My thoughts on the current state of fighting games

Posted here.

I still love VF and the genre in its entirety, but there is no doubting that we are in uncertain times. I have figured out why the current outlook is so bleak, and have at least figured out the direction things need to head in to prevent the death of 3D fighters.

That being said, I'm not sure there is a reason for a new VF (besides perhaps a balance update for FS), as I feel the game has achieved more or less everything it can within its aesthetic limitations. I think it would do everyone well to focus on new ideas and reinventing a tired genre rather than continue to beat what is basically a dead horse at this point.

 

I agree with some of the thing the author wrote about VF range game being pretty rigid.

 

"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"



The moment I read this... I deem the article bullshit..


Space and time are one of the other..

 

My question then would be what you would assess the main difference between 2D and 3D fighters to be. And don't give me that they're "too different to compare", because it is very easy to compare the two.

That in and of itself is not the issue. The issue is that the things that 3D fighters pioneered and did best for a long time are now available in a lot of 2D games, which is rendering them obsolete.

I'm really not trying to play this card, but being in Japan and seeing what's being played and what isn't is the most relevant measure of success in the present day. We're not talking about sales numbers here, we're talking about what is actually being played by people who actually appreciate the genre.

 

I don't disagree with that at all, and if you read the entire thing I think you'll see that is one of my underlying premises.

 

Just to clear this up now, I am in no way saying that VF and Tekken are inferior to Clayfighter because they're 3D. All I am saying is that the best 3D fighters of today are nowhere near the level of the best 2D fighters.

To put it simply: Good 2D > Good 3D > Bad 2D > Bad 3D.

 

I think many of us here agree that vf could be better. It's a bit much to lump all 3D into one bin. I don't want 2D mechanics in my 3D games though. I think that is a false dichotomy. That's like saying that Bioshock is worse then counter strike because the competitive map is not balanced. These games have unique player bases for a reason.

 

I disagree strongly. Vf plays completely differently from every 2D game I have played. It is the reason why I haven't really felt at home at ANY 2D game. Controlling space, while it obviously matters in 3D games, has MUCH bigger emphasis in 2D games. No projectiles (hitboxes separate from the character), no special resource bars (supers etc), no crossups, loads of overheads (mids), moves being much slower in 3D games not to mention that third axis.. I don't know how you can compare the games. They have next to nothing in common in my opinion. The mechanics are completely different.

And what things are those?

Above is an example of an opinion.

 

That is a large part of the article.

Reverse nitaku, freedom of movement, delayed strings for pressure, staggers, etc. I talk about the first two at length in the article.

Nobody wants to hear it, but it has to be said: VF is dead.

A large part of the reason I've been thinking about this subject for awhile is because ever since I've been in Japan, I've seen VF cabinets collect dust and eventually disappear. Even the arcades with entire dedicated VF rows/floors have since cleared house. I really wanted to be angry about it, but the truth of the matter is that nobody was playing the game to begin with. This forced me to look at the situation from as close to an objective perspective as possible and this is the conclusion I've reached.

Obviously, you don't have to agree with my view on what needs to be done with the genre, but if you deny that VF is basically dead then I don't know what to tell you.

Not at all. I am referring to the aesthetic limitations that keep VF from implementing things like projectiles, airdashes, etc.

The easy way to implement 2D mechanics in 3D would be to just turn them into 2D fighters, but none of us (myself included) want that to happen.

This is where the mech fighters have succeeded, and it is a large part of the reason Gundam is so popular. It is the closest a 3D fighter has come to having true 2D style footsies, and the implementation of it is pretty ingenious. The game basically tells you when you're in or out of range to play footsies with the green/red lock icon, which is both aesthetically consistent and mechanically sound.

 

They still require the same fundamental skillset, and from a conceptual perspective they share a hell of a lot in common.

A perfect example is the ever elusive third axis. The air options in modern 2D fighters expand the game in a way similar to how sidesteps expanded 3D fighters (to the point of nearly turning them into a different genre).

Of course this is my opinion, I even say as much in the thread title lol. The reason I posted this here was to see if anyone here would have anything to either support my position or debunk it.

 

The thing is that there is little more than can be done with the things 3D fighters do best. Most people can agree that there are some things that could be tweaked and improved in FS, but that wouldn't change the genre as we know it, it would just make the current 3D fighting genre a little better than it currently is.

Tekken, while not as good at 3D things as VF is, does at least try to give you something to do at long/mid-long range. The failing of Tekken is that the long range game is still nowhere near as fleshed out as 2D fighters, and the mid-range game isn't as fleshed out as VF's.

If you don't think 3D fighters need 2D conventions, then what do you think the genre needs to evolve? Because it definitely needs to change, and soon.

 

what if I do not want a game that encourages long distance play? I use a close range powerhouse beast because that is when I have the most fun. There is no such thing as a perfect game that please will all people.

 

The issue is that there is always going to be long range combat in any fighting game. Even if you turned every stage in VF into the UFC octagon, there would still be a range where neither player would have a tangible advantage over the other.

Hence, it is better to have something to do at long range as opposed to nothing. VF will politely ask you to go back to playing the game where it's supposed to be played, whereas Tekken turns into a fencing match.

 

The audience has changed therefore the game will naturally change.

Vf4=baby boomers(I'll do it alone and learn from it)
Vffs=gen x(hold my hand and we do it together)

I want steak, not Salisbury steak.
Wakarimashita ka Minasan?

 

Careful now, I played VF4FT not too long ago and I am of the opinion that it is not nearly as good as people remember it. It is definitely not bad, but it is not the alpha and omega as many here have at least in the past made it out to be.

 

Except overall approach? Frames. And strings.
No 2-f jabs in 3Ds.
No 5-hit strings with 1-2 possible variations in the middle in 2Ds.

So much if I am about to keep it short.
Anyway MKX is perfect example of this, being half-2D and half-3D but none completely.

 

Most 2D games don't have 2F jabs, either. 5F is pretty standard. Even then, it is not necessarily the number of frames that matters, but how it all fits together to make a cohesive system.

Melty Blood's Reverse Beat is actually just that, and you can create a similar effect with Roman Cancels in Guilty Gear.