Support NeoGAF

[Master Milk]

What's your PSN?

 

[Korigama]

summerdrone

 

[Prototype-03]

Hey . . . GAF . . . where you at?

Sorry... been busy with other stuff so haven't been able to play a lot of anything lately. Hopefully I can get back on track again soon.

 

[Master Milk]

Went 25-35 against Korigama. Goog games, yo. That was a fun session. We've definitely gotta do it again.

Now, to the untrained eye, that might not seem so bad, but I can guarantee it was indeed a terrible performance by me.

Sorry... been busy with other stuff so haven't been able to play a lot of anything lately. Hopefully I can get back on track again soon.

It'd probably just be me getting slaughtered anyway, so no real loss I suppose.

 

[Korigama]

Went 25-35 against Korigama. Goog games, yo. That was a fun session. We've definitely gotta do it again.

Now, to the untrained eye, that might not seem so bad, but I can guarantee it was indeed a terrible performance by me.

Good games, it was a lot of fun. In all fairness, I was way behind for a while (I still suck too much with Valkenhayn to play him over Tsubaki, and even then it took a while for me to shake off the rust with her; still way out of practice with Noel, and I don't even know what I was doing with Lambda). Your Platinum's still much better than any of the ones I've had a chance to play against so far (there were only a few of those, and they still seemed too new at using her to be particularly effective).

 

[sixteen-bit]

Anyone read this recent interview with Mori? Sounds like BB vs GG won't be happening.

 

[darkblade77]

Honestly, I'm glad. I'd much rather see them dedicate time to one franchise or the other rather than try and vet a crossover right now.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

why does no one play this game? u_u

Here's my perspective as someone who recently bought the game and had not played GG or any of the other "air dash-y anime fighters" before:

1. The anime style is off-putting, though not nearly as much as it is in Arcana Heart. It's somewhat more difficult for me to process all of the visual information compared to non-anime games. Not anywhere close to a deal-breaker, though. Fighting games are collectively some of the least appealing in terms of visual design to me.

2. The way inputs buffer, particularly in terms of how combos flow is awkward. I far prefer the you-press-it-you-see-it approach of SF to games that allow for more delay.

3. The number of gameplay systems is ridiculous. The mechanics are interesting and I generally get the idea of how they work together, but I'm not at all convinced that the game is better because of them. It feels like Mechanic Z is here to balance Mechanic Y which was created to balance Mechanic X, etc.

For what it's worth, I think all of these criticisms - style, inputs, systems - could be fairly made about the current Capcom fighters that I prefer or in regard to VF, MK, etc. Modern fighting games are complicated and require a large time commitment, particularly for someone new to the genre. BB is about as far from accessible as a console game gets nowadays.

 

[sixteen-bit]

edit: wrong thread

 

[Prototype-03]

Here's my perspective as someone who recently bought the game and had not played GG or any of the other "air dash-y anime fighters" before:

1. The anime style is off-putting, though not nearly as much as it is in Arcana Heart. It's somewhat more difficult for me to process all of the visual information compared to non-anime games. Not anywhere close to a deal-breaker, though. Fighting games are collectively some of the least appealing in terms of visual design to me.

2. The way inputs buffer, particularly in terms of how combos flow is awkward. I far prefer the you-press-it-you-see-it approach of SF to games that allow for more delay.

3. The number of gameplay systems is ridiculous. The mechanics are interesting and I generally get the idea of how they work together, but I'm not at all convinced that the game is better because of them. It feels like Mechanic Z is here to balance Mechanic Y which was created to balance Mechanic X, etc.

For what it's worth, I think all of these criticisms - style, inputs, systems - could be fairly made about the current Capcom fighters that I prefer or in regard to VF, MK, etc. Modern fighting games are complicated and require a large time commitment, particularly for someone new to the genre. BB is about as far from accessible as a console game gets nowadays.

1. Yes, some people have an aversion for japanese characters just like how there's aversion of the typical bald space marine but not as many, so I could understand why people wouldn't like it.

2. I don't think there's a button buffer in BB, but there are input buffers. You NEED buffers to work in fighters (yes, all fighters have them... some are more lenient than others). BB has no auto corrects or shortcuts though.

3. To be honest, the mechanics make way more sense than SF4 and MvC3. Both the ultra and x-factor rewards you for losing. I agree it's a complicated mechanic and there's much to learn but doesn't mean that it's bad or even broken.

I think the main problem is that a lot of people see the ANIMU FIGHTER and think it's just a broken game with a lot of fan service. BB is a legit fighter that takes a lot of time to learn.

edit: I also agree it's not a fighter for everyone. SF4 hit the right margin where it's easy enough for someone to do decently, but hard enough for pros to get into it. I don't think that it's the best game out there but it sure put fighters on the map.

 

[QisTopTier]

I think the main problem is that a lot of people see the ANIMU FIGHTER and think it's just a broken game with a lot of fan service. BB is a legit fighter that takes a lot of time to learn.

This should of been established with GG that OMG LOL ANIMU FIGHTER IS BROKEN. Is simply false. Hell current CS2 balance shits all over mvc3 and ssf4AE.

 

[sixteen-bit]

This should of been established with GG that OMG LOL ANIMU FIGHTER IS BROKEN. Is simply false. Hell current CS2 balance shits all over mvc3 and ssf4AE.

Someone made a joke that at Evo Finals, they'll be broadcasting games in order from least to most broken.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

3. To be honest, the mechanics make way more sense than SF4 and MvC3. Both the ultra and x-factor rewards you for losing. I agree it's a complicated mechanic and there's much to learn but doesn't mean that it's bad or even broken.

