2-D v 3-D fighters... Which is more complex???

From another thread but a good topic:

R is CERTAINLY the best, most visually pleasing VF yet. I think it looks amazing period. The idle animations, changing wall throws and new, more impressive moves.

Removing the directional input on hit-throws means nothing to me. Hit throws is all about the timing, with or without one directional input, is negligible. VF and Tekken (and all 3-D fighters I will venture to say) will always be more complex than 2-D fighters. The addition of lateral movement and extended move-lists alone. Plus, I feel specials in 3-D games are a lot more situational compared to 2-D as many more situations seem to arise in 3-D games with deep mechanics.

3-D will always be at least one more notch complicated than a 2-D game, but I don't see why that's such a barrier to entry, if you like the game, play it.

I don't see how they would sell less than 750,000 to a million copies on a simultaneous, multi-platform release of game with a reputation for quality like VF has. In the "year of the fighter" that's one of the biggest names in fighting genre period. Now that fighters are gaining popularity again, VF5R could outsell Ver C exponentially. Just has to do with what is hot at that moment...

Question: What about learning curve and input difficulty?

Answer: I think the difference we're talking about is the difficulty of the inputs. I think SF is actually MORE complex than VF input-wise. But you have more situational knowledge in VF (3-D).

There more moves, thus more combinations and outcomes. Each character has so many more moves in VF or Tekken than in any 2-D game; your mind has to be able to recognize and react instantly to many more moves and animations. It's not even close, so much more to learn.

I just think the longer move-list alone makes the game more complex to play. You can't win a game of VF with a fireball and uppercut. They are very different, but the 3rd dimension adds one more level of depth, on top of everything else.

 

Can't win a game of VF using fireballs cause there ain't none. Can win a match with just crouch dash though so...

Using StreetFighter to get your point across is a bit strange, SF is hardly the most complex 2d fighter out there.

 

Someone I know, that can do a lot of the VC and CC infs in Alpha 3(which alot of people regard as the most execution barrier and demanding SF game), has said to me that the execution in VF is intimidating and discouraging. He said because all of the hitchecking involved as one of the reasons.

Either way, all of this stuff is just a preference and perspective.

 

Who gives a fuck about "which is more complex?"

Play it if you enjoy it.

I mean... that is why people play games right?

 

Yeah some of us, but some people play only because they want to win. Then backwards explain why the game they're winning at, is more complex.

 

Why make a divide between 2D and 3D fighting games when the divide should be between good and bad fighting games? All the games are different.

And basing "complexity" on execution and number of moves is stupid.

The end truth is: All fighting games are hard. Even the bad ones. Don't believe me? How many fighting games do you think you stand a chance in hell at beating the very best player in? Right. You don't. In any game.

 

for me the depth is an attraction. There is always some way i can improve my game, become even stronger. I think in a 2D game that would be more limited to timing of moves i use. On vf there are just so many areas. Oki, oki defense, stepping, TE, TEG, ETE, ETEG, mid/throw, timing, spacing, when to use half circs, circs, or linear, fuzzy/crouch fuzzy 1st after certain moves of mine, and as i get better after your moves too. ETECFEC yep, when will i master Evade Throw Escape Crouch Fuzzy Evade Cancel, excellent to evade throw escape while still using Crouch fuzzy vs delayed attack via crouch cancelling failed evade. Prolly never really rock that one out but still. Point being is that i have so many chances to improve my game.

 

You'll never run out of chances to improve your game unless you're godlike...probably not even then.

There is a ton of things in all fighting games (again, there is no divide between 2D and 3D when it comes to which is more "complex", it's about each individual game) that you have to work on and you'll never run out of things to improve in your game.

 

Yeah Jeneric is right on this, it may not apply to games like Battle Raper 2 but what Jeneric said is true with most fighting games.

 

with most games in general... but there are still games with more options than others, so obviously harder to handle

 

What?! Are you kidding me? Battle Raper 2 is Deeeeeep man /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

 

2D vs 3D is so 1999

 

They're not people, they're tools.

 

When I played VF5 after a few years playing Tekken, I did find it difficult, but maybe since I did my "homework" before I tried, it wasn't so painful. VF5's learning curve comes from the game's speed and defense mechanics. If you aren't decent at it, you will say the game is too slow. I know because that was the first thing all my friends said when they played VF here with me.

But comparing to 2D fighters... They have more complex inputs, we have larger move lists. Neither makes it more complex than the other. But as someone else said (and I never thought about it that way, but will use it from now on): 2D fighters also have a 3rd layer - the Air. It adds an extra layer of complexity to the game. So sub-genre-wise, they are both as complex as the other.

Even if you tell me you have a friend that is a master of 3rd Strike who tried VF and said "this is difficult", I'll tell you that your friend spent too much on 3rd Strike. The same way if you pick one of the VF addicts here and put them to play 3rd Strike he will say the same thing as your friend.

These games are all complex in their own right. Be it Garou, ST, GG, 3S, Tekken or VF. Some are more forgiving than others but that's it. And if you think about it, complexity is not always better. So why bother? Just play what you like most.

 

Truth.


Also I think alot of new players try to do too much when playing.



Most defense techs arent as useful as they are made to be.

 

LMAO!

Three dimensional fighting games have one more dimension than Two dimensional fighting games. Anytime you add more dimensions to a problem it usually is more complex to solve. In a two dimensional fighting game between masters the problem is for one master to overcome the other. If you add a third dimension to the combat the problem naturally becomes more complex. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

In other words.,. 2D Ass is easier to kick than 3D Ass

The true test of the matter is to ask yourself whether a 1D fighter is more complex than a 2D fighter /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

 

Huh, so you care. Figures the old fan boy would jump at this. "Look at me, I play the most complicated fighting game ever, surely the ravages of old age haven't got to me yet!"

Like so many things, Mathterpro, you disregard a lot of other important information.

Example: side-step and jump-ins. The former is in 3d, the later in 2d. In a way both add another "dimension." Think you're coming up against a sidekick? Step. Fireball? Jump. It works the other way too, where if you predict the opponent will step or jump, you can apply a counter measure. Circular/Throw and an anti-air comes into play.

Go back to being the fluffer at your dojo.

 

Not necessarily. On the contrary, due to less options its propably harder.

 

ROFLMMFAO, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif this post made my day!

You 2D fighters out there have me at a disadvantage /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

I've never been much for fireballs, but I am down with
Zu Warriors /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

How did you know about my fluffing?