what makes a fighting game deep?

[fishjie]

So, I was explaining to my coworkers a few weeks ago that I was going to evo. I told them what games were being played there. They asked, aren't those games kind of old? So I said yeah... but the newer 3d games kind of suck (DOA) and that the older games were deeper and better.

So they asked me what made a fighting game deep. Now that had me stumped for a while. I was thinking about my favorite game mvc2. I couldn't exactly say it was well balanced, because its not. However, with the exception of a few trolls on this site (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE), its considered a great game. Meanwhile, another horrifically unbalanced game, svc, is also unbalanced, yet is condemned (rightfully so) as a piece of crap.

I couldn't really articulate a good explanation. ANY TAKERS? OH, AND HI 2 EVERYONE WHO WENT TO EVO! IT WAS NICE MEETING U ALL!

[pdk]

good deal of room for mixup options at most points in a match without things degrading into "here's your trump card move, have fun with it"; obviously your options will be a bit more limited at a few points such as during wakeup but as long as things aren't so cut and dry the rest of the way through a match you're on to a good start

[Atryu]

what makes a fighting game deep?

Hot female characters! YAAAY!!!


...





sorry 'bout that...

[goodm0urning]

My personal definition of a deep game is a game that you can get into easily and pick up enough skill to compete, but can continue learning new stuff long after. Think about how old some of the most popular games in the fighting game community are right now. People still play them because there's always something more to learn. That's depth.

[Imperious]

I think a game is deep if it forces the player to make deep choices. A choice is deep if there isn't a single clear right answer. A choice isn't deep if there's often one clear right answer, or if lots of things are qually good so you might as well act randomly.

Rock-paper-scissors is a good example of a game that, IMO, isn't deep. The choice the player makes isn't meaningful, because--absent external information about the other player, like "he's hurt his hand, and can't hold it out flat, so he can't choose paper"--all your options are equally good. You just pick randomly and hope for the best. I know there are tournament players for rock-paper-scissors, but my understanding is that they add depth by studying the patterns of other players and trying to work out the psychological factors that go into one play or another. The depth there isn't built into the game.

Super Turbo, by contrast, is deep, because the choices you make are meaningful. Say you're playing Ryu. Will you walk up and throw? That gets pretty good damage, but not as much as comboing into super. Will you use a meaty attack and combo into super? That's worth a lot more damage, but it'll only work if the opponent thinks you're going to throw; if not, he'll block and you'll just have reset the match (or, worse, wasted your super). Will you just block, anticipating a reversal? That gets the best damage of all if it works, but it's only worth anything if the opponent thinks you're not going to be blocking. In addition to thinking about what damage your choices give you, you also have to consider what you and your opponent have been doing in the past. If you've already pulled out the walkup-throw option twice, the opponent's not likely to fall for it a third time--but he might be primed to throw out a jab to stop a throw attempt, and that makes him vulnerable to a meaty attack. Then again, your opponent knows you know...and so it goes. There isn't a clear right answer, and random guessing isn't as good as calculated decision making. You're making deep decisions, and that makes for a deep game.

(Note that in Super Turbo, too, some of the depth comes from psychological factors, but it isn't entirely coming from the players like it is in rock-paper-scissors.)

I'm tempted to say that "deep" and "meaningful" are the same, but I think "deep" captures the idea a little better. "Meaningful" is binary; a decision either is meaningful (i.e., not obvious and random guessing isn't as good as calculated decision-making) or it isn't. "Deep" is more granular; a decision can be more complex (and thus "deeper") or less so.

[Rioting Soul]

A deep fighting game is a fighting game that doesn't degenerate at higher levels but instead flourishes.

[woof]

bloated system mechanics with an awkward learning curve

[The Granby]

Many many many layers of guessing games and option selects.

[SuicidalGrandpa]

Mind-games mixed with large combo systems and options to choose from, coupled with unique characters and set-ups. Plus, a game that doesn't burn out easily, has a nice replay factor, and keeps the competitive ones coming back for more.

