What really makes a deep Fighting Game?

For the last several weeks I've been in an out of Virtua Fighter 5, SC 5, UFC 3, Tekken 6, and Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe. I've seen awesome gameplay in everyone of these games. I've won some incredibly hard fought matches and lost some incredibly hard fought matches. It only enforced the idea that each of the games were "deep" in their own way. But what does it mean to be "deep" or for a game to have a "deep fighting system" That turns out to be not so easy to put into words. So I'll ask the community what do we mean at VFDC when we say this or that fighting game is deep?


I've struggled to put it into words. All I have so far is a (very rough draft) of four features:

Tight Spots (Defense) - A deep fighting game will give you several decent options to get yourself out of a tight spot. Maybe you're on the losing end of a high pressured onslaught. In a deep fighting system, you'll have options to deal with that. Or perhaps you're being spammed with some incredibly cheap stuff. You'll always have options in a deep game to deal with that. In other words Deep games give you plenty of options on defense.


Tight Spots (Offense) - A deep fighting game will give you several ways to put your opponent in and keep him/her in a tight spot or disadvantaged position. No matter how much they wiggle and squirm a deep fighting system will give you plenty of options to pursue and then bring your opponent to his/her knees. Maybe your opponent is a master of the counter game, turtling, or zoning, A deep fighting system will give you options to deal with any kind of defense. In other words a deep fighting system gives you lots of ways to win the game.

No Barriers To Your Fighting Style - Deep fighting systems don't stand in the way of how you would like to play offense or defense. They are flexible enough to accomodate whatever your plan of attack or defense is. You are not forced to follow some built in pattern of offense or defense, but instead you can use the offensive options and defensive options to your liking, and you can put the offensive and defensive options together in a way that is unique to you. If you like the pitbull rushdown high pressured approach its there, if you like the slow, methodical pick-em apart little-by-little its there. If you like to make your opponent's agression work against themselve you can. The fighting system is flexible enough and has legitimate support for all the major fighting and defending approaches.


Balance - Things being relatively equal between two opponents there is a reasonable chance that any character in the game could lose to or beat any other character in the game and most fighting game players can find a character where they are reasonably satsified with their movelists.

I admit these are rough draft ideas, and not complete or exhaustive. But if a game has all four of these features, you will probably see it as a deep fighting game no? Do you guys/gals have any thoughts on this?

A lot of us use the term deep when we refer to this game or that game or this game vs that game, but what do we really mean? I think in this case it might be harder to put into words than you think

 

Hmm....I would say innovation/less common ideas and evolving it and taking what is commonly out there and evolving it significantly. The topic reminds me of Weaponlord, which was the kind of 2d fighting game that was overlooked and ahead of it's time on it's depth.

For my preference, the amount of increased thinking that is involved with each game, the more long lasting it is. That of course, is keeping up with the times. Having also to try to use multiple characters from one or more fighting games is a challenge to one's own limits. That is my definition of fun.

 

Rewarding good reads and reaction time -- often over elements you practice by rote is a big thing. Balance, character diversity and a system that doles out risk reward for options in a way that makes reads possible.

Seeing the expansive rote element leak into KOF13 made me sad Guilty Gear is a pretty bad offender by creating a rote combo execution barrier, but it has the other two elements in spades.

I'm being vague because it's a vague topic

 

As a Virtual On player, I can say it will depend on how deep the game allows you to read. Even Fuudo, the SF4 Evolution champion, says that VF is a game that depends heavily on reads while SF4, more on reaction. Having experienced both worlds, I certaintly prefer methodical over twitch. The ability to see several layers of moves in advance.

A 3rd eye into the future

 

Agreed!, but I thought I might throw it out there. I've been playin so many fighting games lately, and with a new VF and DOA coming out, I'm going to be even more amped up. I am so tempted to compare VF and SC5, and SC5 to Tekken etc. But to be fair, all of these games support 'deep gameplay' in their own way, and you really only find the deepness by putting in some serious time and playing intermediate to advanced players.

Its just hard to say what deep gameplay is. I guess You know it when you see it. Some say deep means easy-to-play-hard-to-master I dunno maybe that's it.

I've been playin a lot of SC5 and UFC 3. The new Critical Edge, Brave Edge,side step and the Guard Impact have really added some new dimensions to the game. And I've seen those techniques used so differently by different players. Its really fun to watch all the different ways they are used and used differently with different characters. Those features alone add to the 'deepness of SC5'

The UFC game with ground game reversals, sweeps, submission swithces, all of the offensive and defensive grappling possibilities, the entire clinch game, vs stand up game, and so many ways to win, but so many ways to defend, this is another deep game.

But the deepness of SC5 is totally different than the deepness of UFC 3 (or at least I think it is) or the 'deepness' of VF5 or the deepness of 'SFIV' right?

Do Stages Matter when it comes to determining the deepness of a fighting game.

All fights take place somewhere. Walls no Walls, Ring outs or no Ring Outs, breakable floors, breakable walls, or the Octagon for that matter. Big arenas vs small arenas. Do deep fighting games have to have plenty of offensive and defensive options for opponents up against walls, or to put opponents up against walls or cages, do they require different options for big stages vs small stages?

Can we say that a deep fighting game will give the player a variety of options when it comes to using the stage or arena as part of his/her offensive or defensive game? So that its not just a matter of the fighting styles involved, its how the environment can be used as well?

If I'm being fair and objective, I have to say that all of the major 2D and 3D fighters are deep in their own way, from Street Fighter to Mortal Kombat, from DOA to Virtua Fighter, it requires a great deal of skill to master any one of these games.

I don't think you can legitimately ask whether one game is more fun than the other (beauty is in the eye of the beholder)

I don't think you can legitimately ask whether one game is generally better than the other (again thats a matter of opinion)

But can I ask whether Virtua Fighter 5 is a deeper fighting system than Soul Calibur 5? Can I ask whether Street Fighter IV is a deeper fighting system than DOA IV? Can I ask whether
arcade fighters are deeper fighting systems than combat simulators like UFC 3? Or is deepness also a matter of opinion?

2012 will be a good year for fighting game enthusiasts. SC5 and UFC 3 have already raised the bar in so many ways for all fighting games ,and with VF5FS and DOA5 coming down the pike there will be a lot to discuss as far as deep game play goes.

Is there a winner when it comes to the fighting game with the deepest game play?

How will VF5FS rank in terms of deepness of a fighting system?