I have zero idea what that is, so no lol. I only played a handful of characters, the main thing I don't like about some of the characters is I don't like the attacks where you pull out something then have to do the attack again to throw it, like Link with bombs, Peach with the turnips, etc. Other than Peach I kinda liked Bowser, but I'm not a big fan of his limited up movement for escapes/getting back on the ledge. I figure I should play some more and check out more characters and get basic movement attacks down before anything else.
Fighting Games Weekly | Nov 24-30 | Fighting Geriatrics Community
- Thread starter enzo_gt
- Start date
I have zero idea what that is, so no lol. I only played a handful of characters, the main thing I don't like about some of the characters is I don't like the attacks where you pull out something then have to do the attack again to throw it, like Link with bombs, Peach with the turnips, etc. Other than Peach I kinda liked Bowser, but I'm not a big fan of his limited up movement for escapes/getting back on the ledge. I figure I should play some more and check out more characters and get basic movement attacks down before anything else.
Karsticles
Member
Hold down, then push and hold jump. Voila - the untapped power of Peach at your fingertips.
Coffeeling
Member
That it's fun.
That it is still fun when played with a cutthroat mindset (and doesn't break).
All that's required
WesternHeretic
Member
Everything is competitive.... if you make it. Competitiveness is a mindset.You put two stubborn ass people next to each other and make them compete in anything SF4, Marvel, Tic Tac Toe, Rock Paper Scissors, Thumb War, poker, staring contest.... someone is going to get salty.
I don't see how a game can or can not be competitive by nature. It's the player that makes it competitive.
I don't see how a game can or can not be competitive by nature. It's the player that makes it competitive.
Yeah I agree, he used wave dashing, plinking, bold canceling, timing on combos, etc. as examples of technicality. That technicality depends though, SF2 and ST are legends in the FGC and they weren't the most technical demanding. I remember there was this very difficult fighting game that came out for the SNES that had parries, hitting attacks at the same time to nullify each other, yadda yadda and i forget what else it had. its main thing was about warriors fighting each other.
I don't consider something like "plinking" related to making a game more competitive... it's merely an input bug that is being exploited to make something easier (USF4) or in some cases to make it abusive (UMVC3).
Other things in fighting games are just technical for the sake of being technical and don't add any real depth. Something like Option selects are fancy terms people use to point out technicalities in fighting games but it's actually the opposite... they remove the human choice from the equation and allow the game to pick the best situation for you thus lowering the game's depth.
Most of what your friend stated are execution related elements in fighting game. Your friend is basically saying "if a game is execution heavy then it's competitive". Well MOBAs are no where near as execution heavy as fighting games yet they have a phenomenal amount of depth to them so this is not a big component of what it means to be competitive.
Other things in fighting games are just technical for the sake of being technical and don't add any real depth. Something like Option selects are fancy terms people use to point out technicalities in fighting games but it's actually the opposite... they remove the human choice from the equation and allow the game to pick the best situation for you thus lowering the game's depth.
Most of what your friend stated are execution related elements in fighting game. Your friend is basically saying "if a game is execution heavy then it's competitive". Well MOBAs are no where near as execution heavy as fighting games yet they have a phenomenal amount of depth to them so this is not a big component of what it means to be competitive.
Karsticles
Member
I made this post in OT, and I reminded me of how much I love talking with you all:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=140946472&postcount=179
Thanksgiving, and all that.
If greater technicality makes a game competitively superior, then is a character with less of those features competitively inferior by default? In other words, is Hulk inherently inferior to Dante as a competitive character? Hopefully, he understands that is a ridiculous position to take. If he does, then can he explain why the standard is different between games and characters within games?
Basically, use Socratic reasoning, and force him to explain things that make no sense until he shuts up.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=140946472&postcount=179
Thanksgiving, and all that.
Question for him:
If greater technicality makes a game competitively superior, then is a character with less of those features competitively inferior by default? In other words, is Hulk inherently inferior to Dante as a competitive character? Hopefully, he understands that is a ridiculous position to take. If he does, then can he explain why the standard is different between games and characters within games?
Basically, use Socratic reasoning, and force him to explain things that make no sense until he shuts up.
