and move on.

Honestly, the idea doesn't sound very interesting to me. A fighting system based heavily on very simple to execute reversals doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. DOA3 which, yes, places a lot of emphasis on reversals, also didn't appeal to me. Playing the computer is not a healthy indication of what is possible (or broken) in a fighting game. Otherwise the CPU in CVS2 would do nothing but pick Cammy/Blanka/Sagat and throw out fierce.

Lastly, you aren't expressing your ideas very well, especially as they apply to current fighting games. I'm not trying to nitpick, but if you're going to debate about the things you don't like currently, you have to be able to express them correctly.

**Brisco Bold** · 21 Feb 2003, 01:24 PM

I think I posted this before, but my dream for fight games has little to do with the actual intricacies of the fight engine. Rather, I'd prefer a more fulfilling single player experience.

Imagine that instead of having one tournament, you have 11 in different regions of the world. You're invited to one. In order to gain access to new ones you not only have to win other ones, but win them in a spectacular fashion. You'll (literally) be a world warrior, hoping to gain access to the final tournament (the one we usually play from the get go in Street Fighter games).

Battles in specific territories would have announcers spitting in their native toungue and local music blaring through the speakers. Once you beat a tournment, you can unlock the previous champion of said region.

Graphically, I want this bitch to use the same technology as Zelda: Wind Waker. (Not the same artistical style, just the same engine. This way, it'll look like GGXX, or SFIII but can appeal to many because it's 3-D (sorta).

**Drewbacca** · 21 Feb 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by arjue
haha, your idea sounds quite good, especially if you intend it to be a 3d fighter/rpg thing. The only problem I can see is people will end up far too strong to verse newer players properly, hence warding off newer players. Perhaps a class (as in ranking) or ratio system could help that though.

The system rewards skill, yes.

Arjue: Since you just said it can't be addressed, then what's the point.

It's very obvious the whole thread is opinionated. I obviously don't think SF is time based enough for my liking. Infact I don't believe it is time based at all, atleast what my idea of time based is. I believe it's more combo driven, which is the core of its gameplay, which I do not like.

When I ask for a video, I get nothing but dead links in return.

Therein lays the problem. It's not about getting 'pwned, l337 doode!", because how can that even be? Since it's my own opinion of a genre at the moment.

So basically, what everybody is telling me is that streetfighter is timing based. Yet to pull off combos you have to do sophisticated combos (well 'sophisticated' as in longer than I'd like), so any timing for a 'reversal' would be void.

If I punch you and am open by your parry, you have no choice but to perform a button tap rather than an obscure combo due to it taking too long and I'd probably be moved away or blocking but then. This is not a timing based system.

Maybe there's timing based elements, such as the parrying an attack, but swiping away someones punch is not a reversal. It is half way between an block and a dodge. You dodged their punch but also blocked it by swiping it away.
A reversal would be, [AGAIN AS I SAID ABOVE], me doing a spin kick and you turning it into a leg lock. You reversed my move, use my momentum and hit is back double time.

A "COUNTER" is when your opponent is doing a kick or something and you counter it by striking or faltering his attack. You countered the attack, meaning it did not take place. If it took place it wouldn't be a counter.

No, Arjue. You're completely wrong about the term reversal in a fighter. A reversal directly correlates with the attack at hand. If you punch me and I grab your arm and flip you over my back, or vice versa, that's a reversal. Simply dodging and attack and striking isn't a reversal, in the fighting sense. You reversed the momentum of the match, overall, but not a move at hand which is what I want in a videogame.

Yes... programming difficult but smart computers is apart of the AI... if DOA 3 is lacking that then ok. But for whatever reason it's not there. Even when I play it with my friends, neither me nor them pull them off in any sort of clear cut way. There's no set path to perform a reversal and comes off as luck of the draw, which isn't so in a realistic fighter, which I want.

Again, everything I want.

Listen to what you said. It's not an indepth fighter... more like a fight simulation! Yeah because we all know fight simulations are so totally lacking depth. How is being totally immersed in a battle through your fighters and your own skill NOT as immersive. According to members above my fighter is flawed, yet my fighter is like the fighters around today that all have the elements I want, plus BUTTON COMBOS!!!!!!!!!

Greeeat. I didn't give up all my strategies for a fighting game, that would be foolish as I am planning to create it. But just because controls are simplified doesn't mean it lacks depth. How does it lack depth? Because you can't do a super kick through a D, D/F, F, Punch attack? I don't think so. It simply makes a better emphasis on attacks and 'reversals'.

Which is my original statement. I want a fighter with no, or few, button combinations (less reliant on it) and more on a reversal system. A solid wish that could be executed well and because of the simplicity of the control a newbie could pull off moves well, instead of having to spend more time memorizing some patterns.

