My thoughts on the current state of fighting games

Just needed to be posted

 

You're saying there's no long range game in VF and Tekken, but all these other dudes are saying there is. Which is it?

I know the answer, and I've already made it clear: there is one, but it's not fleshed out and there have only been halfhearted attempts at fixing it.

Tekken has plenty of incentive to play at long range, btw. That's how a lot of strong players eat shitty players alive: either they stay back and whiff punish or move into range where they can use their mid-range tools best. Remember Rain Miguel in T6?

Of course, that is still nowhere near as fleshed out as say SamSho's fullscreen game, because you're just trying to get at the range where the other guy has virtually no options, something that (in theory) shouldn't exist in 2D.

3D fighters are still very matchup dependent, and still have gimmicky characters. Shit, over half the cast of FS is gimmicky.

If you're losing to gimmicks in GG that is your own damn fault. Outside of select few situations, there is an answer to everything.

Whoever said there is justice in the world? I think FS is better than any version of SF4, in spite of its weaknesses, and it's still not nearly as popular.

People play SF because it's easier to conceptualize what's going on than it is in most other fighting games, easy as that.

No, they're not. If they were, there would have been no reason to introduce dash canceling or rainbow dash in Gundam. The whole point of giving you these options was to make people work for approaching you and to give you a way to close in at close range.

Ever played vanilla Gundam VS? Shining Gundam could react to anything you did and Shining Finger through it, and because there was no dash canceling and it had superarmor, you had to eat it. Similar deal with approaching suits with insane defensive melee like Turn-A and Qubeley in NEXT, which is why they introduced rainbow dashing (dash canceling melee).

There's one example of fixing a game to make it so you have to work your way in, and one example of fixing a game so you can dance towards your opponent. They are different, and if any game proves that, it's Gundam.

But there were endless stages before, and they decided that they weren't worth keeping. Why do you think that is? You keep asking me to link you videos, why don't you go look for some videos of VF3's desert stage and see how people abused the lack of boundaries?

You can never be objective about anything, I said I was trying to be as objective as possible. I tried to consider why someone who likes fighting games could still be turned off by a game like VF, and came to a conclusion that is logically consistent, if nothing else.

 

I'm talking options. The only option you have at long range is to close the distance and get to mid range because there aren't any fireballs and stretchy limbs. Technically, there is have a long range "game" considering how much space the game allows two characters to part in the ring, but the main option in that part of the game is to close the distance. You're saying that's inherently bad, I'm saying it isn't and it isn't because of other game mechanics and systems.

Even with FS being gimmicky, it's not to the same degree as 2D and it's because of game mechanics and systems.

The gimmick is in the ability to effectively counter pick the character. Shit like v-13 versus Tager in BlazBlue. Name a 3D game that has counter picking to the same degree as 2D? I can't think of any.

So then you're admitting "innovation" and being "superior" has nothing to do with the reason 3D is "dying" or behind 2D in popularity. So why did you even try to use that as a talking point? That was one of the main issues in you're approach to this discussion.

Lol, k bruh. I'ma just leave it at that.

All game franchises go through trials and tribulations. They tried it and it didn't work. That's just the nature of trying new things. You either hit or miss. If you hit, good. If you miss, find out why, learn from it, and implement solutions.

Your conclusion was that 2D is "superior" to 3D. That's not logically consistent because the context is way too broad to be making statements like that. You literally just took the games you like the most and used them to represent the WHOLE, ignoring the bad that comes with the context you're trying to paint in such high regard. That's being intellectually dishonest. That's why peeps are looking at you sideways.

 

Not inherently bad, but inferior because 2D games now have those "other game mechanics and systems" in addition to the things 2D games have done better since the beginning.

This is not inherent inferiority, either, because there are 3D games that manage to combine some of the best aspects of 2D with the best aspects of 3D. But nobody wants to seem to acknowledge that because they aren't called VF or Tekken.

That's not what gimmicky means, but okay. I can easily concede that 3D games rarely have horribly lopsided matches like that, but the best 2D games rarely have them, as well.

There is beauty in simplicity, which is why SF and KOF are still played in spite of games like GG and AH being around. Some people like the 2D spacing game and don't want to deal with having all those options up close. Part of the reason SFIV is such a mess is because they added a bunch of new offensive options without paying any mind to defense (until delayed techs in Ultra, that is, but that is a band-aid solution if there ever was one).

Gundam is far and away the most popular game in Japan, and it is the most 2D inspired 3D game to date. If you take the 2D influence out of Gundam, you're left with Rise of Incarnates (lol), which is basically everything wrong with the genre right now.

