My thoughts on the current state of fighting games

No pipe here

Okay, so lets take your point, that controlling space allows you to take control over a match.

And lets say that some how you can demonstrate that (I have some counter examples in mind but I'll save them for later)

Why do you believe that a fighting game that has been mapped to 2D space, has more, or better space than a game that has been mapped to 3D space?

in your statement:

"Obviously there is space control in VF and Tekken, but it's not as rich as it is in 2D games"

please define what you mean by "rich".

@quash I'm open to a new understanding on the matter if you can quantify and objectify your argument in some cogent way.

Also I'm getting from your point that less space equates to less time and that more space equates to more time. Are you making that point?

Do you believe that two master players that are face to face will player a faster game than two master players that have to traverse distance before the engagement?

 

2D games, as of right now, do have superior space control for a few reasons. Keep in mind that this may not always be the case (and I really hope it isn't 10-20 years from now), but as of right now this is the case, and here are the most important reasons.

First, there is the the fact that basically all 2D fighters have a direct threat from fullscreen. This doesn't necessarily have to be a fireball or a projectile of any kind. Moving forward to gain meter, for example, works as a threat at any range because you are basically gaining more options down the road in exchange for your opponent being able to back off for a bit.

Something like this could work in 3D fighters, but hasn't been well implemented yet.

Then you have the tendency of 2D games to usually give each character a few distinct ranges they can control space well at. This is basically what I mean when I say that the spacing game in 2D fighters is richer than it is in 3D fighters. Instead of having your max-range pokes define where you can control space (using Jacky as an example just because I've played him the most, this is like 3K/46K+G range), you have multiple ranges you can control space at, be it because you have a projectile, a fast walk/run speed, or whatever.

Going with a basic example here, Ryu in ST is good at controlling space at basically every range there is. At fullscreen he obviously has fireballs, but even up close he has some excellent normals that non-shoto characters tend to struggle against. His spacing abilities aren't defined by being at any one particular range which is why he's such a good character, and is also the reason there are a few distinct styles of Ryu play. Then you have Ken, who is basically the same character minus a few important tools in exchange for the knee bash throw, which makes his close range game not necessarily better in terms of creating opportunities to get in, but much more threatening once he's there.

Right there we have a complete example of what it means to have distinct tools defined by range rather than time. Ken won't work as well at neutral, generally speaking, but once he gets in he has one hell of a mixup game that Ryu doesn't.

 

Okay, I see where you coming from. So you're saying that 2D FG have better space control because of:

1. Full screen threat
2. and Richer equates to number of options for attack at any range

Okay lets look at that a little closer:

2D fighters can move forward, backward and up and down (+x, -x, +y -y) and the full screen (flat screen can be described totally in terms of a characters (x,y) location. And so
you're saying because a 2D fighter gives you more control (which translates in to more options for attack and defense positioning +x , -x, +y -y) that makes it richer or better than 3D.

Now, you are not saying that 3D fighters can't place a character at any (x,y) on the screen, you are simply saying that a 2d fighter does a better job of it through the use of fast runs, fire balls, get-over-here (a.k.a mortal kombat) type techniques that can quickly adjust the (x,y) location of either character A or character B or both and that gives you the full screen threat and richer control.

If you are saying more than that please elaborate.

But you are missing the whole point with that assessment. 2D fighting games arrived on the scene first. They have been here the longest and are very mature. So they have optimized (x,y) positioning to an art form (because that's all they have to work with is (x,y) positioning. So there are all kinds of techniques to increase X distance between two characters or decrease X distance between two characters. Or play with Y, The distance of one character over or under the other. That's the basic 2D playing field.

But 2D games have no real game play for side turned, back turned, foreground, background, side turned standing, side turned crouching, back turned standing, back turned crouching etc. Not to mention 3D fighters like UFC3 that has back turned bottom, back turned top, left side,back turned etc,

So 2D fighters have a Full Screen threat only if you think of the screen as X,Y plane. And from that point of view YES!!!!! 2D fighters probably have more and more sophisticated options when only a 2D or (X,Y) plane is being considered. But for 3D fighters Full Screen includes depth of the screen i.e a Z axis. For 3D fighters the Full Screen consists of 2 planes not just 1. And the threat, offense and defense could happen in either plane. And 3D fighters have a whole class of game play that cannot even be addressed in a 2D fighter. e.g I've move around you on the Z axis and only certain attacks or fighting techniques become available once I'm Z axis fighting. 2D fighters Fight along the X and Y real-estate on the screen. But 3D fighting games define Full Screen with 2 Planes (X axis, Y axis and Z axis) So from that point of view 2D fighters are not a FULL Screen threat because there is no Z axis offense or Z axis defense, strategy or tactics in a 2 D Fighting game.