I don't see how having a debate, is bringing you down. You obviously feel envolked to post, as you did two long ones. As for your analogy.

It's incredibly innacurate. How am I the crawler and they are running? Those are two completely different movements. The proper analogy would be a crawling competition, with my friends having a clear knowledge of how to move quickly across the floor without the use of their limbs, and me having no clue, simply shaking wildly and beating them.

THAT is an accurate analogy because the variables are the same.

I am seriously enjoying this thread. Look how many pages it is. What would you rather be doing? Sitting here saying: "I think they should improve the resolution in fighters" reply: "Yeah, because we always want to get better at fighters."

reply to that: "No way, I want my fighters low rez and blinding!

Instead we have a debate about fighting genre as a whole. Actually it isn't. I simply stated I wanted a fighter to evolve in a different direction.

Originally posted by Masaka
Andrew your ideas are flawed for several reasons. Based off of what you described on page 4, if I were playing that game, I would sit and wait for the other person to do something, because there's less risk involved. Here's how I picture a round of that game going:

ROUND 1: FIGHT!

*sit*
*sit some more*
*move back and forth*
*throw out some whiffing attacks*
*sit*
*sit*

*repeat ad nauseum*

TIME OVAH.

Because of the emphasis you put on reversals and the ability to get around attacks, the risk/reward for attacking is badly skewed. That's one of the problems with CVS2, and why turtling is so prevelent. It's simply easier and more worthwhile to sit, wait and react to what the other person is doing. What you're proposing would be on the same scale, only multiplied by a factor of 10.

Arjue is right, we can't argue your dislike of motions for doing special moves, although I honestly can't understand it. So we'll leave it at that and move on.

Honestly, the idea doesn't sound very interesting to me. A fighting system based heavily on very simple to execute reversals doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. DOA3 which, yes, places a lot of emphasis on reversals, also didn't appeal to me. Playing the computer is not a healthy indication of what is possible (or broken) in a fighting game. Otherwise the CPU in CVS2 would do nothing but pick Cammy/Blanka/Sagat and throw out fierce.

Lastly, you aren't expressing your ideas very well, especially as they apply to current fighting games. I'm not trying to nitpick, but if you're going to debate about the things you don't like currently, you have to be able to express them correctly.

How would there be little risk involved? A fight is ALL about either waiting for a strike or risking your neck and making a move. Have you ever seen a boxing match or any sort of realistic fighting club? You make me question this after a comment like that.

Your incentive to attack your opponent would be the goal of winning for whatever purpose (I won't get into it). Different scenarios, people, plots, etc. would emphasize this.

But at the core of the gameplay you have a fight at the beginning. Maybe you want to try and surprise your opponent with a totally aggressive style by striking repeatedly with stiff kicks and punches all at the same time. Maybe if you tried this one too many times they'd be expecting it and reverse your punch into a toss, or dodge it into a counter of their own. A simple duck and kick to ribs reversal could put you in serious jeopardy.

You also assumed that there would be a time limit. Why would there be a time limit? In a game like this, a more realistic fighter, the goal isn't to beat the clock it's to win, by the means at your disposal (hand to hand, weapons, environment, outlasting your opponent, endurance wise)

About is being skewed. How? You say so but you don't give an accurate example. There's balance. You can go all out, you can play defensive and each can be more, equal or less rewarding depending on your opponents skill, timing, or just good luck for the round.

I don't dislike special moves. I dislike the button combinations that you have to do to perform them. I realize that SF now has the special meter for momentum so you just can't pull them off whenever, but I don't feel its enough and want something more solidly based around reversals.

I may not be the most articulated person, but my point has obviously gotten across with my original post or we wouldn't be 5 pages deep in this, now, would we?

Originally posted by Briscobold
I think I posted this before, but my dream for fight games has little to do with the actual intricacies of the fight engine. Rather, I'd prefer a more fulfilling single player experience.

Imagine that instead of having one tournament, you have 11 in different regions of the world. You're invited to one. In order to gain access to new ones you not only have to win other ones, but win them in a spectacular fashion. You'll (literally) be a world warrior, hoping to gain access to the final tournament (the one we usually play from the get go in Street Fighter games).

Battles in specific territories would have announcers spitting in their native toungue and local music blaring through the speakers. Once you beat a tournment, you can unlock the previous champion of said region.

Graphically, I want this bitch to use the same technology as Zelda: Wind Waker. (Not the same artistical style, just the same engine. This way, it'll look like GGXX, or SFIII but can appeal to many because it's 3-D (sorta).