I'd say that SFIV and MvC3 are both guilty of having too many mechanics as well, many of which are wildly unintuitive.

In that interview above, there's some musing about stripping away all of the systems in a future fighting game - that's something I'd love to see! I've said it before and still believe it to be true: I don't think it's a coincidence that fighting games were at their mainstream peak in the SFII days (WW through HF), which is when the games were far simpler. Developers have basically spent the last 15ish years differentiating their titles by becoming more and more complicated with each iteration. I don't think that's necessarily resulted in more depth or a fundamentally more interesting experience.

It would be fascinating to me if SFV or the next Arc game was no more complicated than Hyper Fighting in terms of systems and combos. Granted, I don't want to see every franchise do this, but I'd kill to see what a developer could do by combining that sort of design restraint with 20 years of knowledge about how to balance these games.

 

[QisTopTier]

I'd say that SFIV and MvC3 are both guilty of having too many mechanics as well, many of which are wildly unintuitive.

In that interview above, there's some musing about stripping away all of the systems in a future fighting game - that's something I'd love to see! I've said it before and still believe it to be true: I don't think it's a coincidence that fighting games were at their mainstream peak in the SFII days (WW through HF), which is when the games were far simpler. Developers have basically spent the last 15ish years differentiating their titles by becoming more and more complicated with each iteration. I don't think that's necessarily resulted in more depth or a fundamentally more interesting experience.

It would be fascinating to me if SFV or the next Arc game was no more complicated than Hyper Fighting in terms of systems and combos. Granted, I don't want to see every franchise do this, but I'd kill to see what a developer could do by combining that sort of design restraint with 20 years of knowledge about how to balance these games.

You know the cool thing about games? They are still around after you play them! Go back and play sf2 if you really want it that badly. SF4 has hardly any mechanics at all, it's a downgrade from the sf3 series and the alpha series as far as that is concerned. Arcsys will prob never make a stale fighter in that sense because they believe having more options available makes the fights more interesting to the players and Blazblue still isn't even as deep or complex as Guilty Gear!

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

You know the cool thing about games? They are still around after you play them! Go back and play sf2 if you really want it that badly.

Remember where I posted that I'd like to see a new game that combined intentionally scaled-back mechanics with the accumulated years of knowledge about balance? Like, in the post you quoted? Yeah, I can't get that with SFII.

SF4 has hardly any mechanics at all, it's a downgrade from the sf3 series and the alpha series as far as that is concerned.

I'll assume we're using "mechanics" and "gameplay systems" interchangeably here. SFIV has more gameplay systems than SFIII or the Alpha series! Some of them are more convoluted for no apparent reason, even. The focus attack system, for example, is way more complicated than alpha counters or parrying, albeit easier to utilize at the most basic level. Parries, in particular, are brain-dead easy to understand. You can parry any move in SFIII if you guess right and execute. Focus attacks are flat-out esoteric. There are a ton of exceptions for what's focusable and the effects of your focus change based on when you release it. Then you throw in FADCs, Ultras, a counter hit system that changes frame advantage . . . SFIV is overloaded with gameplay systems/mechanics, if anything.

I'd argue the "downgrade" in SFIV is those large reversal windows and jackass input shortcuts, not the number of mechanics it has.

Arcsys will prob never make a stale fighter in that sense because they believe having more options available makes the fights more interesting to the players and Blazblue still isn't even as deep or complex as Guilty Gear!

I don't see that these extra systems and additional options inherently make the fights more interesting, though. Viscant had a post that touches on this idea that those "stale" fighters were deeper than they looked and the number of gameplay systems/mechanics is not a meaningful indicator of depth (note: I'm not quoting this to take a shot at parries, rather this is an example of how the addition of a system-wide option can actually remove options):

This is the huge problem with threads like this. Parry defenders are basically in this to the death and completely unable to grasp the concepts being discussed. A lot of this has to do with 2-D history. I find that the most fervent parry defenders are the people who either weren't around during the heyday of 2-D fighting or were never really upper level enough to understand the depth. The reason that 2-D fighting was such a successful genre is because it's something that seems simple on the surface and everyone can understand and learn the basics in a few minutes, but it takes a long time to truly master the intricacies. How am I supposed to argue this if people not only don't understand the advanced part of the game...but actually refuse to acknowledge it's existence! It would be funny if it weren't tragic.
Anyways, before we go any further, I want people to answer these questions. Agree or disagree.

1) Parry reduces the variety of character types available in a game.
2) Parry reduces the level of mind games.
3) Parry is a good thing for game balance. Use examples from NG, 2i, 3s and CvS2 all P groove.
4) Parry is safer than previous ways to break traps (reversals, laying down, rolling)

Answer these honestly. If you come to the correct answers and still think that parry is a good thing then I have no idea what to tell you.


You want an example of different layers of mind games that other games have that 3s can't because of the parry? All right. Let's say we're playing ST. Blanka vs. Vega (ironically, both of these characters couldn't exist in 3s anyways), both characters have charged meter. Blanka has a small lead, about 10%. There are about 30 seconds left in the match. Let's say in this situation, Blanka is walking forward and Vega reacts to that with jab roll. Blanka blocks and this pushes him about 3/4 screen from the corner. Vega does low jab xx KKK. If Blanka jumps forward or walks forward I do super and he's about 80/20 going to eat it and most of the 20 he's going to eat claw swipe. If he hops back, I do super to the far wall to break his charge and he's about 85/15 to eat the super and again most of the 15 he's going to eat claw swipe. If you do ball, I have a charge built up and will flip kick combo you. If he sits still, I can slide and push him back towards the corner in which case I'm going to corner guard him and he really has little shot at the match from this position since all my throw ticks are now in play and his reversal (blanka ball) becomes unsafe.
Now, I wrote this scenario carefully. There is a very critical mistake Blanka made in this scenario. Do you see what it was? What could he have done in this situation to avoid a very very bad position? Failing that and this played out the way it did anyways, what is your move?