If you were to bring RYU , Scorpion, or any other 2D character and all of their options and space control into a 3D world They would immediately face a problem. In their 2D world when fireballs, fast runs and get-over-heres are executed, they only have to consider the (X,Y) location of their opponent. In the 3D world they have to consider the (X,Y,Z) location of their opponent, not only the up and down location on the screen but the In and out location of the screen. So that fireball projectile would not only have to be aimed up or down it would have to be up and so many degrees to the right or so many degrees to the left, or down and so many degrees to the right, etc. So if I take advantage of the Z axis, RYU would become frustrated. And the 2D FULL SCREEN rich attack is not so Full screen or rich once you consider the Z axis or the 2nd plane of all true 3d Fighters.


So to restate the issue. Lets say that Full screen is defined by the number of X and Y positions two fighting characters can occupy simultaneously on a single screen. It may very well be the case that 2D fighters give you more options controlling the X,Y positions than 3D fighters do. But if you define Full screen by the number of X, Y, and Z position on the screen, and the options for attack and defend are defined based on three positions instead of two. Then its a very different conversation.

Look at like this:

(X,Y) then move 1
(X+1,Y) then move 2
(X+1,Y+1) then move 3 and so on
vs
(X,Y,Z) then move 1,
(X+1,Y,Z+2) then move 2 and so on

With that interpretation even if 3D games control half the 2d space that a 2D game covers their control of the Z axis will quickly match that. And even if the 3D game is say 3/4 as good managing its 2D space as any 2D game, the Z axis game play quickly surpasses what's going on in 3D.


Quash your definition of Full Screen excludes depth. So all of the incredible attacks and defenses, strategies and tactics you have in say SC 8 way run, and DOA's circular attacks aren't even potential threats in the 2D FULL screen you're referring to.

So if you're defining richer in term of 2D games have more ways to control the horizontal or vertical distance between two opponents than 3D games , you are essentially making the argument that 2D games do a better job at controlling 2D space than a 3D game does. You are not denying that 3D games do have 2D game play, you're just suggesting that the 2D game play is more complete in a 2D game than it currently is in any 3D game (from your perspective) And you don't even really address the 3D game play vs the 2D game play. And maybe you're right in that respect but a 3D game doesn't have to maximize its use of 2D game space because it has a 3rd alternative.

If we can agree that Full Screen Threat means something different in a 2D game than it does in a 3D game, we might get closer to measuring which kind of game play requires the most skill and offers the most rich experience.

Let's look at this way. A 2D character has a moveset(M) and P(X,Y)
in a real simplistic way Ｉ

could say SF complexity is |M| * |P| where | | denotes the cardinality of M and P respectively, and VF complexity would be the same.

It might be possible that a 2D fighter MK, SF has say (pick a number) 200 (X,Y) positions, and a good 3D fighter might only have say(pick a number) 175 (X,Y) positions. But the 3D fighter might have 50 (Z) positions, which could give it 25 more total positions to attack or defend than a 2D fighter has.

So then it comes down to the move sets, we could talk about permutations and combinations here how man (block,low attack,high attack) possibilities taken 3 at a time from a set of (pick a number) let say 50 moves so we have some thing like

SF-Moves = comb(3,50) * |P|
VF-Moves = comb(3,50) * |P|

Yes I know these are very crude, but we could be precise if you choose (let me know).

So it would come down to exactly how much Screen Real - Estate is the 2D game covering using only (X,Y) locations and how much screen Real-Estate is the 3D game covering using (X,Y,Z) locations and multiplying your defense and offensive options based on move set combinations and permutation (which we can do, its not that hard)

Now once you have those numbers, you could then say definitively which game had the most options or is the most rich by just counting. But those numbers would only tell half of the story. The other half involves the two human players.

Just because SF or MK offers a potential Full Screen Threat with rich space control does not mean that the players that are playing the game will be able to use it or know how to use it. The same goes for VF, DOA, Tekken and SC.