That seems cool. So it would be 3D in 2D? Like 3D models in a 2D fighting feild? I like the idea of the native tongue and music blaring in the background, alot. It would add alot to atmosphere which is always very good in an epic battle. (i.e. having smoke effects floating through a bar, poorly lit with dirty floors, etc.)

**Masaka** · 21 Feb 2003, 04:21 PM

First off, please learn to differentiate between motions and combos. That's part of what I was talking about earlier, and part of why this conversation has gone on for 5 pages.

1) A dragon punch has a motion. It's F, D, DF + Punch.

2) A combination is connecting 2 seperate moves together (2 normal moves, a normal move and a special move, 2 special moves, whatever), so that if you get hit by the first move of the combo, then the rest will also hit you.

I'm going to assume that when you say something along the lines of "I don't like combos" you mean #1.

That being said, on with the show.

Originally posted by Andrew
Infact I don't believe it is time based at all, atleast what my idea of time based is. I believe it's more combo driven, which is the core of its gameplay, which I do not like.

Without timing, you couldn't *do* anything in SF, and many other games in the genre. If you can't time the motion for F, D, DF + Punch, you can't do a dragon punch. You wouldn't be able to Parry well. In Guilty Gear, you wouldn't be able to use faultless defense, or Roman Cancel. How do you define timing? For me, in this context, its the ability to perform an action within a given window of opportunity.

Can you explain why you don't like motions? It's cool if you can't. If it's just an opinion, then I'll cheerfully agree to disagree and we can all move on. But if you believe that taking away motions will make the game *more* based on timing, that's seriously flawed.

What takes more timing, hiting a single button within a short window, or performing a somewhat simple motion within that same window? By definition, performing the motion would take more timing.

With regards to reversals, they don't exist in the way that you describe in the world of SF. There's no specific animation of Ken grabbing ryu's leg and flipping him over his shoulder. But he can block the hit of the kick, and perform a move that retaliates against Ryu before he recovers. Functionally, isn't that the same thing?

So basically, what everybody is telling me is that streetfighter is timing based. Yet to pull off combos you have to do sophisticated combos (well 'sophisticated' as in longer than I'd like), so any timing for a 'reversal' would be void.

Again, this is part of why this has been going on for 5 pages. How does having to do a motion negate your ability to do reversals?

If I punch you and am open by your parry, you have no choice but to perform a button tap rather than an obscure combo due to it taking too long and I'd probably be moved away or blocking but then. This is not a timing based system.

I'm assuming you're talking about the SF side of the world. After a parry, depending on how hard an attack they used, you can retaliate with a single attack (jab, strong, fierce, take your pick) or a combo (duck forward into a fireball). You could even do a super move if your timing is good enough, or you anticipated what your opponent was going to do.

Soooo, how is this not a timing based system? You have to time your parry, time your counter attack, time your motion.

Keep in mind, you don't have to know tons of motions to be great at Street Fighter. I know top players who can barely do fireball motions.

How would there be little risk involved? A fight is ALL about either waiting for a strike or risking your neck and making a move. Have you ever seen a boxing match or any sort of realistic fighting club? You make me question this after a comment like that.

You're totally missing my point.

I've been going to various fighting game competitions for several years now, and I've been lucky enough to see these games played at their highest level. That's the perspective that I'm coming from.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the best players try do as little as possible in order to win. You find the strategy/move/combo whatever that minimizes the risk to yourself, while giving you the opporutnity to do damage.

With the system you're proposing, any attack that I throw out is subject to a reversal by them simply hitting a button. I'm better off waiting for them to throw something out and simply countering it. I don't even have to worry about getting thrown, because I can counter the throw too!

Fighting games are made up of checks and balances. In Street Fighter, blocking counters constant offense, throwing counters blocking, etc. In your system, what's the balance for reversals? More reversals? What's the answer to somebody who sits and waits for the other person to attack, constantly looking for reversals? Basing a fighting system around something that is so inherently defensive strikes me as working backwards.

You're looking at this from the standpoint of somebody who's never gone beyond the beginner level in a fighting game (based on what you've said) There's nothing wrong with that, but at higher levels of gameplay, the game changes *significantly*. That's the case with every good fighter that exists. Fighters that don't do this, aren't any good.

Again, I'll state that what you're suggesting doesn't interest me. If I want realistic fighting, I'll go to a hockey game. I prefer fighting games that are somewhat over the top. Keep that in mind.

Did you ever play Pit Fighter? This sounds somewhat like that. And I didn't like that either.