Yeah I was about to bring up this point... even within a singular game there are characters who basically don't have plink dash, don't have bold cancelling etc... are they competitively inferior? It would be like claiming that Wolverine is an inferior competitive character to Magneto because Magneto has stuff like plink air dash Magnetic Blasts and Wolverine doesn't. Yes Magneto is a much more technical character than Wolverine because of these elements but he's not much more competitive than Wolverine (they are about around the same even if Magneto is a bit higher).Question for him:
If greater technicality makes a game competitively superior, then is a character with less of those features competitively inferior by default? In other words, is Hulk inherently inferior to Dante as a competitive character? Hopefully, he understands that is a ridiculous position to take. If he does, then can he explain why the standard is different between games and characters within games?
Basically, use Socratic reasoning, and force him to explain things that make no sense until he shuts up.
I think greater technicality more often than not ends up making a game competitively inferior, because the technicality often is something that is not taken into account by developers, and imbalances the game.
Developers who understand high-level play better do a much better job at handling this (see Skullgirls as an example of this)
Also reducing setplay as much as possible helps. VF has very little setplay and its arguably the most competitive FG ever.
As for Xrd, ZERO interest in it because I hate Guilty Gear more than any other series, but I think it will be anime's SF4. It will do very well, and I won't be shocked if it sells 7 figures.
Developers who understand high-level play better do a much better job at handling this (see Skullgirls as an example of this)
Also reducing setplay as much as possible helps. VF has very little setplay and its arguably the most competitive FG ever.
As for Xrd, ZERO interest in it because I hate Guilty Gear more than any other series, but I think it will be anime's SF4. It will do very well, and I won't be shocked if it sells 7 figures.
This certainly shed some light.
I made this post in OT, and I reminded me of how much I love talking with you all:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=140946472&postcount=179
Thanksgiving, and all that.
Question for him:
If greater technicality makes a game competitively superior, then is a character with less of those features competitively inferior by default? In other words, is Hulk inherently inferior to Dante as a competitive character? Hopefully, he understands that is a ridiculous position to take. If he does, then can he explain why the standard is different between games and characters within games?
Basically, use Socratic reasoning, and force him to explain things that make no sense until he shuts up.
This is very sound. I'll tell you another discussion I had with him, he said Melee only has two viable characters, Marth and Fox. Even though there many top players that play different characters, he said those are exceptions and the scene is mostly dominated by the two most powerful characters. It got to the point where I needed someone in a three way call for a 2 hour conversation so he could stop being stubborn and actually listen to what he's saying. Still love him to death like a brother but he honestly has no clue what he's saying sometimes.
This is a very good point, as Karst put as well, but he'll just say "Oh its about the game as a whole, not individual characters." It just gets worse and worse from here on out, I know how the guy thinks and how to find the flaw in his logic but he doesn't give in until he hears it from somebody else.
Anne said this earlier, have no clue what setplay is. I think I would understand your point if I knew what setplay was...
vortex, safe jump setups, etc. I think...
Setplay is what it sounds like: "set play," i.e., situations where you're doing something according to flowchart or whatever without regard to your opponent (little to no interaction with your opponent, i.e., no footsies/neutral game happening). Examples (I think) would be vortex characters in AE2012, a Zero team in marvel once they've landed a hit, etc.
So your gameplan for when you have a certain situation arising? Makes more sense now.
Karsticles
Member
One of the things that always surprises me is when a developer says "oh, we left that in because we didn't think anyone would be able to do it consistently". The competitive community is consistently undermined in their dedication.
Yams, I get the feeling that you approach this argument from the wrong perspective. You are trying to prove his point wrong, but you don't need to. He needs to prove his point is correct. Instead of providing arguments against him, force him to explain himself and cover all of his bases first. The phrase "Explain why for me" cannot be overused here, and it's the appropriate response to "Oh it's about the game as a whole, not individual characters". Making his argument coherent is his problem, not yours.
Also, my memory is horrible with these things, but didn't Melee Evo have a Jiggs in GF this year? Easy argument to win there.
Edit: Yeah, here we go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oime4m6suCo
He's objectively wrong on that point.
Hey, maybe get him a GAF account just so we can tear him apart here. :-D
Set play is short for "set up play". It means you get a knockdown then run crazy 50/50 or 1/4 or whatever set up that is massively in your favor, if it hits you get another knockdown and then you just loop the set ups.
It's probably the greatest thing ever.
Examples: Millia, Chie, Narukami, Rachel, Sakura pre Ultra, Ibuki, Cammy
It's probably the greatest thing ever.
Examples: Millia, Chie, Narukami, Rachel, Sakura pre Ultra, Ibuki, Cammy
Despite that, a lot of people secretly want set play (outside of VF community at least), even if a lot of us think setplay can get really dumb.
