Back in the 90s people would spend all day at the arcades playing fighting games, but once gamers got home consoles, people start spending less time at the arcades, which I ultimately think diminish the fighting game popularity. But now since online is here, will it help to revive fighting games popularity?
Fighting games were not an exclusive element of arcades. And Japan still enjoys huge popularity of its arcades.
And there doesn't seem to be any distinct lack of fighting games. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Guilty Gear, and Soulcalibur are just a few vastly popular series still making an impact.
Finally, people are already playing fighting games online, and have been for quite a while.
So... what is the problem?
__________________
WARNING: The above post may contain sarcasm and/or sophisticated satire. Any psychological damage sustained is purely your fault.
As long as Down, Back, B, B, A, X = The uppercut of mediocrity (or some similar crap) in fighting games, I'm never going to care what happens to them.
DK/MK was fun for a weekend. Then I forgot about the genre again. I just really think it's a niche market, and doesn't appeal to as many gamers as they once did, because the gaming industry has improved. Current fighting games are essentially 90's fighting games with better graphics and online options. Nothing revolutionary. Nearly every other genre has lapped itself in terms of ingenuity, interactivity, etc. during that same span.
I agree. Its such a turn off having to hit the buttons 5,10 times in a sequence to perform a freaking move. Because of that, I dont play fighting games.
__________________
"A lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths." Deep Throat.
To be fair, you're judging by a game largely considered crap even within the fighting game community. Saying that fighting games have stagnated since the 90's is usually due to ignorance of actual high level fighting game mechanics. I don't mean this as an insult to you of course.
Just some examples off the top of my head of improvements throughout fighting games include roll cancelling, wave dashing, korean back dash, tech rolling, tech crouching, guard cancels, limbo stun, slow escaping, frame traps, just defense techniques, free cancels, and just frame execution. Things like the aforementioned have been continually developed ever since the first crude combos of Street Fighter II came about. The majority of gamers have no real knowledge of the deeper aspects of fighting game mechanics. They understand only the movelist and miss the true chess match that occurs during a fighting game. As a fighting game fan, I'd say they are constantly improving. You just have to actually know what to look for.
They have to do things like that nowadays. Most fighters, especially 3-D ones, have fairly large movelists. Each move may even become a different when affected by factors such stance or even the attack you did beforehand. Multiple button combinations are necessary unless you want a fighter with only four attacks.
I fully understand why they do it. Its still a turn off. Specially in MK when u wanna finish strong with a Fatality. Not only do u have to do the multiple button combination buy u only have a few seconds to do it.
__________________
"A lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths." Deep Throat.
To much lag. I have yet to play any console game online where there was no lag and this is because of the distance between players, fighting games are quite possibley the worse genre to play online when lag is involved. Until developers start making different servers at least for each continent nothing great will happen.
I got to say Resistance 2 with 60 players shooting and making hell has absolutely no lag. I think Insomniac are wizards because I don't know how they did it.
The things you listed are mostly just refinements on move options, not new gameplay mechanics. I stand by my earlier comments.
And "ignorance of high level fighting game mechanics" just reinforces my other point: that it's needlessly complex and for a niche market. Every good game has 'higher level mechanics' for players to learn. But when it hundreds of rote memorizations, instead of more intuitive, that's not a 'higher' level I want to be a part of. Yes, it's a deep experience for the hardcore fighting gamers. But for those who reject the mindless premise involved in becoming so skilled, it remains a waste of time, despite the possible depth.
I think fighting games are going to continue where they stand now.
As a decidicated hardcore audience. I think online only strengthens this audience because casual gamers do not want to get thier ass beat by a guy who has been playing the series since its inception. Christ, watching the 1up show when they cover a fighting game its always about counting frames and shit like that and no casual gamer would spend that much time doing that.
i mostly gave up on fighting games after tekken 3 with 1 exception...fight night round 3...which i still play.
i just think there's very little more to be done beyond graphical improvments....the game dynamics are identical to games of 2 generations ago when the 1st 3d fighters came out such as virtu
a fighter and tekken.
i just think they need to revise the format of scrolling fighters and bring it into the new age...the force unleashed is a good example of it done reasonably well. except for the angle of the camera during some boss fights it worked well...if there's was a scrolling fighter done like that...for example a modern "streets of rage" then i'd go for it...
There are people on GOW who snipe with zooming, my point being that every game has a level of players who are better than the moderately skilled gamer. You are taking it overboard as if all fighting game players go that far.