This is an example of a multi-layered mind game. I did a move (jab roll) to set up a scenario many moves in advance taking into account all factors including position, time, health, meter to hopefully set up a scenario where I'd have a good chance to win the fight. Now in a situation with parry, none of this is available because Blanka could parry the low jab. If you know Vega's character design, the only high move that could reach Blanka from that position after a claw roll is a low claw poke or stand fierce. You could "guess" low and react block to high (and even if your reactions are awful and you get hit, you're still slightly leading). A multi-level game involving position is basically useless due to the parry (and this is presuming you didn't parry the jab claw roll in the first place).

I like how you consider 3s mindgames "deep" when we've already concretely established that they can go no further than "I thought you were gonna do this but you did that and I was surprised". Green Eggs and Ham for the Nobel Prize in Literature, eh?

"Point taken to an extent, but the pedestal you place parrying on is ill built. The sheer risk of a parry alot of the time makes it smarter to just ****ing block, though the number of mid level players who think they have to try and parry everything is alarming. Parry -> damage does not decide entire matches for a start. No 100% damage combos here. And as long as that's the case and the chance of ****ing up is high, fishing for random parries is risky and self defeating."

Please explain how attempting to parry is riskier than a previous avoidance option. Most of the time trying to parry is actually almost zero risk, especially when you buffer them into fast moves that combo into heavy damage like CvS2 Cammy/Kyo/Yamazaki/Sagat. Interestingly enough, those are 4 of the about 7 characters that would completely dominate a game like that were it all P groove. Imagine that!

"Clearly we don't disagree on the fact that they're dying because they don't sell, which makes me wonder about your passion for argument.

But you're saying that at the same time that people think that all fighting games are the same, while lambasting people for enjoying something different.

So saying "SF is dead because you like parrying" is an argument on the level of "Daddy drinks because you cry." "

God no. Please for the love of God, start to read!
This genre is dead because even the fans of the genre have become unable to differentiate the different levels of mindgames and thus have little need for new games since they never actually get to experience them. Or in your case, completely denying that they even exist at all! For example, why buy a Ferrari if you're only going to drive to the market for milk. In your case, you're completely denying that a car can go over 15 mph, so your Geo Metro is good enough. You can like your Geo all you want, just don't claim that it can match the Ferrari in performance, when anyone with a brain can see the inferiorities.

An example of this is CFJ, the last "majro" Capcom 2-D fighting game made. How many people actually explored that game? How many people actually figured out who dominated that game and why? Not very many. People played it for a couple weeks, saw a couple of week 1 videos and instantly claimed that Jedah broke the game and that it was "all the same as we'd seen before".
Why make any more 2-D fighting games if even the "true fans" aren't going to take the time to understand it and play it. When even these hardcore fans don't understand that it's NOT the same thing they'd seen before. If you aren't going to take the time to digest the differences (or in your case even acknowledge them) then the genre really is dead because in everyone's made up minds, there's nothing new to see.

The fact that you can't even understand this is depressing. Answer the 4 questions I wrote above anyways just for my amusement, then please try to defend parry in light of your answers.

--Jay Snyder
Viscant@aol.com

 

[Master Milk]

Anyone read this recent interview with Mori? Sounds like BB vs GG won't be happening.

Good. It would have sucked anyway. I want another GG, not some stupid crossover.

*

You took way too words to say "ANIMU" and "It's too haaaaaaaard."

 

[QisTopTier]

stuff

You do realize that all the stuff he was talking about in that article still does apply to BB and GG right? Even though they have even more little things added in to make it more complex. So the bolded part would actually be longer.

As for the SF4 stuff, you are looking into it to deeply. It's honestly a lot more simpler than that when it comes to winning. *no I prob wont beat much people right now I haven't played in fucking ages* But I do have a very good grasp of the system.

 

[alstein]

Here's my perspective as someone who recently bought the game and had not played GG or any of the other "air dash-y anime fighters" before:

1. The anime style is off-putting, though not nearly as much as it is in Arcana Heart. It's somewhat more difficult for me to process all of the visual information compared to non-anime games. Not anywhere close to a deal-breaker, though. Fighting games are collectively some of the least appealing in terms of visual design to me.

2. The way inputs buffer, particularly in terms of how combos flow is awkward. I far prefer the you-press-it-you-see-it approach of SF to games that allow for more delay.

3. The number of gameplay systems is ridiculous. The mechanics are interesting and I generally get the idea of how they work together, but I'm not at all convinced that the game is better because of them. It feels like Mechanic Z is here to balance Mechanic Y which was created to balance Mechanic X, etc.

For what it's worth, I think all of these criticisms - style, inputs, systems - could be fairly made about the current Capcom fighters that I prefer or in regard to VF, MK, etc. Modern fighting games are complicated and require a large time commitment, particularly for someone new to the genre. BB is about as far from accessible as a console game gets nowadays.

I think you got some points, though I do think Blazblue's 5 frame link input buffer is the best thing created this gen, and something SF4 needed

The real issue I think is that game developers are afraid to have their games stand on their own merits, so they add gimmicks. SF4 would have been great without the added crap.