Setplay is things like vortexes where the offensive player gets to play mixup for free and the other guy can't really do squat about it.
I'd argue long combos are also setplay. Also, in some cases, option selects.
SNK folks don't like setplay much either. (SNK games tend to have much less in the way of setplay than other 2d games)
There is no secret, I love setplay. If I could just unplug your controller and laugh at you instead I would.
That's what I said, response was "Oh he's the only player in the scene so he's an exception."
You do not know how much hair I attempt to pull off of my head and I have really short hair.
It's a solid competitive game in spite of the setplay because it does many things well and a few things poorly.
Karsticles
Member
My dislike for the mindlessness of setplay is offset by my love of winning. Every Firebrand unblockable is accompanied by a cringe of delight.
Maybe, depends on the crowd. KoF XI players love setplay. Wouldn't be surprised if Iori players did too just because of hard knockdown off rekkas.
Anne I never knew you would be so evil. Do you have an evil laugh?
I expected you to have very long flowing hair. Thanks for breaking dreams, yams.
One of my favorite topics.
Problem is that people are often desperate to tier unqualified "competitiveness" using mechanics; largely because they want whatever game they currently play to sit somewhere near the top. The degree of competitiveness should be determined by the number of players in the competitive pool - that's it. 10 million people skipping rocks competitively would be a more competitive game than the World Cup series.
That said, I do believe competitive games can be more or less qualified as "good" or "bad" when evaluating how well their mechanics emphasize valued competitive aspects like player separation and skill maturation. A game that keeps player separation generally low, with a low ceiling for skills development, is a lower quality competitive game than one that offers the contrary, when they're related to one another. This allows for more decisive wins/losses and room for less linear expansion of strategies and tactics.
Ultra < Super Turbo, Brawl/SmashWiiu < Melee, Rock Throwing < Football etc. etc.
"Technicality" in fighters is an ambiguous term typically referring to some combination of arcane tactics (typically resulting from glitches) and high actions per minute/second, but none of that stuff is intrinsic to keeping skill gaps large between players.
Speaking of Smash WiiU, I watched ESAM and Nickriddle during grand finals tonight at Versus Gaming. They made 1v1 look pretty fun. hmmm....
Problem is that people are often desperate to tier unqualified "competitiveness" using mechanics; largely because they want whatever game they currently play to sit somewhere near the top. The degree of competitiveness should be determined by the number of players in the competitive pool - that's it. 10 million people skipping rocks competitively would be a more competitive game than the World Cup series.
That said, I do believe competitive games can be more or less qualified as "good" or "bad" when evaluating how well their mechanics emphasize valued competitive aspects like player separation and skill maturation. A game that keeps player separation generally low, with a low ceiling for skills development, is a lower quality competitive game than one that offers the contrary, when they're related to one another. This allows for more decisive wins/losses and room for less linear expansion of strategies and tactics.
Ultra < Super Turbo, Brawl/SmashWiiu < Melee, Rock Throwing < Football etc. etc.
"Technicality" in fighters is an ambiguous term typically referring to some combination of arcane tactics (typically resulting from glitches) and high actions per minute/second, but none of that stuff is intrinsic to keeping skill gaps large between players.
Speaking of Smash WiiU, I watched ESAM and Nickriddle during grand finals tonight at Versus Gaming. They made 1v1 look pretty fun. hmmm....
You had dreams of me? I don't know whether I should be flattered or scared...
I think I'll use the argument for skill development. What would you regard as skills in a fighting game? Godlike neutral game? Good pokes? Combos? Reading players? Patience?
If I ever meet you (or any fightingGAF) I want to hear you laugh :V
I just thought that you were a majestic yam with a full set of long hair on a horse. Now it's just a yam on a horse. Also you look like cloud.
Sounds hot. NGBC had the weird tetris set ups, and incoming mix up where you just stood in a spot and hit a button and it was a true 50/50. If you used old man powers you might accidentally kill them.
I might bully my way on stream at NEC for anime commentary, particularly Persona.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
I like AnneI in that match-up, if only because you would end up dropping everything. Now the question is if you're really dropping those combos or if they're really sneaky resets (or both?!?).
We should just go full scumbag and bust out the EFZ setups. That game makes UMvC3 look tame.
Karsticles
Member
Now I want to hear how goofy AnnelFrank sounds.
It's not exciting, just hella deep and hella lacking enunciation.
