Juice I understood what he was getting at and i agree. In fact, the example you wrote up is a good reason why kof is imo one of the most underrated titles of this gen and why sf4 is shallow.I wanted him to explain how this theoreticallyrics makes smash the best game tho..
karat...your initial post contained no explanation. Please stop insisting that it did.
Just so we are clear, I was referring to my second post as having an explanation. I know my first one was just an unsubstantiated opinion. The one you are responding to now is my third post.
your followup however did expand on your mindset, which is highly theoretical but nonetheless interesting. I like your perspective on options and control and how those reflect on the apparent depth of a title.
there are some questionable trains of thought here, though. First of all, I don't like how you say combos inherently reduce depth. I can understand how you would say that based on your definition of depth, as it would obviously reduce the number of options a player has at that time (both offensively and defensively). However you are ignoring the other intangibles combos bring to a game (combos also inherently raise the stakes on how neutral is conducted and the payoffs/risks involved, which adds more than it takes away to "depth") as well as the decisionmaking in combo routes (should I reset air throw hard knockdown etc), and finally, the execution factor. I don't see how you can place such a high degree of value on control at a given moment while ignoring the other intangibles present. Your perspective seems unbalanced...
I don't have it fully thought out, but there is more to a game than complexity and depth. Combos add to the execution aspect, which can come at a cost to depth. People like fighting games partially for their execution requirements, and combos are a manifestation of that preference.
Compare fighters to MOBAs. MOBAs have no combos. At most, you have stun moves, and EVERYONE hates being stunned. I actually wonder if people might like fighting games more if you took out combos, because then you would focus on the neutral, which is enjoyable for everyone. Combos are only fun for the person performing them. Wouldn't it be better if fighting games were more like MOBA battles where both players are completely free to act all the time?
I have no clue how that is even possible, but it is an idea, haha.
you make a good point with DI. that is something unique to smash that does add a layer of depth to the games movement. You do indeed have a degree of control over your character at all times. This is a point heavily emphasized in Smash ( imo smash has always been movement heavy). However, I think you are wrong to say that the degree of movementl you have in Smash is somehow more refined than movement in Marvel kof or arcsys games. Plenty of characters have good control over their air momentum in a comparable way. It is kind of unreasonable to say "smash lets me always be in control best game ggpo" when there are plenty of other titles that a) give you options while you are being hit in some way (esp in arc sys games where burst usage is a huge mindgame) b) have many more options and systems that give the user a high degree of control and decisionmaking power.
The point is that Smash gives you a ton of control in every single second of aerial movement. In other fighters, you pick a direction and then commit to it. Even in Marvel, outside of flight mode, you pick a direction and then commit to it. You never fully commit in Smash. Every frame is a new decision to make in regards to your spacing. Even if the game has double air dashes like Xrd, that cant be as deep as continual frame control.
I think execution is moving more into the territory of complexity than depth as defined in Karst's post.
Having one frame links in your game makes your game harder to play but it doesn't really give it more depth. It's just another barrier you have to over come when getting good at the game.
Right. I think good game design maximizes depth while minimizing complexity. ASW is notoriously bad at this. Deep, but way too complex.
Links are more about difficulty, and I think difficulty is separate from complexity and depth. I am generally in favor of low executional difficulty being a viable competitive option, and all basic game mechanics should be low difficulty (2x button push > double tap).
Yeah... combos do add to the game. What we are debating is if they add depth or complexity. I think difficult to execute combos add to a game's complexity, not necessarily its depth.
They undoubtedly add to complexity, because they are an additional system to learn. If they are done well, they can add to depth as well by giving new options to characters. Example: I jab with Mewtwo at high %. I can decide to go into the jab chain for damage, go for a grab, or try for Disable, which leads to a kill. The offer option is just straight damage. The second is guaranteed, but leads to a good setup that could kill. The third is not guaranteed, but definitely kills. This is the thought process behind a 2-hit combo in Smash, and it presents its own kind and degree of depth.
Adding stricter execution requirements can never add to depth. It can only reduce depth, as players shy away from options out of fear of failure.