You also assumed that there would be a time limit. Why would there be a time limit? In a game like this, a more realistic fighter, the goal isn't to beat the clock it's to win, by the means at your disposal (hand to hand, weapons, environment, outlasting your opponent, endurance wise)

Beat the clock? *boggle*

I assumed there would be a time limit because if there wasn't, I could see these matches lasting forever. You're right though, it would be an test of endurance...to see who can stand the longest at the machine.

About is being skewed. How? You say so but you don't give an accurate example. There's balance. You can go all out, you can play defensive and each can be more, equal or less rewarding depending on your opponents skill, timing, or just good luck for the round.

How can I give an accurate example of something that we're talking about theoretically? I've given you my interpretation of what this system that you're suggesting will pan out to be. My interpretation is based off of my experiences with other fighting games, which is pretty extensive. That's about as accurate as I can get in this situation.

**Drewbacca** · 21 Feb 2003, 04:44 PM

It's not a timing based system because the game still revolves more around its button combos, which I will now, for the sake of clarity, call motions.

If you parry an attack in SF the opponent is open for a brief amount of time, meaning you'd have to begin a certain motion before you even jab him, or while you're jabbing him, which is ridiculous because the animations move so fast.

This is what I don't like about the game and hence why it's not timing based and why button combinations are what I do not like about it. I addressed that there is an element of timing, certainly, but it is not at the core of the gameplay like I wish a game would do.

I dislike motions altogether. I've even said I don't like how you have to press up down left right punch to do a certain move. And I never said to take it out of Street Fighter, never did I suggest this. I said I would like a fighting game to evolve into less revolving around 'motions' or button combinations as I call them.

This is all differences of opinion. I never said you were wrong or that the system was wrong. I said I didn't like it and wanted an alternative as I do enjoy the fighting industry.

Functionally, Ryu blocking and then tossing Ken after kicking is the same thing, but it isn't also. A much more intense and enthralled battle would be attempting to get a hit in and battling over this. Imagine a fighter catching the leg, and tossing the opponent, then the opponent countering the throw by landing on his feet, etc. It is a very enthralling system based on integral reversals.

Without the reversals you simply have blocking or dodging hit, like all fighting games. Again, I want something new and an alternative.

As for the high level issue. It's simply not true. If you waited for them to throw a punch and you reversed it, you could be leaving yourself open for a special move or finishing attack. You can reverse, and counter reversals. You choose how you're going to play.

Also there's the chance that the timing will be differed depending on the rate of attack and the player being thrown totally off. They try to reverse and are struck, try to block another punch at a different rate but because they prematurely blocked the first their groove has been thrown off for a couple of free hits, and vice versa.

Having sophisticated moves as the core of the gameplay negates abilities to do reversals because more of the time is spent pressing the actual motion into the controller then trying to spar and keep on top of your opponents style.

You can like arcade style fighters and this applies to them. Instead of a realistic side kick you can simply implement a fury side kick with the guy shadowing into you with his foot on fire, etc. It would still work the same but the button combinations would be simplified for optimum play.

Again, the gameplay based heavily on reversals, timing and not on button combinations.

It wouldn't be a test of endurance. I'm not talking arcades here, I naturally assumed it be a console hence the PS2 control set up. The matches themselves could figuratively last for as long as you can hold out or as long as your opponent can take your beating. It could, however, end in an instant with a lucky critical kick or such.

Bushido Blade is a great example of a fighter, kind of doing what I imagine.

And as for the example. Just because something is in theory doesn't mean you can't give an example of it, accurately. I did so above. Your experience is based off of the same fighting games I want a game to break free from, so therefore you can probably never understand until I make it.

**MechDeus** · 21 Feb 2003, 07:00 PM

Arjue: I love you.

Functionally, Ryu blocking and then tossing Ken after kicking is the same thing, but it isn't also. A much more intense and enthralled battle would be attempting to get a hit in and battling over this. Imagine a fighter catching the leg, and tossing the opponent, then the opponent countering the throw by landing on his feet, etc. It is a very enthralling system based on integral reversals.

Thank you for explaining that. All you had to say was, "I don't want gameplay in my fighting games, just long animation cycles that revolve around a single button press every couple minutes," and we all would have understood.

You can reverse, and counter reversals.

If you can reverse a reversal, you functionally create an infinite loop that won't be broken out of until one player gets bored.

Having sophisticated moves as the core of the gameplay negates abilities to do reversals because more of the time is spent pressing the actual motion into the controller then trying to spar and keep on top of your opponents style.

You still have yet to explain how sophisticated moves can be done with nothing but two buttons and no motions.

Your experience is based off of the same fighting games I want a game to break free from, so therefore you can probably never understand until I make it.

And if you never understand other games you can't possibly make a game better then them.