So the real issue here might be the state of Current Fighting Game Gamers, instead of the state of Current Fighting Games because potential threat and potential richness doesn't always translate into actual threat or actual richness. And as time goes by the really good 2D FG players are dwindling as are the really good 3D FG players both are being replaced by a generation of gamers that barely know the difference between 2D and 3D games. Who can only relate to the D-pad, and know nothing about 360 of a stick anyway

 

You're missing a crucial element of how 2D fighters work, and this statement gave it away:

Let's change things around for a second:

Obviously there are jumping attacks in 3D fighters, but they do not expand your options anywhere near the same way that jumping does in a 2D fighter. The air options in these games are most comparable to the options that sidestepping grants you in 3D, but what the air game in a 2D fighter has that the sidestep game in a 3D fighter does not is the element of space control.

A successful evade will always give you the same result in terms of positioning, with the obvious exception being OM which is just an evade with forward momentum. Jumping in a 2D fighter, however, does not always grant you the same result. In practice, it's virtually impossible for it to because the exact same jump can have very different consequences depending on the spacing between you and your opponent.

In other words, the air game is what sidestepping is for movement in 3D, as well as an integral part of the space control game that's taking place at all times. Sidesteps are not primarily used to control space, but to eliminate the opponent's ability to do so. Air options in a 2D game, on the other hand, can do both (though this is more true of Guilty Gear and its ilk rather than Street Fighter).

It is also worth pointing out, I think, that what determines the usefulness of a successful evade is primarily its timing (ie: did you evade early enough to punish or at least force a mixup). It just goes to show how intertwined the element of controlling time is with every other aspect of VF.

 

It is also worth pointing out that both Virtual On and Gundam do a wonderful job of implementing space control and making people work to maintain their positioning on both offense and defense.

The best part is that they do this 2D stuff while still giving you a pretty decent close range game, as well. I feel that mech fighters will be the future of the genre, and we're already starting to see this slow transition. Gunslinger Stratos, anyone?

 

No It's theory vs reality and whose opinion means more as in any review or comparison. Am I going to take Seth Killian more seriously or someone whose been there and done that at the best the 3d genre has to offer? Simple as that.

The Dengenki Bunko analogy doesn't add up. That game has a terrible reputation vs VF4 which is highly respected and was the most popular fighting game in Japan. In 30 years of playing fighters it's the best I've ever experienced too. There's all sorts of subtleties and hidden techniques that are easily missed and not as widely talked about on the net as say the wealth of information you can get on SF.

 

No need to turn it around. I realize I put a wall of text, and difficult to read, but just take your time and do so. I actually covered the point you just made.

Let take for example the monitor that I am looking at while typing this post. It is roughly 60 by 30 cm or 60 cm long and 30 high. length of X = 60 cm. height Y = 30 cm. So the total area of my monitor approx 1800 cm.

Let's say that in our ideal 2D FG world (SF, MK, etc) we can place any attack or mount any defense within any one of the 1800 cm. So no matter which cm we point to there is a (X,Y) location for that attack or defense that can cover every cm in the 1800. So this my friend includes your air game. The air game is something that happens along the Y axis.

So to your point, Let's say we are playing SF and VF on my 60 x 30 cm monitor. And lets say that while SF has offense and defense for 60 cm long and 30 cm high, that VF only has offense and defense for 60 cm long and 15 cm high. That would suggest that SF has a fighting space of 1800 cm and launch offense and defense within that 1800 cm, and VF would only have 900 cm fighting space and could only launch offense and defense within 900 cm, and that sense 2D fighters have FULL screen potential while 3D fighters don't. But to be fair here, 3D fighters do have some air attacks and air defense maybe not as extensive as 2D fighters, but they do have them. I know I use them all the time. Especially VF5FS Air jump back. So while they might not be as extensive you have to at least count what air defense and air attack a 3D fighter has. Juggling, Combos and the sort Tekken, SC, DOA, and to a lesser extent VF all have a modest air game. Not as demonstrative as SF, but there. On the other hand 2D games don't have any Z axis at all. So lets put this into perspective.