[supazio]

Rock-paper-scissors is a good example of a game that, IMO, isn't deep. The choice the player makes isn't meaningful, because--absent external information about the other player, like "he's hurt his hand, and can't hold it out flat, so he can't choose paper"--all your options are equally good. You just pick randomly and hope for the best. I know there are tournament players for rock-paper-scissors, but my understanding is that they add depth by studying the patterns of other players and trying to work out the psychological factors that go into one play or another. The depth there isn't built into the game.**Paraphrased from one of Sirlin's articles**
But you can make rock paper scissors quite deep by simply adding monetary rewards to winning with a certain gesture. Let's say that if you win with rock, you win $5, paper yields $3, and scissors, a measly dollar. Obviously now, the best choice (in terms of an opponent who randomly picks) is rock. But if your opponent is also trying to win as much money as possible, he should pick paper, because then if you pick rock (because you want money), you will lose and he will win. Just repeat the example as much as you want, and you'll find that every plan has an equally effective counter.

[The Granby]

Exactly, RPS can be pretty deep depending on the stipulations.

Virtua Fighter is the most praised game regarding depth. Yet VF's core system is really about guessing and a psuedo rock-paper-scissors system.

Dead or Alive is the LEAST praised game regarding depth. Yet it's system is vaguely similar to Virtua Fighters in that it too is about guessing and a psuedo rock-paper-scissors system.

The difference though is enough to push many people away from it. Like two ends of the spectrum that it is RPS depth.

[NykkoMT]

Gawd, I love DoA but everyone on SRK shits on it....
I like VF and Tekken to though....
DoA5 will be deep[er]....

[polarity]

one important element of the RPS system in fighting games is the ability to cover multiple bases with one low risk/low reward option (e.g. blocking low beats most of your opponent's attacks as well as them doing nothing but youre still at 0f at best) or one high risk/high reward option (e.g. DPing beats your opponent attacking or throwing but if they do nothing you're fucked). VF seems to practically have a fucking matrix of shit like this with subtly varying risk/reward ratios.

another factor is the fact that your guessing games are tiered, i.e. when one guessing game is resolved, another is produced. the fireball trap in the CPS1 games is a classic example of this. the player in the trap has to guess right 3 times in a row before he can even escape the trap.

the fireball trap is also a good example of a low-risk guessing game, which i think is also important. if every offensive move you make puts you in as much or almost as much danger as the opponent, the game still has some depth, but the results are likely to be much more random, and the value of setups is decreased. you should be able to work to set up situations that allow you to deal damage while at minimal risk to yourself.

[Razorfist]

Nykko.. I think Tecmo tried to make DOA4 deeper, but just ended up bloating the move lists of each character, which made the already ridiculous learning curve that much worse (Thanks ALOT, non-existent blocking and abscenely difficult countering system!). It might not have been so bad if the moves were actually moves, as in Soul Calibur, rather than just an obscenely long list of combos.

Speaking of which, I find Soul Calibur to be a relatively deep series. There's far more guess-work and strategy involved than the majority of 3D fighters, and countering doesn't become the name of the game, because the game doesn't necessarily reward counter-crazy players as heavily as other games do. The move lists are long, but tend to flow rather easily out of the character, which gives each character its own unique feel, with benefits and drawbacks therein.

Basically, any game that properly balances itself, while offering many alternative approaches to offense and defense is by definition 'deep'. Honestly, though, I think the fighting games with more focus on combos tend to suffer in terms of depth. Look at Killer Instinct, and (sorry) the 'Capcom vs. ...' games.

[Henaki]

different risk/rewards for parallel counters to a problem. in turn, these counters to the counters have different risk/rewards, in turn, these counters have different risk/rewards etc

[NykkoMT]

Nykko.. I think Tecmo tried to make DOA4 deeper, but just ended up bloating the move lists of each character, which made the already ridiculous learning curve that much worse (Thanks ALOT, non-existent blocking and abscenely difficult countering system!).
.
Well, actually, blocking is useful, dont believe that nonsense garbage when ppl say that blocking aint useful.
The counter sytem aint hard at all, counter when your in a stun, or if your going for the wake-up kick. That is all.
And dont be a counter whore.lol

[m1kekim]

various glitches that "enhance" gameplay. e.g. roll cancel, PTF, mvc2 infinities,

just when you thought the game was dead - a glitch makes the game playable again. lulz

[pherai]

Strategy. It's more than just mixups. Think of all the things you need to be good at to be successful in fighting games: zoning, pressuring, execution, tricks etc.