All you're leaving is yourself looking foolish because you don't want to acknowledge that I am right about this. There is a distinct difference between utilizing movement to entirely circumvent an opponent's attack and approaching your opponent in a way that he wouldn't want to attack you at all. The former is called "footsies" in 3D fighters and jumping in 2D fighters. The latter is what 2D games have done since the beginning, and all 3D games sans the mech fighters do a poor job of.

I did not choose Guilty Gear because I like it, I chose it because it was the first airdash fighter. I do like it a lot, but that is beside its historical significance of birthing an entire subgenre.

Also, I was incredibly specific in the article with all of my examples. If anything, I was too specific, which may be why some of my points are lost on many of you guys.

 

Please read the article carefully. I explain in great detail how airdash games have a lot of concepts that originated in 3D fighters.

I really do not want to keep addressing this because others here, even some of the people that disagree with me, have at least been able to acknowledge this.

 

Anyone who thinks VF4 is better than 5 is delusional? So high level tournament players like Shou, Ryan Hart, Cheif Gutti, fuudo, Gamerbee not to mention some of the best players over here in London are all delusional are they? And your basing your opinion on VF4 a really difficult game on a mere few months compared to their years of competitive tourney play? I personally do like some of what VF5 introduced like the new moves and easing up on risk/reward but overall still prefer VF4 for it's movement, greater emphasis on TEG but still having and advanced option select like ARE among other things. According to everything I've heard the popularity of VF started dropping with VF5 and especially with FS. Everyone that I've asked has said R was the best version of VF5 and that FS was disliked. Did you miss all the hate that was going FS's way before it came out here? Reno and Shou especially went into detail about that and there was that Japanese player who said FS was know as the boring game on his forum over there. Heard more about this from Chief Gutti in person a few years back at a tournament. It's nothing like it was in the VF4 days when VF was a major game apparently.

When I say possibly the worst I've played in the series I'm actually not including VF1, 2 and Kids since I started at VF3.

I never said 2d fighters had restrictive movement they just don't have a highly advanced movement system like VF4's or some of the Tekken games. Having said that Arcana Heart 3 could be an exception, I don't know if it's in the same league. VF4 might have more movement restrictions than 5 but there are ways around it and there's dash cancelling which is not possible in 5 or FS and greater speed and recovery. FS's movement is probably the worst and most boring from VF3 to FS.

When someone like Ryan Hart whose a top player in SF, VF, Tekken and KOF for many years says he likes VF4 best out of everything he's ever played that's really saying something and is a far more qualified opinion than yours. And he's not the only as I mentioned Fuudo, Gamerbee and Itabashi. Not everyone amongst the best will ever agree unanimoulsy as there's personal prefereces but it does illustrate at leas how good VF4 was and that it shouldn't be put on an inferior level to the best 2d fighters.

 

I didn't miss it dude, believe me. But a lot of those dudes have probably stopped playing since (that was almost five years ago now), and the few who are still playing appreciate it for what it is: a streamlined game system wise, but rough around the edges in terms of balance. R may very well be a better game, but I haven't had a chance to play it.

Let me go find a bunch of top SF players who are all going to say that SF is the best fighting game ever, and tell you it's a more qualified opinion than anything you, I, or everyone else combined can have.

VF4 might be the best fighting game ever, but it's not because a bunch of people who stopped playing it years ago say so.

I am of the opinion that it was among the best of its time, but 5 improved upon it in so many ways that the few things it did botch are almost not even worth mentioning.

 

That moment when everyone 1 ups you in your own thread and then starts talking about other things... /thread MARLEY!

 

The sorry state of VF is not because of its mechanics in ANY WAY. It is because of the sorry state of the gamer. Every issue you bring up is flawlessly dealt with in VF using some technique or level of awareness. Prove to me you even know VF, that you even know what this game is, that you even know what a fighter really is , and then maybe we can get somewhere, but as of now, I see another person that knows jack squat about the nuts and bolts of VF but thinks they can talk deep about it.

You said VF manages thru time instead of distance, time? you mean advantage? advantage is THE ALPHA and OMEGA of any good fighter, it is its beginning and its end, everything else is color and gimmick. I am hearing you say "I dont get the "fighting" game part, where's the gimmick?"

please correct any misconceptions I have

 

Ok, this thread has gotten out of hand and no longer makes sense. So I'm going to hijack it...

Am I alone in wanting a new Bushido Blade game? That shit was awesome...

 

I read the blog post. Why is it more desirable to have the main focus of a fighting game be about controlling space as opposed to controlling advantage? You spend a couple sentances on that, and then spend the rest of the post assuming that it's something 3D games need to fix. Seems like the most important thesis of your post is undersupported.