Lets say that VF can access 60 cm long on my monitor and only 15 cm high. But it can access 2 cm deep. Then that gives you 60 cm * 15 cm * 2 cm. Voila 1800 cm. So
now its SF 1800 cm vs VF 1800 cm. Where as SF has an extensive Air Game, VF has a mediocre or poor air game. But SF has no in/out and around game at all , where as VF has an extensive in/out and around game. But if we do the math both games have combat that can cover 1800 cm (in one form or another)

Now the question is what are your options given that both 2d and 3d cover their respective game spaces equally? SF in this example has a full 2D space = 1800 cm and VF has a full 3D space = 1800 cm.

Its fighting in a 1800 cm square. Vs fighting in a 1800 cm cube. In the case the 2d fighter the players only have to worry about actions and responses in Length * Height direction. On the other hand in the 3d fighting game both players have to worry about actions and responses in length * height * width area.

Imagine if Shang Tsung had to decide whether to duck Liu Kang's fire ball, jump over Liu Kang's fire ball, walk around -63 degrees to the right or +63 degrees to the left of the fire ball. MK would be a very different game. You're attempting to reduce 3D game mechanics to side stepping , that makes me question how much you really know about VF, or SC, or DOA the 3D game space is far more than side stepping my friend. Side stepping or 8-way run, or walking around the opponent only describes part of 3D game space. Another aspect of it is the orientation of both characters relative to the 8-way run, the walk around, dash around etc. So in 3D fighters you can have several different types of character orientation not all 3D fighters have all of these but these are present in various forms in 3d fighters

Front,
Back
Front Couched
Back Crouched
Left Side Turned
Right Side Turned,
Right Side crouched
Left Side Turned crouched
Front in the air
Back in the Air
Face up on the ground
Face down on the ground
Face up on the ground head pointing toward opponent
Face down on the ground head pointing away from opponent, and so on.

When I think of SC, VF, UFC 3 there are even more than these.

Where 2D fighters only have to give you options for some of these character orientations 3D fighters have to be prepared to give you options for all of these.


If you are suggesting that SF situation has more offensive and defensive options than a VF situation, could you please post your calculation.

Also in terms of Full Screen Space, please show how your 2d fighting game where fighting game space

2D FG Space = Length * Height is bigger than

than 3d fighting game space

3D FG Space = Length * Height * Width


and then we can get down to the nitty gritty. You might not be happy with the answer.

You now are making the argument that the

2D Air Game > (3D Air Game + 3D Z Axis game)

Perhaps we should count the potential offense and defense moves in the 2D Air game vs potential offense and defensive moves in (3D Air gaime + 3D Z Axis game).

As far as Mecha's being the future of the fighting game genre.,. I admire your enthusiasm.,
I play mechas also Gundam, Armored Core, Front Mission etc. but the future of the FG is:

3D

Virtua Fighter
DOA
Soul Calibur
Tekken, etc

3D combat simulation

Fight Night, UFC, WWF

2D
SF, MK, blaze blue, Kof,etc

These FG have been around for 2 decades and represent the past and present and future of the genre. These games are not going anywhere, and even if there is not another FG ever made ppl will play these games in their current form until its no longer possible to play them, and then someone will find a way.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.namcobandaigames.pacmantournaments&hl=en

There are pac man tournaments still going down

 

@Shoju Look, it's one thing to hold someone's opinion in high regard, it's another to use their opinion as leverage because they hold some sort of position.

I didn't cite Seth Killian because I think he's the best fighting game player on the planet, I did so because he made many salient points regarding how this genre works. Obviously he has more experience with Street Fighter than anything else and even admits it, but that doesn't discredit what he has to say on the subject by itself.

For all the fussing over using Seth Killian's articles as a basis for mine, none of you guys have really taken the time to explain why you disagree with his stance.

And let's say for argument's sake that VF4 is still the best 3D fighter there is. Okay, cool. So all these dudes have played the best 3D fighter. How many of those people have any significant experience with Guilty Gear, Arcana Heart, etc.? They played the best 3D game, sure, but have they played the best 2D games?

Not that I would ever use that as an argument, but that is following the logic you're using.

Besides, have any of those dudes actually explained why they think it's the best game? More than just a passing remark on a podcast, please. Give us a forum post or an article, something with substance.

Maybe they all said that before 5 came out. Maybe they quit VF entirely after 4 and never played 5. Who knows? If you do, then you should be giving more of these details as part of your reasoning. Though really, you should be forming your own opinion by playing the game for yourself, as I did and as everyone should.

