David Sirlin has commented in interviews, and on his blog, that he, at least theoretically speaking, isn’t a big fan of games that require technically difficult moves for high level play. How do you think that the technically challenging elements such as just frame linking and so on contribute to a game, especially from the perspective of competitive play?
I dont understand your question. Any technique, easy or hard, will always add to a game. If this technique were not in the game it would be one less option you had. Options are what make a game competitive. If you didnt have options people would never be able to get past the original strategies. Options allow for expansion of the gameplay.
It could be either yes or no,but for me I say No.
I am trying to get into Accent Core.The game is fun,but even trying to learn some of the "easier"characters in the game seem to be about the equivalent of trying to learn characters that are hard to learn from another game.
I am trying to get used to it,and adapt to the faster pace,but I am just not understanding alot of the game.When I do learn it though,I’ll probably change my opinion because I’ll be on the other end of the spectrum.
A simplified example might be Super Turbo in Capcom Classics 2 with the ‘easy supers’ cheat. Obviously, this cheat can cause all sorts of havoc with charge move characters, but does it improve or damage the quality of the game for the non-charge characters?
Sirlin commented on a Potempkin combo that requires a single frame link, but high-level Guilty Gear players have little trouble performing it consistently. This means that people who practice getting the timing ‘just right’ get an advantage over people who don’t invest time, but there’s no real thought involved in getting the extra damage. Would the game be better if the combo window was larger?
In Street Fighter III (3rd strike) characters have a wide variety of get-up times. This means that in order to be a proficient wake-up attacker, someone has to learn all the different timings, which raises the threshold for people to be able to use that tactic. While people clearly have to study all of the match-ups anyway to be highly competitive, do those differences really improve the game, or do they represent an unnecessary barrier to being competitive?
Difficult techniques add to a game up to the point where they become the dominant tactic to the exclusion of all others.
I would bring up Alpha 3. I like V-ism. I enjoy using it and it certainly defines the A3 environment at high levels. I feel some what, I’m not sure, cheated? by the fact that A and X are essentially obsolete.
While V-ism is difficult to use (and even harder to learn if you’re new…) the results are very much worth it. I wouldn’t change that aspect of the game at all.
But it still seems to me, that if X or A were just as viable, in different ways, we could add even more to the game.
I don’t like IAD’s in the GG/Hnk games.
No. Difficult techniques provide an artificial barrier between low level and high level play. Having difficult moves makes a game hard to learn and harder to master.
Making moves easier to perform would lower the learning curve required to play competitively in a game. It would make the game more fun for new players, because instead of worrying about “How do I perform move X” they can worry about “When is the correct situation to use move X versus move Y?” It would make the game more fun for experienced players because there would probably be a larger pool of players engaged in high level play.
I guess that would depend on who you’re asking. If you’re asking hard-core players, I think most would say that without difficult techniques a game would lack depth. If you’re asking casual players who get annihilated time and time again by the same difficult technique you would probably get a different answer.
the 3S comment doesnt make sense because there is no physical skill involved in learning the timing for a characters spacific wakeup. That’s just knowledge of the game, and the difference in wakeups for characters adds depth. If your talking about execution, then yes I agree the bar set is too high for competitive play. I don’t see why Ken players should have to learn how to kara srk just to be competitive, because this level of execution only serves to alienate players who are intellegent but dont have the time to invest in advanced execution.
i think having difiicult things to do can make a game better but it has to be implimented in a way that doesn’t put players who can’t do it at a big disadvantage. General moves and combos should be easy to pull off in my opnion, flashy shit should be hard to puill off and do only slightly more damage.
a good example in my opinion would be ken from 3s. doing mpxSRKxkaraSRK as opposed to mp,hp x srk gives a slight damage increase but the chance of landing is far slimmer, you also need to positioned closer so you often have to weigh up whether its worth risking missing the kara to get a few extra points damage.
It’s nice when you practice and can do things other players can not, why not reward hard work and dedication. If it doesn’t do much more damage, but is way harder to pull off, people will still attempt it and feel good when they land it.
it requires a balance.
if everything in high level play is “too hard” (alpha 3, cvs2 even)
you get a smaller community overall, because people get discouraged.
if everything in high level play is too “easy” you would have to ramp up the strategy to a much higher level which is what sirlin would want i would assume.
i like the way 3s does execution. it has some difficult things, but you don’t need godlike execution to do most of the offensive options with ken or chun-li.
for the record btw, you don’t have to learn kara srk to be a competitive ken player at all. watch most high level ken matches. you see alot of c.mp, super, short short super, and strong fierce(w/ or w/o fireball) into super, not kara srk’s all over the place.
you dont need difficult execution to make a game more than rock/paper/scissors
anyways we had this argument in the sgbx thread somewhere, the consensus seems split pretty evenly
thats true, chess doesnt have execution really at all, good call.
but its like…the amount of strategy you’re willing to have in your game. street fighter is deep and all, but i wouldn’t want it to be chess or go either.
There are better ways to balance the moves than by having the flashier shit more difficult. Like wouldn’t it be better if the flashy moves were just as easy to pull off and did more damage, but were much riskier than general moves? The flashy moves could have a longer startup or recovery or something, making them more open to counter attack.
I fall in with the crowd that says that some difficulty is good, but there’s a limit, one that too many fighters cross.
Agreed. And that “limit” will vary from person to person. GG is difficult to me, but to other newbs, it might seem easy as pie. I guess it’s really subjective.
I think we, as mostly Street Fighter - derived fighting game players, may have a biased perspective on what exactly is “difficult”. For example, I think most people here wouldn’t say that the “standard” 2D fighting game motions (QCF, HCF, DP, etc.) are all that difficult. Others, however, may see these basics as a level of complexity that doesn’t serve a purpose.
The reason I bring up this point is because of Smash Bros. - it has no complex controller motions for moves (yet), but is still considered a legitimate tournament game. I’ve been asked by friends who play Smash Bros. (but not SF) why 2D fighters require memorizing complex motions for moves. This leads me to my point that within the community we may have our own standards of “difficult”, but there’s also a larger definition that shouldn’t be forgotten. If that makes any sense.
Well Super Smash Bros was a party game that pretty much had its scene created from scratch.It was fortunate enough to have enough advanced thing’s to set it apart,but primarily it’s a game that anybody can enjoy and they won’t have to worry about making complex movements or anything.Contrast to a game like Guilty Gear that purposely has 1 frame links,and movements that people from the Smash community might consider unnatural.
That’s not a diss to Melee,because that game has some pretty advanced stuff that even a seasoned vet may not immediately understand.
I do agree with your point though.
I personally agree with Sirlin. I do not like games in which i feel i need to learn a very very precise glitch or “technique” to be competitive. For me, that seems to be A3, GG, Smash, and CvS2 to a lesser extent.
Playing Naruto 4 was a real eye opener to me about how easy a game could be to pick up, allowing people to reach the strategyportion much quicker.
but there is room for both types of games. it comes down to preference.
No. Thread over.