Why do developers put block stun in fighting games?


#1

Why don’t they make it so that you’re back at neutral after immediately blocking an attack? Are they afraid of making more moves punishable?


#2

the irony


#3

agreed

…without blockstun games would just be random poking matches


#4

Why would you ever attack someone if when blocked you ate a retaliation for free?


#5

Hmm, IONNO! Why do they make you get hurt in fps’s? Why isn’t the princess at the beginning of the first level in mario? Interesting topic you’ve brought up.


#6

Play Dual Blades.


#7

play SvC


#8

lolz


#9

Not sure I understand. Are you saying this will eliminate pressure games? Why don’t they just make the recovery shorter at the end of moves? Maybe I play too many games where the fastest moves come out in seven frames, games where getting blocked means you’re at a disadvantage and usually no advantage unless you actually connect.


#10

in other words you’re saying they should get rid of block stun.


#11

No, just asking why it’s there. Because everybody loves long block strings?


#12

dash thru light kick xx throw


#13

That is the basic idea in fighting games, yeah.


#14

here’s one, "why didn’t developers make each character have autoparry?"
a fighting game without block stun would be about as entertaining as a penclicking race.


#15

Instead of criticizing, someone should explain what a game without block stun would be like. Obviously, the game would be ridiculous and broke. Blocking would ultimately become the best option and attacking would be stupid, because a blocked move = punished.


#16

Block will just turn to parry = immediate punishment


#17

Its basically like people have said.

Blocking is not exactly a difficult technique, you hold back, or down-back. The hardest blocking gets is when you’re blocking hi-lo mixups.
If there was no blockstun, you would get a free retaliation whenever you block an attack, which would make the reward of blocking outweigh the risk like, 1000-fold.

In contrast, parrying is sort of like the “blockstun-free” block you’re asking for. Except that it requires (relatively) strict timing. And still a lot would consider the reward for a parry (a free reprisal) to outweigh its risk.

So imagine if the timing on parrying was removed - you would automatically parry any incoming attack just by holding back, and in exchange you still took chip damage from it. That would be your blockstun-free block.

Like someone said already, games would deteriorate to prolonged poking/turtling matches. Attacking would be the most dangerous thing you could do, and blocking would be the safest. So the obvious way to win would be too keep your health slightly above your opponents and then just play defensive (read: turtle) until the clock runs down.

As it is, parrying in Third Strike already makes games very “pokey”, because of the risk of your attack being parried and countered.

Hope this helps, and please anyone add to this, I’m sure I’ve missed plenty.


#18

Why do developers put attack recovery in fighting games?


#19

I think I get what you guys are saying, but how is any of that different from the current situation: punishable moves already exist and get punished, hence we don’t typically use punishable moves. I think the point you guys are trying to make is that more moves would become unsafe, further limiting the number of useful moves?

I think the thing I’m having difficulty with is why they chose blockstun to deal with this dillemma. For example, say they make the fastest move in a game seven frames, but they also make it so that most moves recover in under seven frames. Wouldn’t the attacker gain an oppurtunity to block/counter/evade before the seven framer hits, thus creating a move not punishable on block? Granted, the defender has the advantage, but at least damage is no longer garanteed.

I think the answer might involve an issue with technology? 2D games aren’t exactly known for their high frame count. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there moves in 2D games that come out in 0 frames?

Also, I think another issue here is that I didn’t really think about who deserves advantage more: the attacker or the defender? From what I’ve read, most of you agree that if we give the advantage to the defender, the game will turn into a poke-fest?


#20

Haha Oh Wow