 

1.the current gamer needs to be fixed
2.fg companies need to stop thinking they need to add new whistles and bells when all along something worked.
3.yu suzukis view in vf all along is wrong. Mania vf is best and screw yolo.
4.america needs a lot more mass transit, so arcades can comeback.
5.vf4 core system should be guideline to build from if your planning to add something new.
6.trust your strongest vfrs as a reference to building.
7.peanut butter on your gf's bum is always the best!

 

How do you know how long or how much they played the VF5 series for or what standard they were playing at? That's just speculation to fit your point. In comparison how much VF4 did you play to reach those conclusions?

The one's I mentioned are not just VF players though there fighting game players, in some cases over a range of 2d and 3d games over many years and continue to play at the top level at other fighters now. They all rated VF or VF4 as the best they've played.

 

I think the issue @GrizzlyTrollton is having is that he thinks I'm saying something that I'm not. He keeps mentioning how people don't get a life lead and run out the timer in VF, which is true, but also not what I have been arguing at all.

From the article (bolded for emphasis):

To paraphrase, all I'm saying is that the fullscreen game in VF isn't that great, that there's little reason to be the aggressor at fullscreen unless you have a life deficit, and that the mid-range game is still where you want to be if you want to control space. The mid-range game, while a complete guessing game, puts more emphasis on calling out moves with sidesteps/sabaki/etc. rather than positioning yourself to be able counter-poke. Not that there is none of the latter in VF, but it's less of a tug of war like it is in 2D games and more of a matter of making a hard callout and dashing into the range where you can beat the other guy clean. It's a little backwards in that it makes it harder to make an approach than it is to sit back and troll people with your max range pokes.

Offensive movement is better than defensive movement (I hinted as much in the article), but you're still making a hard read in a guessing game that is pretty stacked against you until you either get in or move out of the range where the other guy works best.

 

Fascinating thread here...

Please clarify what the level refer to in this context? Does level refer to popularity, complexity, number of moves per character, sophistication of graphics, number of fighting styles in the game, size of fireballs and number of power-up-moves polygons-per-second? Please explain what you mean by nowhere near the level. "What do you mean by nowhere?" Please qualify numerically just how far VF , SC, Tekken or DOA, UFC3 is from the best 2D fighters.


Also

"In the simplest of terms, the article states that 2D fighters are superior to 3D fighters because they place more emphasis on controlling space, which is a constant threat, whereas 3D fighters place more emphasis on controlling time, a threat which is mitigated by creating distance between you and your opponent."

The implication that the 3rd dimension here refers to time is at minimum an unusual assumption. By definition 2d fighters are mapped to a 2 dimensional space and 3d fighters are mapped to a 3 dimensional space. This means that a 3d environment has more variables to deal with. Of course this may impact the time a match takes, but its not a requirement.

In general 2D anything is easier to deal wth than 3D anything. So if we are talking popularity among fighting game fans(maybe you have a point) that makes sense to me. On the other hand, a 3D fighter has by definition more dimensions to deal with than a 2D fighter. So by definition 3D > 2D .

Put another way a 2D fighting game is a subset of a 3D fighting game. I see it all the time with players who really only play 2D games who experiment with Tekken , DOA, or VF. They fight like they are in a 2D game using only 2D tactics and they get frustrated and sometime surprised when they have to account for the 3rd dimension options, knowledge and gameplay that good 3D players have.

Also Huh? WTF?

"2D fighters are superior to 3D fighters because they place more emphasis on controlling space,3D fighters place more emphasis on controlling time"


Even if the above statement was in some way accurate (after reading the article I still didn't see the reasoning)

Why would controlling space be superior to controlling time?


What an odd notion. In general in the context of fighting games Both 2D and 3D FG have players that use rush down, turtling and poking, all of which can be converted to time and space. There is no notion of time being superior to space. Which one is more important is simply a matter of the fighting style you are facing. Some players like fighting with a sense of urgency and immediacy and some players like the intensity of an intellectual match that develops over time. Which one is better, is a subjective matter kind-a the checkers-vs-chess argument. There is urgent intensity and there is intellectual intensity and VF supports both!


The reality of the matter is high level 2D play has less dimension to worry about in comparison to high level 3D play.

Is it possible that Quash's blog, and the article that he refers to in his blog are equivocating popularity with superiority? Yes a 2D fighting game is simpler to deal with than a 3D fighting game and simpler is always better for the masses. But a 3D fighting game champion subsumes a 2D fighting game champion because the 2 dimensional fighting game is a subset of a 3 dimensional fighting game. So its fairly easy to say that mastery of a 3D fighting game (VF in this case) requires more skill and more knowledge than the best 2D fighting game(pick one).

The real issue is a 2D space vs a 3D space and what options, limitations, restrictions and opportunities do you have when you compare them.

By definition a 3 dimensional fighting game > 2 dimensional fighting game if for no other reason than it has at least 1 more dimension than a 2D game.