I am a low level tournament player in fighting games. You guys have been discussing Mortal Kombat as the basis for button inputs and that is not highly regarded by anyone who plays fighting games a decent amount (think Killzone for FPS and it's kinda like that).
Fighting games are typically based on knowing how moves work, being able to execute them, and how to counter your opponent. The fun does not come in just pressing the combinations memorized because even the most abusable techniques can be beaten in decent fighting games. Anticipation and reflex are more important in fighting games than any other genre, easily.
Certainly, if all you do is watch YouTube videos then the skill level would freak you out but not everyone plays like that.
By the way, does anyone know about GGPO?
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
That's the thing though. They are game mechanics. If you want additions not movement based, there are things like high crushes, sabakis, true mids, some of the things I said in my last post, or even chakra draining in some of the Naruto games. As for just movement options, I don't see why you wouldn't consider it a gameplay mechanic. Even sidestepping was a new concept at a point in fighting game history. I'm not sure if you're looking for something more obvious, like the absence of life bars in Bushido Blade, but fighting games do evolve just like most other genres.
I mostly agree with you here actually. The less mainstream fighters, those not named Soul Calibur/MK/Tekken, tend to alienate the casual gamer. The higher level gameplay takes a bit more effort and many people do not wish to achieve this level. I've no problem with that. It's not for everyone. However, I do disagree with two points. I could be wrong, but it seems that you think fighting games consist of just rote memorization. Like I said, it's more than just the movelist involved in a high level match. Adaptability becomes paramount at this time. At any given instant, you must consider so many things such as zoning, matchups, frame data, priority, and everything I've mentioned so far. Secondly, is that it's "needlessly complex." It's the increasing complexity that is evidence that the genre isn't stagnant. This complexity is no more needless than the complexity or "ingenuity" you claim most other genres have. Do you feel the same way about first person shooters?
I'm not trying to convince anyone who does not like fighting games to suddenly like them, but I don't see how they are a stagnant. The problem for most people is that they can't notice the changes without actually knowing of more advanced fighting gameplay mechanics. It's obviously fine if you don't like them. I can actually see why many people are put off by them, but do you honestly believe that that have not grown as a genre?
Last edited by StyleTime on Dec 22nd, 2008 at 06:59 AM
Stupid 15 minute rule. I'd like to add that even the Tekkens and Soul Caliburs of fighting games are guilty of this. Beyond the story mode, even these manner of fighters don't offer much to the casual gamer after the novelty of beating up your friends wears off. Most fighting games are like Final Fantasy XI. None of the fun stuff really happens until after you're at a high level.
I know. I know. "Did this loser really come back just to say that?" I did. Why? Because it's important.
I do think an online component is really helpful to fighters. It adds some replay value to the games when you can play other people without having to drive across the country to attend a tournament or similar gathering. I have also noticed that people who don't typically play fighting games have purchased them because of an online component. This isn't true in all cases of course, but I think it may have attracted some players that normally would spend their money of other things.
Last edited by StyleTime on Dec 22nd, 2008 at 07:23 AM
Well, if those things you listed are gameplay innovations, I guess it just means there's less room for differentiation in the genre. To a gamer like myself (not a hardcore fighting gamer, mind you, but a knowledgeable gamer) the only differences between 90's fighter games and those of today are move options and graphics. Everything you listed is still just a move option, or advanced ways of optimizing the moves you do with your characters.
And the complexity of others games feels more intuitive. It's not about memorizing move lists and counting frames. When I get the feeling that a robot would be better suited to playing a game instead of me, it feels like a computer program, not a game world.
And I understand how it can be interesting when one is very good. I've gotten good enough at a couple of them to appreciate the nuance. It's just not worth it most of the time. Thus, niche market with a limited ceiling for popularity.
Yeah I really think having online will help increase fighting games playability. I think gamers who hate fighting games, really don't have someone to play with them, so I can see why gamers wouldn't want to waste time playing them. Beating the computer is fun, but it's a whole lot more fun when you're playing against a human opponent because you want to show off all the skills you've learned in training mode and fighting the computer (a human player is much more intelligent obviously).
I like playing fighting games with friends and family, but there's only a few that like playing them, so it's hard to find someone to play with when their not around. That's why I'm glad that we can play online, because if you don't have any one in your local area to play with, you can just play online. Now that we have online it's much more rewarding doing the moves you've learned playing the game by yourself because you know that you can try out all the moves you've learned online against other players (assuming you have no one to play with at home).
KMC Community Forums
Dec 20th, 2008 07:23 PM