 

[Fugu]

Long Article

I've got to say, I think this is a pretty poor argument and an oversimplification of the influence that parrying has on mindgames. That it makes it more difficult to control the position of an opposing player by making is not tantamount to downplaying the importance of positioning. And his argument that parrying is an intrinsically safe option because characters can option select/react into jabs or a high block is more an argument against the risk-reward proposition of fast moves than it is against parrying; it also makes a large assumption about spacing.

Here's my perspective as someone who recently bought the game and had not played GG or any of the other "air dash-y anime fighters" before:

1. The anime style is off-putting, though not nearly as much as it is in Arcana Heart. It's somewhat more difficult for me to process all of the visual information compared to non-anime games. Not anywhere close to a deal-breaker, though. Fighting games are collectively some of the least appealing in terms of visual design to me.

Different strokes...

2. The way inputs buffer, particularly in terms of how combos flow is awkward. I far prefer the you-press-it-you-see-it approach of SF to games that allow for more delay.

...For different folks. Blazblue's input system forces muscle memory. It is sort of intentionally unnatural, which makes the accomplishment all that more significant when you realize that you've become comfortable with it.

3. The number of gameplay systems is ridiculous. The mechanics are interesting and I generally get the idea of how they work together, but I'm not at all convinced that the game is better because of them. It feels like Mechanic Z is here to balance Mechanic Y which was created to balance Mechanic X, etc.

I've heard this complaint before and I'm not sure what it means. Bursting has got to be one of the most intuitive systems that exists in a fighting games and primers, while a little weird, do start to serve a purpose once the blocking gets strong.

 

[darkblade77]

I don't know if gameplay systems are needlessly bloated in BB or not but sure, there are a lot of them.

Purple Throws (asleep at the wheel? then your opponent can combo into throws)
Throw Reject Miss (How Tager Gave Me the Purple Nurple)
Fatal Counter (this counterhit is special)
Guard Primer (there to seperate getting GCed from using too much Barrier)
Instant Block (Just Defend to get meter, and now make a few things unsafe on block instead of a lot of things)
Barrier Block (FD but with more quirks and untied from base meter)
Air Unblockables (there solely to prevent point-blank air escaping from being dominant)
Tech system (Neutral tech is the best do it every time! completely invul for all frames!!!11)
Bursts (determine whether you can Astral and can also be used as combo extenders, you can still bait them for Maximum Salt)


Add to that the fact that you have to be near-intimate with the way a lot of characters function in order to convincingly beat them, in a game where maybe half of them at best look visually orthodox.

BB isn't an extremely difficult game once you get used to everything, but it has a steep cliff to entry because (at least IMO) you have to understand the meta a lot more than a player does in a typical FG title to achieve even moderate success.

 

[Fugu]

I don't know if gameplay systems are needlessly bloated in BB or not but sure, there are a lot of them.

Purple Throws (asleep at the wheel? then your opponent can combo into throws)
Throw Reject Miss (How Tager Gave Me the Purple Nurple)
Fatal Counter (this counterhit is special)
Guard Primer (there to seperate getting GCed from using too much Barrier)
Instant Block (Just Defend to get meter, and now make a few things unsafe on block instead of a lot of things)
Barrier Block (FD but with more quirks and untied from base meter)
Air Unblockables (there solely to prevent point-blank air escaping from being dominant)
Tech system (Neutral tech is the best do it every time! completely invul for all frames!!!11)
Bursts (determine whether you can Astral and can also be used as combo extenders, you can still bait them for Maximum Salt)


Add to that the fact that you have to be near-intimate with the way a lot of characters function in order to convincingly beat them, in a game where maybe half of them at best look visually orthodox.

BB isn't an extremely difficult game once you get used to everything, but it has a steep cliff to entry because (at least IMO) you have to understand the meta a lot more than a player does in a typical FG title to achieve even moderate success.

I wasn't even thinking about stuff like this.

Every game has different throw mechanics. BlazBlue's throws aren't particularly complicated and honestly nobody should miss a purple grab reject offline, so stuff like that doesn't really complicate grabs inasmuch as the mindgames behind them does. This is also applicable to teching in general.

Also, air unblockables do more than just prevent jump-outs; they also scare people into using their barrier more carefully and they increase the viability of certain normals as AAs.

 

[darkblade77]

There are a lot of weird specifically defined caveats that every player has to remember, was what I'm getting at. I don't know if some of them are aimed at making the process more intuitive for players (like TRM discouraging mashing grab on paper) or just vetted as a metagame-directing action(air-unblockable normals proliferating in CS2) or whatever, but if I was just walking into a FG the above seems like a lot of greek compared to SF4, which has only a few direct nods to system mechanics by name or function (i.e. EXes/Ultra/Focus Attack); the lion's share of the rest actually being user-driven.

Maybe I should have changed "BB isn't difficult" to "BB isn't complicated," but it certainly looks complicated at entry and I think that does hurt somewhat.

 

[Fugu]

There are a lot of weird specifically defined caveats that every player has to remember, was what I'm getting at. I don't know if some of them are aimed at making the process more intuitive for players (like TRM discouraging mashing grab on paper) or just vetted as a metagame-directing action(air-unblockable normals proliferating in CS2) or whatever, but if I was just walking into a FG the above seems like a lot of greek compared to SF4, which has only a few direct nods to system mechanics by name or function (i.e. EXes/Ultra/Focus Attack); the lion's share of the rest actually being user-driven.

Maybe I should have changed "BB isn't difficult" to "BB isn't complicated," but it certainly looks complicated at entry and I think that does hurt somewhat.

I think focus attacks are very obscure and the segmented meter isn't plain either. SF4 looks like a lot of Greek compared to BB; it all just depends on context.