The game where midscreen stops existing after round start \o/
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Street Fighter 1 is your favorite fighting game I bet
I'm assuming that horse is Horseress, right? Actually, whatever happened to him? Don't tell me he got retroed ;_;
Looking forward to it!
Edit: Even better that it was the Yayoi puchimas.
The best puchi.
JeTmAn81
Member
Weaponlord? I remember that one being pretty notably complex at the time.
AllenWinss
Neo Member
This is BakedYams "stubborn friend/brother". Sounds like you guys have only heard one side of the story where BakedYams completely misses my point and makes it seem like I'm trying to defend a stupid line of reasoning...
At no point did I say that Speed and technicality are the ONLY things that make a game competitive. That thought is clearly flawed in many ways. There are obviously many facets to a fighting game like reading moves, controlling space, and mind games.
My argument was that some of the most popular and longest lasting fighting games have had facets of gameplay such as speed and technicality that were ESSENTIAL to their success. I based my argument on three of the most popular fighting games that have either A) lasted a very long time as a popular fighting game or B) Drew in the most crowds at tournament level ... Super Smash Bros. Melee(Released in 2001) and the Marvel vs. Capcom 2(released in 2000), MVC3/UMVC3(released in 2011). It is no secret that on major tournament streams, these three fighting titans draw in the masses and are still heavily played at major tournament level. Although not so much MVC2 these days... But it still lasted 11 years on the major tournament scene until we saw mvc3.
I personally came to love the FGC because of these games. They were aesthetically pleasing to me and there were techniques that separated the good from the rest. Most importantly they were FAST; fun to look at. It was these specific factors that caught my interest. And many who I have spoken to have shared the same thoughts regarding these games.
I do not downplay any competitive fighting game because it does not appeal to me. It is no less competitive than the next fighting game. Competition after all, is a frame of mind. What I do believe is that there is a recipe for excellent fighting games that will last a long time. I believe that recipe includes things like Advanced techniques, Speed and Aesthetics.
Again, I repeat, some of the greatest fighting games of all time have had these facets of gameplay. I believe they were essential to their success and without advanced techniques(technicalities) and speed they may not have had the same amount of success and longevity that they currently have. Because of this, I believe that in order to create a fun, long lasting game, that creates skilled players and separates them from the rest, you'll need these facets.
Btw this whole argument started because I said I like PM and Melee more than Brawl and sm4sh.
And to the thing BakedYams said about me arguing that melee only had two viable characters. I take it back... Melee only has ONE viable character #ALLHAILFOX #USMASHFORDAYS
At no point did I say that Speed and technicality are the ONLY things that make a game competitive. That thought is clearly flawed in many ways. There are obviously many facets to a fighting game like reading moves, controlling space, and mind games.
My argument was that some of the most popular and longest lasting fighting games have had facets of gameplay such as speed and technicality that were ESSENTIAL to their success. I based my argument on three of the most popular fighting games that have either A) lasted a very long time as a popular fighting game or B) Drew in the most crowds at tournament level ... Super Smash Bros. Melee(Released in 2001) and the Marvel vs. Capcom 2(released in 2000), MVC3/UMVC3(released in 2011). It is no secret that on major tournament streams, these three fighting titans draw in the masses and are still heavily played at major tournament level. Although not so much MVC2 these days... But it still lasted 11 years on the major tournament scene until we saw mvc3.
I personally came to love the FGC because of these games. They were aesthetically pleasing to me and there were techniques that separated the good from the rest. Most importantly they were FAST; fun to look at. It was these specific factors that caught my interest. And many who I have spoken to have shared the same thoughts regarding these games.
I do not downplay any competitive fighting game because it does not appeal to me. It is no less competitive than the next fighting game. Competition after all, is a frame of mind. What I do believe is that there is a recipe for excellent fighting games that will last a long time. I believe that recipe includes things like Advanced techniques, Speed and Aesthetics.
Again, I repeat, some of the greatest fighting games of all time have had these facets of gameplay. I believe they were essential to their success and without advanced techniques(technicalities) and speed they may not have had the same amount of success and longevity that they currently have. Because of this, I believe that in order to create a fun, long lasting game, that creates skilled players and separates them from the rest, you'll need these facets.
Btw this whole argument started because I said I like PM and Melee more than Brawl and sm4sh.
And to the thing BakedYams said about me arguing that melee only had two viable characters. I take it back... Melee only has ONE viable character #ALLHAILFOX #USMASHFORDAYS
"God's Beard!"
