I often compare fighting games to chess, although I would say 2D fighters are similar to chess while 3D fighters are more similar to Go. It was interesting to read that two of these guys think the same way.

I remember the "training" modes in Super Smash Bros 64, those were fun and it probably helped me improve at the game.
The combot from TTT2 sounds pretty good too. It's too bad I probably won't try it myself because I don't like the idea of being forced to play more than one character at once.

James Chen's take was ridiculous, if he wants to drop $60 on every fighting game that's released to support the genre then fine, but telling others they should talk up and purchase games that aren't good is weak. We have to deal with enough false positive game and movie reviews pushing bad products as is, without being told by someone else to say positive things about bad works. Some games are bad and deserve to be talked about negatively, stripping away people's opinions so corporate entities can make more profit isn't acceptable. I can agree on some points about being overly venomous towards other scenes, but his main argument that the pie isn't big enough to be shared is bull.

The SEGA Rep was on point and actually cleared up some of the fog on why in depth training modes aren't always added. They have the right idea this time and have included everyone (PS3 and 360 owners), so it will perform better than Vanilla. They also built what appears to be a much better game than Vanilla and are getting it into the tournament scene. SEGA is pretty much doing everything right this time and are risking less capital with a digital release. Hopefully they are pleasantly surprised by sales numbers. Being included in the new DOA game should bring some new fans to the series as well.

I don't think Chen is saying that we should all buy every fighting game out there, good or bad. What he's saying is that we shouldn't go around slagging off the competition just because we don't like those games. It causes people in both groups to start throwing crap at each other and doesn't help either community as both sides are too busy engaged in a "Your game sucks!" "Nuh-uh, yours does!" fight which draws more and more people to each side instead of attempting to promote the strengths of their chosen game(s).

TTT2 has the following modes: 1v1, 1v2, and 2v2

That was only part of his interview, he did clearly state that the pie wasn't big enough to be shared (the genre audience was too small), so they all needed to financially support whatever fighting game comes out indiscriminately. He specifically mentions purchasing and separated the two arguments fairly clearly. Even if the game is bad you shouldn't trash it and steer potential customers away from bad buys, as that would hurt the devs pockets. If they make good games and offer online/good support they'll likely be successful, his biased opinion is unnecessary.

Everyone else had good input though, Chen just comes off as a corporate tool and I wont read anything else writes/has published.

Ah thanks for the info, pretty cool in that case.

I do agree with haunts' reply that breaking the circle of tradition from the genre is a risk, but I still support the idea. The only company that I recall that took a risk in the recent generation was square-enix. The first Final Fantasy Dissidia has sold very well for a RPG fighting game. I would be a fan of the genre again, if they have alot more innovative fighting games.

I do disagree with the years of the chess analogy and it seems ignorant enough that the genre is compared to a professional sport, also, making it out something that is not. Fighting games and chess have a different mindset of skill and strategy. Apples and oranges are just not the way to go.

A good read overall, I thought James made great points.

I enjoyed Harada's take the most. He is extremely articulate.

To me a couple of points really stood out. One from James Chen: (Paraphrased)

"People play the games they can win."

This is such a brutally honest truth. To me a lot of FG players (fully including VF players, especially even) fall into this mind trap:

1. Find a game they can play and win, possibly after getting ass kicked in several other games.
2. Decide that this game is a great and best game, simply because they can play and win unlike other games.
3. AFTERWARD look for reasons to rationalize the decision made in #2.
4. If there isn't enough objective reasons for rationalization, badmouth all other games to make their chosen game look better. (Even though it doesn't work that way.)

I still think James Chen was simply voicing against this sort of attitude found among the FG players, not advocating everyone should waste their money buying games they don't want to buy.







From Harada's piece, a couple of things stood out for me. First of all he seems to brag about Tekken's success and deny that fighting games are in trouble. While most of the numbers he quotes are true on surface, I have to say even Tekken is in trouble, just like every other fighting game franchise.

Tekken 6 appers it did well in both consoles and the Japanese arcade, but TTT2 isn't doing so hot. For most people it was just an old hat without enough graphical upgrades, but just made harder to play and more unfriendly for beginners as you are forced to learn at least 2 characters and learn to use tag combos to have any chances at winning. Unless I am mistaken it's not doing as well in the arcades. I am willing to bet the console release of TTT2 will sell nowhere near as TK6 did. (Currently, the number 1 "fighting game" in the Jpn arcades is Gundam Extreme Vs.)


OTOH, Harada does sound smart and has right ideas about tutorials. He basically says people don't like tutorials and it's so true. It feels too much like studying, not playing. Every other video game genre, including FPS, RTS, and RPG incorporate "tutorials" into their story mode and try to blend learning and playing as much as possible. And that's something FGs utterly failed to do and Harada sounds he is quite aware of this. How well he executes based on his idea remains to be seen, as he clearly has some uneven records.

As for what makes a game possible to win, I think simply having a wide user base helps a lot. It was not that hard to win a game of Tekken or SF4 online not because the said games are easy to learn but because you have more people playing, so you are more likely to run into a scrub/noob at the same level as you and I think that's really important for attracting new players. So it's almost a chicken and egg quandary.

I just wanted to quote this post for it is speaking the truth. One thing I dislike about the current Fighting Game Community is this constant push for eSports. Yes, I'm aware the quote doesn't refer to eSports but give me a minute here:

So when you had the 'sexual harassment' issue come up a few months ago due to comments made from a player speaking of his own opinion, there was this big negative pushback from the StarCraft community talking about why they're league/game is better because they don't have such a belief. There's this constant push from the eSports community to make fighting games as big as the StarCraft scene. Really, I can understand as to the rasons why, but the community is not at all ready for eSports.

For one, StarCraft is a single game with a wide community. I'm unfamiliar with RTS games so I can't comment on how other RTS game communities feel about the StarCraft community and vice versa, but I can say that it's certainly a losing battle to compare one giant single-game community to that of a community representing numerous games that aren't equally played. It just shows how small the Fighting Game Community really is.

That is where James Chen was coming from I believe: saying that this constant bickering over "Super Turbo sucks because it's old.", "Virtua Fighter is terrible because it's boring.", "Dead or Alive takes no skill because it is nothing but Tits and Ass.", or even "Tekken is stupid because it's nothing but juggling." is splitting the community up and causing rifts where they aren't needed.

Now, a shitty unplayable mess is a shitty unplayable mess, but I think each one of those titles I just listed at least warrant a level of 'competitive' vibe and have enough polish to where someone could feel they received their money's worth.

However, in order to move forward as a genre, the communities need to stop bickering at each other and instead focus on the big picture at hand because now is currently the best time to be birthing an eSports Fighting Game community but at this current time I don't see how the current community could or even wants to support such a thing.

[/rant]