 

[QisTopTier]

Purple Throws (asleep at the wheel? then your opponent can combo into throws)
Throw Reject Miss (How Tager Gave Me the Purple Nurple)
Fatal Counter (this counterhit is special)
Guard Primer (there to seperate getting GCed from using too much Barrier)
Instant Block (Just Defend to get meter, and now make a few things unsafe on block instead of a lot of things)
Barrier Block (FD but with more quirks and untied from base meter)
Air Unblockables (there solely to prevent point-blank air escaping from being dominant)
Tech system (Neutral tech is the best do it every time! completely invul for all frames!!!11)
Bursts (determine whether you can Astral and can also be used as combo extenders, you can still bait them for Maximum Salt)

Purple Throws This should never be an issue it just means you are comboing a throw or tick threw wrong. I don't see how this is complex or a hassle at all, if anything it HELPS new players more than hurts as the frames to beak it is about 5000 years.

Throw Reject MissBlah blah fancy name, it just means one of two things, stop fucking mashing buttons. Or your attack got countered by a throw. There are some moves that PASSIVELY HAVE THIS ENABLED. Tager/Bang/Platinum. It's just to show that their command throws can not be broken when normally landed.

Fatal Counter It just means counter hitting with a certain move, a counter with that move will always be Fatal, will provide more potent effects, such as better damage scaling, more time before they can tech in a combo. *normally it's harder to do so*

Guard Primer These are in place because some characters are forced to be more defensive and have less reversal options, or way to strong offensive options. This is more of a reward system for the other player for finally cracking through and abusing the other characters weak point. *if your character can*

Instant Block Tap back just before a hit comes out. The only thing sorta hard about the game outside some really tight combos or resets. You don't need to instant block every single attack, but the meter gain does help. But as long as you IB the last hit or two that's all that really maters. *or some characters a move mid block string, if you play enough you'll know when, sorry cant learn everything in a day"

Barrier Block Pushes your foe away from you, BUT gives you longer recovery time on blocking. Use only when needed. Also lets you block some ground to air attacks. Nothing complex about this at all, once again it's learned usage comes over time.

Air Unblockables Shouldn't even be a weird concept, BlazBlue had them since the start, they just gave every character some now.

In almost every fighter except for a very few you can't straight up block in the air vs ground. You had to barrier in GG as well, sf series there was never any blocking like that as far as I remember. Maybe darkstalkers? Not 100% sure.

Only game I can recall off the top of my head where a ground attack being unblockable would be weird is Marvel

Tech system This is where some heavy mind game stuff can come into play, just neutral teching all day will get your ass handed to you, BAD. Teching right away all the time isn't even always a great answer either. The way and time you want to tech all plays into position you are at and what character you are facing. Once again you learn this over time *lol if you notice its the defensive tools that take time to learn but the concepts are not hard at all*

Bursts No one really gives a fuck about astrals they are there to troll for the most part. Bursting is your get out of jail free card there are times where you are absolutely guaranteed to smack them with the burst and get away safely. Combo extending with a burst is normally in the VERY LAST ROUND your opponent has no burst left, and you can actually use the small dmg boost from it to actually finish them off. THIS IS RARE AS FUCK. *once again knowing when to burst takes time to learn, the concept is simple though, "this is my one chance to get away and start fresh, but I better turn the match to offensive because I have less primers now"

Rapid Cancels Burn 50% of your meter to cancel out an attack that landed. Simple enough, extend combos, make unsafe moves safe, extend block strings/pressure. How it's used is up in the air for the player.

Counter Assault Burn 50% of your meter to do a reversal type move while you are blocking to counter hit the opponent during what ever the hell they are doing. This is damn near guaranteed to work in your favor, some characters have unique ones though.


You might feel that all this stuff is bloated, but I can damn near tell you a perfect reason all these are in here. One by one. In character specific situations.

The game is complex so to speak, because the characters themselves are complex as well. The game needs universal tools so every character can stand a chance against the rest of the cast even if the character themselves don't have a character specific tool.

 

[darkblade77]

Okay I really regret putting those 1-line description blurbs next to each one now, I didn't mean for those to get scrutinized. They were half-joke, half mild-context.

I said I wasn't sure if I felt if BB's way of handling the above is bloated or not. Like you said, there is a good reason for every one of these system mechanics/caveats to exist. But they're also a lot of extra defined terminology that I think is going to discourage the average casual player who considering putting serious time in. Once he or she knows it largely becomes a non-issue with regards to other FGs; that's not the point. I think SF4 handles it better by... not talking about it(ironically), or not being in a position where they have to make global definition additions/changes to the game that have to be named.

On the other hand, doing combos is a really nice hook in the opposite direction--it's really easy to do intermediate extended combos in BB compared to most other FGs, and that leaves scrubs and mid-level novices with an impression that they can play the game somewhat.

I'm trying to approach this from the lowest common denominator here.

 

[QisTopTier]

The thing is, even if the game is slightly complex or what not, if the person is honestly interested they can figure out and learn about the mechanics in less than a week. Hell BB features a really really long ass tutorial explaining the damn system.

and honestly I rather have a more balanced complex game, than simplified unbalanced crap.

It doesnt even have to mean only one or two characters are good, I mean like how a certian character has no chance at all vs this set of characters and so on. *bb has this with tager cause mori doesnt want him to be another potemkin lol*

 

[darkblade77]

Hey, I like my games to be complex too. But I also want as many joe schmoes to buy and get into the game as possible(more comp/more money for the studio to keep going etc), so I think the ideal approach for FGs is to look as simple and approachable as possible to the average guy, regardless of how complex they really are. Like you said, the people that really want to get their hands dirty will do it period.