Also, stop acting like VF4 is some misunderstood gem. Anyone who has played 5 can go back to any version of 4 with relative ease due to how similar they are. If there's some super secret tech that none of the players ever explained back when they had the chance, why didn't they do so? Did they fear it would destroy the game? Did they just want to beat people by making sure they didn't know everything that was going on? You're being very cryptic about all of this, which is just making me think more and more that you're a rabid fanboy who leans on reputation (of both players and of the game) as a means of verifying his opinion.

 

@masterpo What are you saying dude, lol. It is not even a matter of how much space is available onscreen, it's a matter of how it's being utilized. Even if we pretend that 2D and 3D fighters have the same total real estate onscreen (which they don't, but whatever), that doesn't change that the mechanics of games like VF and Tekken do not effectively utilize all that space (at least, not when compared to 2D fighters).

What you are failing to account for with examples like these is that in 2D fighters there is a constant threat among all axes, whereas in 3D fighters that is not the case. If you mistime or misjudge the spacing on your jump over a fireball in Street Fighter, you can end up getting hit by it. You took an action to avoid it, but because the act of jumping in and of itself doesn't nullify the fireball, you can't just jump over it and expect to be good unless the spacing is correct. In other words, the threat of space control can only be mitigated by good space control on your part, and because there are serious threats at every range in 2D, you always have to be acutely aware of how you're moving.

Compare this with sidestepping. You see something come out, and all you have to determine is the direction it's hitting in terms of foreground/background. If you misjudged, you get hit then and there. If you judged correctly, you're good. Sure, you can get hit by the next hit in the string or something, but that move that you initially tried to avoid is gone as far as you're concerned. You can't get by a move you successfully evaded because you misjudged the spacing on it the same way you can for misjudging the spacing on a jump in 2D. There's way less consequence to utilizing the movement options that are designed to get you out of those kinds of situations because the only threat is that of time (ie: the move that came out and you reacted to).

I really don't want to beat this dead horse anymore, it feels like I'm reiterating what I've already said before. If you're not getting it, come back to it later.

 

This guy is comparing checkers to chess, and he isnt even correct about many of his assertions.

The most recent ridiculous statement was that evading deals with an attack and now it is over with....wrong and wrong. Firstly dont forget full circular (I suppose this would equate to a 2d's uppercut), but secondly and more important is you are not accounting for advantage, its as if the whole basis of the game is over your head. Evade my high punch, and you think youre good? Then you dont know VF. I'm done with this thread until and unless the OP can convince me he understands even the most basic of understanding of VF.

 

If you could elaborate on this it may help me understand your level of awareness, cuz right now, I cant tell if you are talking out your rear end or not.

In short, I believe a FG based more on advantage than on spacing is simply better and requires more awareness, noobs in VF can get crushed because they are going auto-pilot and not being aware of what is happening very fast, to be aware of spacing in the middle of a hectic mess is alot easier than being aware of advantage in a hectic mess.

 

It seems you are only reading the parts of my posts that you want to see.

I have considered every last point made by everyone else in this thread, the least you guys can do is return the favor.

 

Sure, but what if you had to be aware of both? That is the direction the genre is headed in, and has been since the airdash games came into being.

 

i have read and considered all your posts, in full. And the re-quote you just posted about evading is misleading at best and flatout wrong at worst. What determines your advantage after an evade (and therfore your options), is what move you just evaded, evading an elbow versus evading a high punch are completely different, and the amount of advantage or disadvantage you have afterward is based on what move it was.

Now you are correct that an evade can happen at the first possible frame or slightly later, and this will affect your adv/disadv. by the same amount (of you evaded 3 frames too "late" you will be 3frames less advantage then otherwise) while this is true, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the move that was evaded itself. (and this allows player to mitigate, do i buffer my evade now, or do i try and sight read evade it and lose a tiny bit of adv.)

This system places the importance on the gamer to be aware of what just happened a split second ago and react accordingly based on the result, it penalizes someone that pre-programs evade then attack.

This system is all about penalizing auto pilot and rewarding lucid,aware play. This becomes even more important in the "time" based adv/disadv. system of VF where the potential to fall back into habbit is an ever present threat in a seemingly frenetic fast paced offensive assault that can occur. The other side is the payoff of being in a frenetic fast past melee, and being rewarded by overcoming your habbits and being thoughtful calm and collected even in the most hectic of moments.