The more strategies you can use, and in turn, have to adapt to, the deeper a game is. When only one strategy prevails over all others, that when you have a shallow, broken game.

Also I would say guessing does not really line up with a game being 'deep' since calling a game 'deep' generally refers to the level of strategy, and guessing is really just a lack of strategy.

[valaris]

lolis

[DevilJin 01]

lolis

Parries too.

[n8archer_XI]

A lot of characters, stages, strategies, and modes?

[Spralwers]

Never having a clear option. You're always weighing out whats the best and sticking with it because your gut says so.

The more strategies you can use, and in turn, have to adapt to, the deeper a game is. When only one strategy prevails over all others, that when you have a shallow, broken game.

QFT

[Imperious]

**Paraphrased from one of Sirlin's articles**
But you can make rock paper scissors quite deep by simply adding monetary rewards to winning with a certain gesture. Let's say that if you win with rock, you win $5, paper yields $3, and scissors, a measly dollar. Obviously now, the best choice (in terms of an opponent who randomly picks) is rock. But if your opponent is also trying to win as much money as possible, he should pick paper, because then if you pick rock (because you want money), you will lose and he will win. Just repeat the example as much as you want, and you'll find that every plan has an equally effective counter.

I agree that differing payoffs can make rock-paper-scissors a deeper game. That was what I was trying to say with the Super Turbo example, where throw < meaty -> super < your best punishment combo. I guess I wasn't clear.... :sweat:

[0746]

All games have their share of advanced techniques/maneuvers/things that reflects the players potential?

Guess more of them the better

[Judgement]

i dont know man, sounds like maybe your freinds just prefer titty fighter i mean doa, only real way to change their opinion is to let them actually learn something like super turbo and experience it theirselves.

something that is truely deep is difficult to put into words in the first place. it just is for a myriad of reasons.

casual gamers will just never get that.

then again you do have your fighting gamers that just play 3d games like vf or tekken only.

and that would bring the whole 2d vs 3d argument into play.
which is more like a arguement of which food you prefer which is pointless.

so i guess in short make them try super turbo/3s/kof98

and try and make them have a proper go at it. if they dont get it, they never will
and are inferior human beings :rofl:

yea on a side note game complexity dosnt neccisarly equal deepness.
as abundance of content does not always win over quality.

[Crap]

Anything SRK deems worthy of being such

[WraithGadra]

Anything SRK deems worthy of being such

So what does SRK look for when deciding a fighting game is deep or not?

[shoultzula]

as broken as marvel is, its incredibly deep because of the fact its broken. Till this day, people are still finding new things to the engine that will add to the depth of the gameplay.

There are shades of grey when it comes to a question like this because a game like ST is very deep but with a basic layout to its gameplay. A game like marvel is complex to begin with but no one fully understands the engine yet and its been 7 years going on 8. How many fighters give you an engine that can't be broken down for the better part of a decade? and in 3 years when marvel reaches its 10 years of being out, I guarantee you people will still be finding things out about the engine and how to apply it to mid game strategy.

[KayinNasaki]

A deep game is one where you have access to a lot of real options as well as having interesting strategic decisions and mind games...

Though I think the definition could also be....

A game with layers upon layers of different stratagy -- Theres a lot of room to dig for new useful techniques and tactics. Just like the term implies, you can dig continue digging and still find rewards in a 'deep' game, cause well.. the rewards run 'deep'... While for other games you might be able to dig up some stuff, but it doesn't take very long for everything to be discovered.

[Crap]

So what does SRK look for when deciding a fighting game is deep or not?

Tiers

[WraithGadra]

Tiers

That's it? Difference between characters is all it takes to make a deep fighting game? I always thought it would be more difficult than that.

[Humbag]

What makes a fighting game deep?

A big whole.

[Crap]

That's it? Difference between characters is all it takes to make a deep fighting game? I always thought it would be more difficult than that.

There's also those god wrenchingly annoying "execution heavy systems" (AKA parry in SF3) that only hardcores would pull off. There's also in most cases "turtle fested" fighters. Not that it matters, most people would stick to to two or three characters (100% of those choices would be "speed" based anyway for quick jump-in combos).