That's the ideal, anyway. I think both BB and SF4 tried to do this in different ways, but both games left an impression that you can't have one without sacrificing the other to some degree.

(and well, as far as balance... I just pray at this point, lol.)

 

[alstein]

Hey, I like my games to be complex too. But I also want as many joe schmoes to buy and get into the game as possible(more comp/more money for the studio to keep going etc), so I think the ideal approach for FGs is to look as simple and approachable as possible to the average guy, regardless of how complex they really are. Like you said, the people that really want to get their hands dirty will do it period.

That's the ideal, anyway. I think both BB and SF4 tried to do this in different ways, but both games left an impression that you can't have one without sacrificing the other to some degree.

(and well, as far as balance... I just pray at this point, lol.)

You can have a complex game, without having a complex system. Look at Soul Calibur 1.

I don't think balance and complexity have much to do with each other.

As for SSF4, my beef with that series is that the complexity seems to be really tacked on, for its own sake. BB's complexity feels more "organic", even if I think some things could be simplified.

One of the reasons I like KOF as a design is that you get the movement options of Blazblue mostly, with a simpler combo system.

 

[Prototype-03]

BB is really a niche game. Yes, the game is complex. Yes, it takes a while to get used to it. And yes, this game isn't for everyone.

SSF4 doesn't come close on how many mechanics BB has, but the mechanics used are so inconsistent that to me, it made it more complex. I'm going to give it that SF4 made me start playing 2D fighters, so it really is a good game for someone who has no prior experience in 2D fighters to jump in. But, the FA system is a parry that's inconsistent. Imagine 3S only letting you parry only certain moves. That's what FA is: an inconsistent command parry. Ultra system is still a system that rewards you for losing. You have no idea how many blanka players who pretty much manhandled me half of the match, only for them to cower once I got ultra. I got rewarded for losing... It made no sense. FADC is the only thing that made sense.

In MvC3, the only thing that really irked me was the x-factor system. It's an ultra system where the rewards are even better. Also, the online sucked, but that's an entirely different thing. Other than that, MvC3 was pretty fun.

SFxTekken actually looks pretty good and it really looks like what SF4 should have been like... But, this game also looks like it's targeted for a niche market.

I have no idea why SC1 is complex because... it's not... So please explain.

 

[QisTopTier]

I have no idea why SC1 is complex because... it's not... So please explain.

Cause Cervantes can stab the ground and make the earth shake yeaaaaaah

 

[V_Arnold]

I just have to say that it was dumb and pointless to try and overhype something just because it has a somewhat less option arsenal than game xy at the first time, and it is dumb and pointless now.

We get it, BlaBluze is a deeper game than SFIV, mechanic-wise. That does not change the fact that regarding character variety, SSFIVAE still shits on its competitors (excluding MVC3, but THAT is too broken for this argument), and that SSFIV has ENOUGH depth that nobody here has mastered it succesfully. Or have I been sleeping and one of the gaffers won last EVO? No, they did not. Therefore, there is ENOUGH depth in SSFIV already. Of course, if you want more, go for BlazBlue freely, but that would not make SSFIV simple. Less complex does not mean simple.

Also, while being in BlazBlue thread, I must realize that it is cool to define "complex" with the relative amount of mechanics compared to what was in GG series, but that is not how complexity really is defined

 

[V_Arnold]

Also: fuck this, I am reinstalling BB:CS! CS2 is available freely now? What should I prepare for if I "main" Litchi?

 

[QisTopTier]

We get it, BlaBluze is a deeper game than SFIV, mechanic-wise. That does not change the fact that regarding character variety, SSFIVAE still shits on its competitors (excluding MVC3, but THAT is too broken for this argument), and that SSFIV has ENOUGH depth that nobody here has mastered it succesfully. Or have I been sleeping and one of the gaffers won last EVO? No, they did not. Therefore, there is ENOUGH depth in SSFIV already. Of course, if you want more, go for BlazBlue freely, but that would not make SSFIV simple. Less complex does not mean simple.

*Facepalm*

You are on crack *or high or drunk or other mean thing people say* if you think SSF4 has more character variety than BB. More characters does not mean more variety. Yes it sounds weird and dumb as hell when you say it or read it but well yeah. In general GG shits on everything in that sense.

I can group all the characters into about 8 or 9 spots at max for ssf4. The same for MvC3 just about.

The only characters in bb that are similar to each other are Ragna and Tsubaki.

And yes SSF4 is simpler, it's based on limited situations and twitch reactions based on those situations. Simpler =/= easy. It just means the overall game plan is smaller and less to worry about.

As for changes to Litchi, hit up Fugu about that.

 

[Fugu]

BB is really a niche game. Yes, the game is complex. Yes, it takes a while to get used to it.

My local BB community has, pretty much word-for-word, a complete opposite view of BB.

Also: fuck this, I am reinstalling BB:CS! CS2 is available freely now? What should I prepare for if I "main" Litchi?

Yes, it's free.

Whatever combo knowledge you may have from CS1 is pretty much worthless. The upside is that most of her new combos aren't that difficult, with the exceptions being the midscreen staffless combo (this isn't really hard but it's a mess online) and the proper 2D[m] opener.

There have been a lot of changes to pressure. She no longer has a safe overhead with the staff so you are far more reliant on fooling the opponent into letting you do something unsafe than 50/50s (you can no longer 50/50 off of 5C[m] at all, for example).

 

[alstein]

BB is really a niche game. Yes, the game is complex. Yes, it takes a while to get used to it. And yes, this game isn't for everyone.

