The Problem of Execution

It was supposed to tell you that what is ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unnecessary’ about execution is a relative aspect too - no point arguing.

Say you allow people to carry the ball rather than dribbling, and furthermore say that you allow people to use their hands to contact the ball in soccer, what you’ve done is essentially changed the two sports no different from each other. What this means is that execution is not a problem, it’s a requirement to define something. Whether you want to view it as a problem is your own point of view. How difficult it is to follow the rules in which you can execute is completely subjective and there is no point arguing about it so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

The least you could do to prove your own points about how some difficult executions are arbitrary and unnecessary is to give some examples and say how it can be changed to make it less execution demanding.:rolleyes:

Ok that’s an opinion, you think so and so, you’re not proving anything either.

It has nothing to do with learning. It has to do with practicing and repetition.

They’ve stayed alive because the games are interesting, not because people can do new, more difficult combos. Execution is only a byproduct of some of that stuff.

If that was true, then making everything in DOA harder would mean it becomes significantly better? No, I would argue it would still be very much the same game.

What do you think of Senko no Ronde? Everything in that game is easy to execute. Are you saying Senko has no depth or doesn’t require skill, because everything is easy?

This is not true at all. The two have no correlation. Depth is created by strategy, not how hard the moves are to do.

two button, one motion supers > one button, two motion supers


But where would my EX moves go???



get the fuck outta here.

great post dude, have anything to say about the rest of my points?

DAMN thats such a good argument! I’ve had to reconsider and I agree with you sir, he SHOULD indeed “get the fuck outta here.”!

There’s no decree stating you HAVE to do these “hard to execute” moves. Some people get by with just plain basics. EVERY game played at a competitive level has something that’s hard to execute or apply to real world game play. The dedicated players are rewarded with being able to pull these things off with extra damage, frame advantage, etc. For examples JF combos, active reloading in gears of war. You don’t need to do any of these things to win, BUT it definitely gives you an advantage if you perfect them. They in no way detract from the gameplay for the casual crowd.

This seems a rather shaky premise. Theres no provable link between the popularity of these games and the fact that they have difficult execution. Just because A is true and B is true does not mean that A leads to B. I imagine that the strong brand identity of the games has a lot to do with it.

And if difficult execution has such appeal then why do games with relatively simple execution (DOA, Tekken) outsell these titles by an order of magnitude? While the appeal of 3d graphics certainly is a factor a lower barrier to entry is always a plus when it comes to attracting new fans (e.g. the Wii).

Perhaps it would also be germane to point out that special forces units are a strategically important part of a national body and as such have a guaranteed pool of inductee’s to draw from. The fighting games scene, specifically the 2d niche of it, have no such guaranteed new members and as such should be open to suggestions which would help swell their numbers. The kind of idiotic, insular, pseudo-masculine rubbish your spouting is exactly the kind of attitude which shrinks a hobby.

I don’t think any of us can define what’s exclusive to the term “depth” and what isn’t. Execution isn’t the same type of depth (which is obvious) but it’s still depth since it requires practice. How is that any different from mental strategy? In both cases the player has to practice if they want to have higher abilities than someone else. Aside from this being SRK I can’t figure out why everybody makes things so complicated. If practice and experience improve a player’s capability to do something, doesn’t that mean it adds depth? Physical dexterity isn’t the most important thing in video games but it still provides another medium through which players can be ranked in skill, and that’s important in fighting games, right?


Some people just can’t understand this, and want every god damn technique to be a simple execution. If you can score a goal in soccer halfway across the field, more power to you. That doesn’t mean that if you can’t do that then you can’t play soccer.

If you think you’re good and have good strategy, you don’t need to do 80% damage combos in GGAC. But since you have such good strategy, you should be able to pull off 20 small little combos that can be executed at a very basic level to win the round. But just because you cannot do 80% combos because you can’t do a certain FRC in no way means that you cannot play GGAC. If you can’t use your brawl to win, use your brains.

You guys are making it sound like even dashing is hard to execute. :rofl:

Do you even realize what you’re saying? That someone without good execution has to create 20 times the opportunities to get the same end result? I know you’re exaggerating, but this is exactly the problem; you’d have to be far strategically superior to your opponent to overcome the execution differential.

We have seen this happen once already in the transition between Street Fighter and Street Fighter II. Street Fighter had VERY difficult execution. Capcom felt that special moves, being special, should require very precise inputs in order to pull off. This idea failed because the level of execution required to use special moves was so high that it impeded them from being integrated into common gameplay.

In Street Fighter II, specials became a shitload easier. Though I hardly need to say so, the game was not destroyed because of this. Rather than spoonfeed the game to “pansies” who just couldn’t hack the execution of the first game, it nurtured new talent in a way that Street Fighter never did.

Anybody who thinks a game should be hard because the level of execution is not permissive ought to sit down and play Street Fighter for a while. That will teach them all about the merits of difficult execution.

No not at all. The depth of strategy is what makes the games fun. There is no creativity involved in getting your moves and combos right. It’s just brute force practice. That doesn’t make you want to keep coming back to a game and playing, because its static. Being able to super doesn’t change from player to player, but strategy does. You can define it however you want, but people enjoy the depth of strategy, not having to practice by themselves for hours. So, in the context of fighting games, and what makes them good, I would say depth is exclusively based on strategy. That is why games where one character/strategy is much better than all others are considered broken, but a game like MB with easy execution is not.

you’re rewarded for difficult execution. If some people are willing to sit down and practice high level execution to obtain it, why should others say its ok to dumb the game down so everyone can do it? practice up and step your game up instead of crying about it.

Its called training mode for a reason.

maybe cuz people fighting games to be based 100% on making the right decisions and 0% on execution?

You could say this about any game. Did you listen to the radio show I linked? In it, Sirlin talks a variant of chess where, after making any move, you have to juggle 3 balls for 5 seconds or your move doesn’t count. Does this take skill? Yes. Is it therefore a method of differentiating between better and worse players? Yes. Is it still fucking retarded? You bet! Some skills are just not interesting to test, and a sizable number of people feel that difficult execution is one of them. You’re welcome to disagree, but please accept that that’s a subjective judgment and it doesn’t make people “pansies” or whatever other retarded shit you want to call them just for disagreeing with you.

I don’t see what’s wrong with what he said. Someone with lax execution is going to have to compensate with more mind games/strategy, just as someone with poor mind games/strategy is going to have to compensate with better execution; seems reasonable to me.

There is a problem with that comparison because juggling has nothing to do with the game of chess, adding juggling is completely arbitrary. Most of the complaints about GG are about the difficulty of its execution not because its useless.

The last 10 or so posts are exactly what I just said in my first big ass post in this thread.

I hate having my posts ignored :confused:.