[XDest]

Nykko.. I think Tecmo tried to make DOA4 deeper, but just ended up bloating the move lists of each character, which made the already ridiculous learning curve that much worse (Thanks ALOT, non-existent blocking and abscenely difficult countering system!). It might not have been so bad if the moves were actually moves, as in Soul Calibur, rather than just an obscenely long list of combos.

Speaking of which, I find Soul Calibur to be a relatively deep series. There's far more guess-work and strategy involved than the majority of 3D fighters, and countering doesn't become the name of the game, because the game doesn't necessarily reward counter-crazy players as heavily as other games do. The move lists are long, but tend to flow rather easily out of the character, which gives each character its own unique feel, with benefits and drawbacks therein.

Basically, any game that properly balances itself, while offering many alternative approaches to offense and defense is by definition 'deep'. Honestly, though, I think the fighting games with more focus on combos tend to suffer in terms of depth. Look at Killer Instinct, and (sorry) the 'Capcom vs. ...' games.

To block, Hold X (free) or the back button. I know it's stupid to say something that simple, but when I hear non-existent, I say wtf? Blocking in DOA gives the defending player the advantage since almost every move on block gives disadvantage, leading to free grabs or advantageous mixups. As well, will you guys please make up your mind on whether the countering system is "easy as hell" or "way too difficult!". Heh.

:sweat:

ITT people that don't know how to play a game, bash it because it's the cool thing to do.

[tataki]

So, I was explaining to my coworkers a few weeks ago that I was going to evo. I told them what games were being played there. They asked, aren't those games kind of old? So I said yeah... but the newer 3d games kind of suck (DOA) and that the older games were deeper and better.

So they asked me what made a fighting game deep. Now that had me stumped for a while. I was thinking about my favorite game mvc2. I couldn't exactly say it was well balanced, because its not. However, with the exception of a few trolls on this site (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE), its considered a great game. Meanwhile, another horrifically unbalanced game, svc, is also unbalanced, yet is condemned (rightfully so) as a piece of crap.

I couldn't really articulate a good explanation. ANY TAKERS? OH, AND HI 2 EVERYONE WHO WENT TO EVO! IT WAS NICE MEETING U ALL!

ALL fighting games reward the ability to read your opponent's mind, but some 2d fighting games have diversity in the gameplay of each character that 3d games will never have.
it's best if i give an example from my own personal experience so lets take guilty gear xx accent core for example:
not only you have a character that shoots pool balls and different angles and another character that is actually 2 characters at once, but you also need to play your character in a totally different way depending on the matchup.

i play eddie and vs testament i can't pull out my shadow cuz he can kill it with ease. instead i have to navigate myself through his strong zoning and when i find an opening only then i can summon the shadow and try to break his defence and do as much damage as i can.
vs jam i always want the shadow out so i can zone her and keep her away from me. vs testament i was the chaser but now i'm the one trying to play keepaway!

vs baiken i can't even rush down like eddie does best, instead i need to limit myself to jump cancelable attacks or try to bait her into using a baiken-reversal only when i can counter it hard...

vs venom i need to chase him down so i can get a chance to summon in his face and begin rape but unlike testament his zoning is different and vs him i can use 214s to return his balls right back at him. so he is trying to keep me out by sending more balls than i can return, and changing their speed so i'll screw up the 214s timing...

so my point is that a player can be really good in 1 matchup but really suck at another matchup cuz it's a totally different battle.
sadly this is something that 3d fighters don't have and for me this is one of the aspects of "depth" in games.

[Dhalsimowns]

A deep fighting game is a fighting game that doesn't degenerate at higher levels but instead flourishes.

This is the truth. Sadly, people dont seem to believe this is the case with doa4.
I think most people in general just play doa4 a few times, master the easy controls np, and then laugh at the one button counter system that does 1/3 life damage.

Its true that counters do too much damage, but as a person who has played fighters since 1992 (and against some of the best in the world) I see doa4 as one of the deepest fighters I have ever played.

Pick anyone in the states at any 2d game and I guarantee I can at least damage them or make them work for a round. When I play doa4 on xbox live though, there are people I can barely even touch. I mean, Iam hoping to take half their life bar. Somtimes I cant even move.

That counter button is overpowered but its puts a whole new dimension in the game by making absolutley everything counterable. You cant just spam 1-3 combos countinously with no risk of punishment, you cant take half their life off a patient c.short into super, and the timing of different moves in the game while understanding there is a counter button becomes insane at high lvls. Then add in the qcf throwing, throw counters, and throwing a person whose countering for extra damage...ehhh...all that with 3d side stepping tecchniques.