SSF4 doesn't come close on how many mechanics BB has, but the mechanics used are so inconsistent that to me, it made it more complex. I'm going to give it that SF4 made me start playing 2D fighters, so it really is a good game for someone who has no prior experience in 2D fighters to jump in. But, the FA system is a parry that's inconsistent. Imagine 3S only letting you parry only certain moves. That's what FA is: an inconsistent command parry. Ultra system is still a system that rewards you for losing. You have no idea how many blanka players who pretty much manhandled me half of the match, only for them to cower once I got ultra. I got rewarded for losing... It made no sense. FADC is the only thing that made sense.

I have no idea why SC1 is complex because... it's not... So please explain.

Mindgames, feints, guard impacts. It doesn't have big combos as a crutch. It's not as complex as VF, but it's complex enough. Tekken is probably the least complex of the 3D fighters, since it has a ton of stuff that can be done on reaction.

FADC was the one thing I felt was stupid about SF4. Made big, risky decisions unnecessarily safe and rewarding. Ultra wasn't a bad idea, but it could have been better. I also feel SF4 would have been vastly improved by a BB-style buffer system for normals.

Honestly, I didn't like BB at all until CS2, because I felt that they fixed some of the situations that we no-brainers in the first game.

I think what this comes down to is we have vastly different perceptions of what depth is.
I think you view it as more mechanical options, whereas I look at mindgame options.

One of my dislikes about the genre is that people seem to like and want no-brainer options in their fighters these days. I'd rather see a game that avoids them.

 

[Master Milk]

Oh look, an empty GAFchat.

 

[DiscoShark]

Could I get an invite to the empty GAF chat? PSN : DiscoShark

 

[Octorockin']

Well, I'm loving the gameplay in BlazBlue so far, but I don't think I'm good enough to seriously challenge anyone in this thread just yet... The best I can do is about a 9 to 12 hit combo with Tsubaki, but I like playing as Haku-Men too even though I haven't gotten the hang of linking his attacks.

PSN: BearsonaRoar

I bet I could learn some tactics after getting pummeled enough, so I'll still accept any matches in this thread.

 

[Prototype-03]

Could I get an invite to the empty GAF chat? PSN : DiscoShark

PSN: BearsonaRoar

I bet I could learn some tactics after getting pummeled enough, so I'll still accept any matches in this thread.

Sent a friend request to both of you

 

[danmaku]

Hey, I like my games to be complex too. But I also want as many joe schmoes to buy and get into the game as possible(more comp/more money for the studio to keep going etc), so I think the ideal approach for FGs is to look as simple and approachable as possible to the average guy, regardless of how complex they really are. Like you said, the people that really want to get their hands dirty will do it period.

That's the ideal, anyway. I think both BB and SF4 tried to do this in different ways, but both games left an impression that you can't have one without sacrificing the other to some degree.

(and well, as far as balance... I just pray at this point, lol.)

I think that this complexity problem shows up only if you try to learn everything at once, and every guide / tutorial should strongly discourage a beginner from doing so. A player should search for more depth only if he feels he needs it: if I keep getting "throw reject miss" then I should look into it, but otherwise I wouldn't bother (for a while).

 

[V_Arnold]

Also, I main Viper in SSFIV, and if anyone thinks she is "simple", I just..laugh. No hard feelings, but laughs are due

 

[Fugu]

Mindgames, feints, guard impacts. It doesn't have big combos as a crutch. It's not as complex as VF, but it's complex enough. Tekken is probably the least complex of the 3D fighters, since it has a ton of stuff that can be done on reaction.

FADC was the one thing I felt was stupid about SF4. Made big, risky decisions unnecessarily safe and rewarding. Ultra wasn't a bad idea, but it could have been better. I also feel SF4 would have been vastly improved by a BB-style buffer system for normals.

Honestly, I didn't like BB at all until CS2, because I felt that they fixed some of the situations that we no-brainers in the first game.

I think what this comes down to is we have vastly different perceptions of what depth is.
I think you view it as more mechanical options, whereas I look at mindgame options.

One of my dislikes about the genre is that people seem to like and want no-brainer options in their fighters these days. I'd rather see a game that avoids them.

The depth of the mind games of any reasonably well-designed game is so extensive that the "this game has more mindgames" argument is pointless seeing as very few players will so much as scratch the surface.

 

[QisTopTier]

Also, I main Viper in SSFIV, and if anyone thinks she is "simple", I just..laugh. No hard feelings, but laughs are due

Carl/Tao is harder? :3

 

[Master Milk]

Ahhhhh, we actually had a room going! I can't believe it!

Good games, everyone. I'm surprised I won any matches at all. I couldn't focus on any of the matches. I felt like I was on autopilot every match. My execution also felt worse than usual. The standout moment of that was the fullscreen command grab. Oh well, it was fun having so many people to play against.

Also, why are you guys still arguing instead of playing the game? D=

 

[QisTopTier]

Ahhhhh, we actually had a room going! I can't believe it!

Good games, everyone. I'm surprised I won any matches at all. I couldn't focus on any of the matches. I felt like I was on autopilot every match. My execution also felt worse than usual. The standout moment of that was the fullscreen command grab. Oh well, it was fun having so many people to play against.

Also, why are you guys still arguing instead of playing the game? D=

Proto didn't want me in the room and scare you guys away.

 

[alstein]

The depth of the mind games of any reasonably well-designed game is so extensive that the "this game has more mindgames" argument is pointless seeing as very few players will so much as scratch the surface.