Member
That post you linked to really resonates with me, Karst. I love traveling around for tournaments because I'm guaranteed to meet like-minded people. I always wind up going to dinner with people whose names I don't even know but it doesn't matter. I split hotel rooms with people I've never met before. Enjoying an afternoon with people who share your hobby is way more fun than actually playing the games. When I play fighting games with people who don't care on any real level, there's a kind of loneliness that makes me sad to play.
That's one of the reasons I host the GAF EVO meet up every year I go. I like being around friends, and it's really easy to think of the fgc that way. The MTG community is a little more supressed, but I'm starting to make my way there as well.
Hell, I even got my ass beat on Jojo's for years in the GGPO lobbies, but the ability to share my favorite game with the other three people in the US that care was a precious experience.
That's one of the reasons I host the GAF EVO meet up every year I go. I like being around friends, and it's really easy to think of the fgc that way. The MTG community is a little more supressed, but I'm starting to make my way there as well.
Hell, I even got my ass beat on Jojo's for years in the GGPO lobbies, but the ability to share my favorite game with the other three people in the US that care was a precious experience.
Karsticles
Member
Well damn, Yams, what do you have to say to that?
[QUOTE="God's Beard!";140956987]That post you linked to really resonates with me, Karst. I love traveling around for tournaments because I'm guaranteed to meet like-minded people. I always wind up going to dinner with people whose names I don't even know but it doesn't matter. I split hotel rooms with people I've never met before. Enjoying an afternoon with people who share your hobby is way more fun than actually playing the games. When I play fighting games with people who don't care on any real level, there's a kind of loneliness that makes me sad to play.
That's one of the reasons I host the GAF EVO meet up every year I go. I like being around friends, and it's really easy to think of the fgc that way. The MTG community is a little more supressed, but I'm starting to make my way there as well.
Hell, I even got my ass beat on Jojo's for years in the GGPO lobbies, but the ability to share my favorite game with the other three people in the US that care was a precious experience.[/QUOTE]
I hope I get to attend GAF Evo this year just for this reason.
I was really interested when my brother-in-law bought MK9. I thought "oh cool, we can bond over this". After he owned it for a month, we played some matches. I had never touched the game before, so I took half an hour in training mode before we started to learn the controls. I picked Sub-Zero, and while I lost my first three matches (I think), I never lost again after that. Then he sold the game because he "discovered" that he didn't like it anymore.
My other brother-in-law and I had a similar experience. He said he loved fighting games, and loves Tekken. So we played T6. I didn't know what the hell was going on, and why I kept rolling on the floor instead of getting up while he kicked the crap out of me, and he wouldn't tell me, either. He just kept laughing as I lost. Eventually, I figured out how to get up after getting hit, and I learned a few ABC combos with Devil Jin. I never lost again, and he stopped asking me to play.
It's so damn frustrating.
[QUOTE="God's Beard!";140956987]That post you linked to really resonates with me, Karst. I love traveling around for tournaments because I'm guaranteed to meet like-minded people. I always wind up going to dinner with people whose names I don't even know but it doesn't matter. I split hotel rooms with people I've never met before. Enjoying an afternoon with people who share your hobby is way more fun than actually playing the games. When I play fighting games with people who don't care on any real level, there's a kind of loneliness that makes me sad to play.
That's one of the reasons I host the GAF EVO meet up every year I go. I like being around friends, and it's really easy to think of the fgc that way. The MTG community is a little more supressed, but I'm starting to make my way there as well.
Hell, I even got my ass beat on Jojo's for years in the GGPO lobbies, but the ability to share my favorite game with the other three people in the US that care was a precious experience.[/QUOTE]
I hope I get to attend GAF Evo this year just for this reason.
I was really interested when my brother-in-law bought MK9. I thought "oh cool, we can bond over this". After he owned it for a month, we played some matches. I had never touched the game before, so I took half an hour in training mode before we started to learn the controls. I picked Sub-Zero, and while I lost my first three matches (I think), I never lost again after that. Then he sold the game because he "discovered" that he didn't like it anymore.
My other brother-in-law and I had a similar experience. He said he loved fighting games, and loves Tekken. So we played T6. I didn't know what the hell was going on, and why I kept rolling on the floor instead of getting up while he kicked the crap out of me, and he wouldn't tell me, either. He just kept laughing as I lost. Eventually, I figured out how to get up after getting hit, and I learned a few ABC combos with Devil Jin. I never lost again, and he stopped asking me to play.
It's so damn frustrating.
Similar threads
- Poll