The whole rps thing is true. I just think doa4 is good model of this how rioting souls said depth should work for f-games.

[KWASIA]

the people who play it

[XDest]

Does anyone find it strange that one person says the counter system in DOA is "extremely difficult", while another person says "1-button overpowered counter system"

It is a 4-way system. High, Mid-Punch, Mid-Kick, Low. It is active for 22 frames. The amount of damage of the counter is based on the timing. 1-4 being hi-counter (150%), 5-12 being counter (125%), and 13-22 being normal (100%). If you can pick between 4 things and do it within 4 frames before it hits you consistently, then that's cool. That ain't what defensive holds are for in actual gameplay.

1. It stops string abuse. Strings are by far the easiest to defensive hold because of transitional animations, and knowing what the options are that come next. There are several string variants in general. Now, if they know it's easy, they'll start manipulating that. People will start poking more, timing their moves correctly, blocking, etc...

2. Just "guessing" counters gets you absolutely no where. Pattern-based, sure. But deciphering patterns is... a skill maybe? Wouldn't it be better most of the time to BLOCK? Situation: Your opponent does PP Mid Cancel. That mid is unsafe. You counter high. You're now stunned. You block instead. You confirm the cancel and throw them for free.

3. Another reason guessing counters gets you no where is simply because of the RPS system of the game. You counter, the opponent throws, that's automatic 150% hi counter throw. They use their best grab, you're losing 50%. Let's say they react to the sound, there's not even a way out of it and you've successfully screwed yourself for the round. Nice one. The guy is sitting there blocking, you counter, he hears the sound, he throws your ass or hits you in the recovery. When you counter you always have to keep that in mind.

4. When stunned, the opponent can do certain throws safely in certain stuns without being hi counter blown (you won't recover fast enough to). So now, the opponent doesn't even need to do shit other then that if they know you'll counter out of 90% of the stuns, because the other 10% of the time you're screwed anyways.

Yes, you can get a random counter within those 22 frames, and you may be right 25% of the time IF the opponent does an attack, but it won't even do as much damage. So you just risked getting stunned, or thrown for half your bar.... for that Nice. The scenarios in which people think they can abuse this shit is by pure ignorance alone.

People need to look more into this kind of stuff, and not mindlessly bash something because it's the in thing to do on a site.

[The Granby]

Xdest, most SRK posters are idiots but then you're coming from DoAC which is pretty much the same thing (except sometimes worse).

DoA is fine, but it lacks skillful application that other 3D fighters have. Also the stun system and hi-counter system reward way too much damage for rather basic yomi and execution. Most real (aka not SRK garbage) hardcore players see this, and hence why they do not play DoA. If you play other 3D fighting games seriously then you should see and understand the differences. Fighting meaningless wars with idiots on SRK doesn't get you anywhere.

[XDest]

Well, I could probably argue with you all day about that, but I know it wouldn't get me anywhere because we both have our own views on how it works. And I respect that.

[The Granby]

:wgrin:

Btw, one button counter DoA1 was actually really fun, fuck you guys. lol lol lol

[4649]

:wgrin:

Btw, one button counter DoA1 was actually really fun, fuck you guys. lol lol lol

lol i agree :x
that game still seems so fun to me, takes more after VF2 which is a good thing
why is hayabusa izuna drop so damn hard in it though -_-

[DevilJin 01]

When it can spit hard rhymes.

[polarity]

There's also those god wrenchingly annoying "execution heavy systems" (AKA parry in SF3) that only hardcores would pull off. There's also in most cases "turtle fested" fighters. Not that it matters, most people would stick to to two or three characters (100% of those choices would be "speed" based anyway for quick jump-in combos).

what the fuck are you even talking about

[DevilJin 01]

what the fuck are you even talking about

Why are you responding to someone named crap? :lol: He should be non existant to you.

[polarity]

i seriously just have no idea what hes even saying

[DevilJin 01]

i seriously just have no idea what hes even saying

So did everyone else...but they didn't ask him. LOL. What is he gonna say...more crap?

[Rhythm1c]

i seriously just have no idea what hes even saying



Don't worry. You weren't the only one.