 

to the last post before my own, you DO have to be aware of both in VF, spacing is absolutely important in VF its just not as important as advantage. There is plenty of moves that cause pushback on guard (or hit) where the follow up is using the distance you gained to "overcome" the disadvantage you have due to the first move being guarded.
its thing like this that make me question if you are just a troll or not

 

Dude, use some context. I am talking about jumping to avoid fireballs and comparing it to the concept of evading for frame advantage. Obviously I am not talking about evading jabs, lol. Maybe if I were talking about something equally ridiculous like jumping to avoid normals or something you could be forgiven for thinking that, but I think most people would be able to get what I am saying based on the example I used.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying right now, for what it's worth. My thing is that there is more to the genre than just constant back and forth. If there were a way to get rid of the less desirable aspects of VF and just keep it all close range, I'd be all for it. But that's not really feasible, and kind of defeats the purpose of keeping the close range game as it is (since it's supposed to be a reward for getting in).

This is why fighting game developers are now focusing on how to combine the best aspects of 2D games (space control) with the best aspects of 3D games (time control). "Pure" 3D games like VF and Tekken are an endangered species because it is incredibly difficult to implement good space control in this kind of game, whereas it is relatively easy to implement good time control in 2D and mech fighters are naturally suited to both.

 

This is what I've been saying since the beginning, dude.

Yes there are moves with pushback, but you can't really compare that to characters having multiple distinct ranges to control space at. What you're talking about is moves basically becoming safe in spite of their frame advantage due to their pushback, which is not at all unique to 3D fighters, for the record.

 

Wow, so you just ignore everything you dont want to acknowledge huh? The context!?!?

read the quote again, then again. You made a statement about the nuts and bolts of evade, and it clearly showed that you dont even know what is going on when you evade. In all seriousness, if you were my freind I would say "learn VF for real first, then comment" But i am not your friend so dont read that, thats for my freinds. Goodbye

 

I mention those players opinion as it's very relevant to this discussion whatever spin you want to put on it. I keep bringing them back up only because you want to keep discrediting them with unsubstantiated speculation. I just want you to acknowledge there very meaningful opinion that differs from yours instead of passing them off.

As far as I know none of those I brought up played Guilty Gear or Arcana Heart competitively so they aren't part of that comparison. I don't know if there regarded as the best of the 2d genre but Guilty Gear from what little I've played of it is a fascinating game full of very unique characters and mechanics. It's a highly respected series among the fighting game players here, but I have no idea how it compares to the best of VF. KOF2k2UM/13 and SF4 are the only 2d fighters I've really tried to get into myself in recent times. I've had a dabble in many others like Blazblue, GG, SF3:3S other KOFs and Chaos Breaker/Dark Awake.

Differences between VF4 and 5 from memory are things like: 8 frame throws which are your fastest form of punishment so there are throw counterable situations where nothing is guaranteed and fuzzy guarding is a lot less useful. Many more moves are unsafe in the throw counter sense. That in itself changes the game a lot. ARE was a technique/glitch later uncovered to change things further since it was an option select that could counterattack. It was altered somewhat in VF4FT but I can't now remember the specifics. It was basically an evade cancelled super early into a cancelled crouch dash with an attack buffered in. There were differences in the hitbox of key moves, hit confirm windows, speed of recovery from evades etc. Hitboxes detection was also a lot better (in VF5 it feels like a lot of moves have an extra inch of reach than they should). No 0 frame throws, clash, or OM. What I most personally liked about VF4 though was it's movement system. It feels much faster than VF5's (possibly due to how early you can cancel) and has a technique called dash cancelling which isn't in VF5 or above. I really like all the deep movement techniques in the VF and Tekken games. FS's is so boring in comparison.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCWVabhdTSE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_-gao7d9-I
Nina Hayashida step
www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2fdwrgpuX0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC76haqGVSQ

 

You really did not understand the point I was making. There is such as thing as trying to jump to avoid a fireball and mistakenly jumping into it. There is no such thing as successfully evading a move and then getting hit by that same move.* There is a constant threat in one of these situations, and a limited, time based threat in another.

*Yes, I know you can press a button during the evade and get hit, but that is the exception and not the rule.