@quash of course fighting game gamers are entitled to, and should have thoughts, on the current state of fighting games and if your point is that 2D fighters are more popular or that there are more of them, or that new 2D fighting games and content are on the horizon , keep this in mind.

2D fighters are cheaper and faster and less complex to make. That's why 2D fighting games preceded 3D fighting games to the market. 2D fighting games are easier to deal with than 3D fighting games (in the general case) so of course you will have more people playing them (they require less skill and knowledge in some areas). We see that same scenario in action in some cases where ppl choose Tekken, or DOA over VF. VF is just perceived by some as harder so they take the easier route (Tekken or DOA, or SC) and then delude themselves that the easier route is better because there are more ppl playing Tekken or SC or DOA.



If you define better in terms of the number of ppl playing, or the popularity of the game, then touche.

But I don't think you really believe that you can get on VFDC and parade any 2D fighter out as being superior with respect to:

Fighting engine mechanics
Balance
diversity of defensive options
diversity of offensive options
character customization
quality of graphics
fighting game ontology (i.e. our character commands, combo documentation, quality of wiki etc)
knowledgeable community
our dojo masters

Fanboy disclaimer (subjective statements to follow LOL)

2D fighters are fun in a training-wheels-kind-a-way. But if you want a real arcade fighting game experience Virtua Fighter is now, always has been, and for the forseeable future will be the best Fighting game on the planet. If you are looking for the best combat simulator that would go to UFC 3 Undisputed, but the best arcade fighter goes to VF. Note: both games are 3D fighting games. 2D games by definition require less skill to master. The best 3D FG tourney players simply are required to know more, and numerically have more skills than the best 2D FG tourney players, because by definition 3D fighting games are more complex, present more challenges and have more options than 2D fighting games.

Virtua Fighter is a fighting game masterpiece. Its a tour de force. Its the viceroy of fighting games. Its the apex of the definition of an arcade fighting game. It represents the zenith of fighting game style, balance, and grace, and its current state is good, certainly as well as can be expected given the financial status of Sega. There are thousands of ppl playing virtua fighter some where in the world everyday at almost every hour of the day.

The monk in me suggests that you

Don't try to compare 2D fighting game hype with 3D fighting game superiority in your quest for contextualizing the current state of fighting games.

 

I'm really not trying to sound harsh, but you are basically dickriding, dude.

Who cares if they played VF4 for years? Who cares about how long they played VF5 for? You don't need to spend years playing a game to understand how it works conceptually. I was able to figure out every mechanic in Dengeki Bunko FC within ten matches of playing it, which was enough for me to determine that the game is trash. So far I have not seen anything through first or secondhand experience that would convince me otherwise. The game is a scrubby piece of crap that is only popular because it's simple (I will elaborate more on why this is at some point in the future).

Whether you want to admit it or not, you judge games like this all the time. "Leaving your preference at the door" isn't possible in an arcade environment where you have literally everything under the sun to choose from. Collective preference is what drives the genre, and it is currently driving 3D fighters like VF out.

I spent more than enough time with FT, given its age and the amount of predicate knowledge I had going into it, to figure out what I like and don't like about it. I'm not going to spend years of my life playing a dead iteration of a dead series because some dude on the internet thinks I'm "not qualified" unless I do. I have better things to do with my time, like playing the games that are currently pushing the boundaries of what's possible with the genre.

 

@masterpo, you really need to stop hitting the pipe. But you do bring up a good question that someone before you also brought up.

Why is it better to control space than control time?

It's pretty simple, really. The ability to control space allows you to take control of a match without immediately getting into the "endgame", so to speak, which is controlling time.

Why don't all fighting games just put both characters right next to each other in a sudden-death style arena? Would anyone play VF or any other fighting game if it was nothing but controlling time from the moment the round starts?

It's an extreme example, but I'm trying to get a point across here. Space is what allows you to create richer guessing games beyond the close range mixups we all know and love. It's what allows you to put yourself in a better position than the other guy and make him work for the mixup he wants to put you in.

Obviously there is space control in VF and Tekken, but it's not as rich as it is in 2D games. You used to be able to say that 3D fighters had a better close range (or "time control") game, but that is arguably no longer the case thanks to the advent of airdash fighters.

 

I do want to thank those of you who have been mostly constructive, because I know this isn't an easy topic to talk about from the perspective of being a fan of 3D fighters. I don't want pats on the back or yes-men telling me I've dropped an epic truth bomb, which is why I'm hesitant to post this on Dustloop at all. A lot of the people there don't even understand why the game they play is so good (something I will also elaborate on in the future), which is pretty deplorable really.

I would rather engage with critical thinkers I disagree with than people who agree with me because they like having their opinions validated, so thanks, really.