That's a fair enough argument, but I think mindgames are more accessible when you have to worry less about other things, and that's what I enjoy about fighters. I don't enjoy comboing people.

 

[Prototype-03]

That's a fair enough argument, but I think mindgames are more accessible when you have to worry less about other things, and that's what I enjoy about fighters. I don't enjoy comboing people.

There's a lot of more mind games in BB than SF4, although I agree there's a lot of things going on. Here's an example of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v4_8jqDndQ#t=03m31s (excuse the poor commentating if you watch the whole thing) but basically, if you're getting hit, you can burst at a cost of half of your primers and a burst. It's basically a combo breaker. BUT, if your opponent is expecting it, they can just block and you just wasted a burst (and most likely eating a combo).

SF4, if you're getting hit, you're getting hit.

 

[Fugu]

That's a fair enough argument, but I think mindgames are more accessible when you have to worry less about other things, and that's what I enjoy about fighters. I don't enjoy comboing people.

People often highlight this as a specific element as to why BlazBlue is bad and I don't quite understand it other than as it serves as a detriment to those watching the game. Combos exist to force-feed character familiarity; they reward character-specific knowledge and consistency. They also expand the importance of resets in the metagame by causing the attacker's advantage to not be limited simply to the damage he can deal with a given opener. Indeed, the combo itself can be a mind game as they are frequently a rather intimidating display.

There's a lot of more mind games in BB than SF4

Oh, come on. This statement is dubious for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that at top-level play both games are almost entirely ruled by their mind games; SFIV is just more subtle.
If you are making a statement on the metagame, then it's verifiably untrue. The force of intelligence and creativity ("mind games") in a competitive scene is largely proportional to the quantity of viable contenders and is inversely proportional to the influence that execution has on these viable contenders (dropped combos are not mind games). In simpler terms, smart players unhindered by execution will push the extent of the mind games, and more players means more pushing. Street Fighter IV has a larger stable of players who have the mechanical capability to use and abuse the tools given to them than BlazBlue does, and that will forever hinder arguments that BlazBlue is an innately superior game. Zidane's frequent berating of North America's BB scene holds an element of truth: as a continent we are not playing the game at an exploratory level due to our deeply restricted community; we are relegated to playing each other in small groups and are perpetually limited by the small fragment of the metagame that we are exposed to. This is obviously not true of Japan's BB scene but it's indicative of the influence that a player base can have on the overall strength of a metagame.

...It's amazing that I come off as a SFIV advocate in this thread because I really, truly do think that it is a dull game to play. But to argue that such a large, competitive population is playing a categorically inferior game -- an assertion that amounts to you saying that a SFIV player would have to think harder/better to achieve success in BB for reasons other than their comfort with SFIV - is fallacious.

 

[alstein]

People often highlight this as a specific element as to why BlazBlue is bad and I don't quite understand it other than as it serves as a detriment to those watching the game. Combos exist to force-feed character familiarity; they reward character-specific knowledge and consistency. They also expand the importance of resets in the metagame by causing the attacker's advantage to not be limited simply to the damage he can deal with a given opener. Indeed, the combo itself can be a mind game as they are frequently a rather intimidating display.

...It's amazing that I come off as a SFIV advocate in this thread because I really, truly do think that it is a dull game to play. But to argue that such a large, competitive population is playing a categorically inferior game -- an assertion that amounts to you saying that a SFIV player would have to think harder/better to achieve success in BB for reasons other than their comfort with SFIV - is fallacious.

I've seen resets and intimidation used to devastating effect in ST/Samsho/KOF/HDR, so I don't think combos are necessary to do what you're claiming, though I can see the argument in how it can work. I just think combo systems are used by developers as a crutch to mask shallow gameplay in some instances, or the perception of it (which I think happened with SF4). I think it's the damage of the combo that's the deterrent, not the combo itself- which can be solved with high damage.

I have an old friend who has largely quit fighters now due to VF not getting a US release (or so he claims), and his complaint is that jabs lead to too much damage (BB seems to be fixed this some with CS2- I cry at Hakumen's low damage output now) He says risk/reward is really skewed in many 2d fighters, and blames quick/safe attacks into big combos for much of it- but he's a VF player, where big damage always comes with a big risk.

Yeah, I have real issues with what was done in AE- which led me to give CS and even AH another chance, and I"m enjoying them more now then what I did, in CS2's case I think it's due to the real improvements - yeah Hakumen got nerfed ,but he got tools to help with most of his bad matchups (Lambda's still too much of a pain though)

 

[witchedwiz]

My local BB community has, pretty much word-for-word, a complete opposite view of BB.


Yes, it's free.

Whatever combo knowledge you may have from CS1 is pretty much worthless. The upside is that most of her new combos aren't that difficult, with the exceptions being the midscreen staffless combo (this isn't really hard but it's a mess online) and the proper 2D[m] opener.

There have been a lot of changes to pressure. She no longer has a safe overhead with the staff so you are far more reliant on fooling the opponent into letting you do something unsafe than 50/50s (you can no longer 50/50 off of 5C[m] at all, for example).

Lossing natural cancelling into itssu from pretty much everything made it that litchi lost a lot of "safe" game as well as extra hit... opponente flying? itssu-->A, opponent almost on the ground? itsuu->C and then it's (was) frigging combo time..
afaik most litchi combo know starts from either A-B-C or 6A,6B, and then pretty much they all converge into a 2C, 3C, making your comboing very predictable if the opponent knows litchi..
hopefully as i get back the hangs on boobie lady i *might* find myself using more diversified combos, but as is the starting string is too much standard (as far as hit sequence, aka high-mid-low sequence, is involved).. maybe it's just me..