Next-gen Fighters and the Flow of Combat pt.1

Soul Calibur 4. Street Fighter 4. Virtual Fighter 5. Mortal Kombat 8. GuiltyGearXX Accent Core. All of these games have a few things in common. They're all fighters that have iterated on core gameplay of their series that was established in the last few generations of video gaming. The fighting game genre supports some of the most devoted, skilled, and competitive players around. "Playing to win" is a popular mindset for such players. Unlike traditional single player games where players are given advantages and superior abilities over computer controlled enemies that could never substitute for intelligent opponents, in a fighting game players are pitted against players each

I believe this same "do anything to win" attitude has created vocal groups of supporters that have essentially held back many fighting games from truly evolving. I understand where this resistant to change attitude comes from. For most fighters, becoming competent requires digesting an encyclopedia worth of data. If a sequel to a beloved fighting game completely changed things up, players would have to absorb another encyclopedia worth of data. Unfortunately, by making small changes to to the sequels of these fighting games, old design choices and philosophies are carried over and cemented into newer and newer generations.

While many think it's cool to finally be able to play Soul Calibur 4 online via their next-gen console (Xbox360/PS3), I couldn't help but feel like I was playing an updated Dreamcast game. Some would argue that it's the little changes that have a big impact on the way the game is actually played on a detailed level. But I'm not arguing about changes in the metagame across sequels. My point is the design decisions and mechanics at the core of such fighters could be designed better to create a cleaner playing experience for all types of players. Adhering to the tenet of form fits function, tightening mechanics, increasing depth while reducing unnecessary complexities, and reducing clutter are always ways to improve upon any game series.

A true next-gen fighting game wouldn't simply add more features to a previous game or like so many games, try and copy street fighter. A true next-gen fighting game would look at fighting in a new way inspired by the breakthroughs, trends, and new technologies of the times. Last generation (GameCube, PS2, Dreamcast, Xbox) we gained the experience, and technology to to render detailed 3D graphics in real time. Along with these graphics, combined physics interactions so that models can interact accurately and realistically. It's a shame that Street Fighter 4 changed their hit detection system from using the 3D models to using invisible 2D hit boxes.

I didn't have to look far for the game that I consider the most next-gen fighter. Super Smash Brothers. The first entrant into this series on the N64 simply set the foundation. For an N64 era fighter, Super Smash Brothers was still unlike any other. But, the two sequels together make up the core of what I consider to be the Super Smash Brothers fighting engine. And it is this engine that I will refer two for the remainder of this article.

The following is a collection of the next-gen design features that make up up the core of the Super Smash Brothers engine. While some games have implemented some of these features, none come close to the number that Smash Brothers holds.

Controls

• Simplified controls/inputs. Unlike other fighting games that feature pages and pages of moves for each character that are often composed complex inputs, the moves in smash are composed of at most one direction and one button at at time. The simple controls reduce the core complexity of the game.

• Rumble Support. Unlike every arcade fighting cabinet and most fighters on consoles, Smash Brothers utilizes force feedback. In a well designed game like Smash Brothers, force feedback has a more useful function than simply providing a more immersive gaming experience. Because the controller rumbles when being pressured from enemy attacks, the player receives an additional source of information to help them time and calculate their next moves. Essentially, the rummble feature is like having an extra set of eyes locked to your character that allows the player's eyes to focus on other parts of the screen.

• Analog Controls. Most serious fighting game players prefer to use the D-pad or an arcade stick. Unfortunately, the D-pad and the arcade stick are like keyboard arrow eyes. They can only be on or off. And what's more unfortunate is that fighters continue to be designed around these digital controllers. Since the N64, the degree of control over character movement achieved the next-gen leap with the analog stick. Smash Brothers utilizes a wide range of analog controls.
  
  • For moving, players can tip toe, walk, power walk, and dash all by moving the analog stick different degrees at different speeds.
  • While shielding, players can shift and adjust the position of their shield using the soft and slight movements of the analog stick.
  • In the air, players can move forward and backwards with the same high degree of analog control.
    
    • The analog movement combined with attacks from the air and on the ground make the attacks analog. Unlike games like Soul Calibur where moves are designed to be jumping, stepping, tracking, or side stepping as well as high, med, or low, in Smash movement is independent from the attack animations. This allows players to adjust the timing and spacing of their attacks using the secondary analog movement mechanics.

• Move-input categorization. In Smash, the simple inputs allow moves to be put into clear intuitive categories based on function. There are attacks with the A button, and attacks with the B combined with the four cardinal directions. What's useful about the simple controls is that all the A attacks input directions reflect their function. In other words, if you want to do an up attack, hit up and A. If you want to do a forward attack, hit forward and A. Even the special or B attacks are organized in general categories. This categorization couple with simple inputs allows players to quickly learn the moves of different characters as well as react to dynamically changing situations. If an opponent is approchcing from directly above you, chances are holding up and hitting either attack button will result in some kind of attack in the upward direction.

What it Means to Fight

• Platformer/Fighter. Smash Brothers is a fighting game that is set in the world of a platforming game, a unique design decision mostly likely inspired by the 2D Mario platforming games. Smashing through the limitations created from 2D stages with invisible walls, the stages in Smash are set floating in the middle of large rings. On these stages are platforms that players can fight on, over, or underneath. Now players can fight on the ground, up on top of platforms, on the edges of the stage, in the air, and even underneath the stage. Smash defines a fight as something that can happen in all directions at any time.

• The only way to win is with a ring out. Unlike every other fighter, in Smash the player can never be killed by sustaining damage alone. The only way to take out the opponent is by knocking them out through the extremities of the stage.
  
  • This design gives moves a dual design purpose.
    
    • 1) building damage. Most attacks do some amount of damage.
    • 2) moving opponent around. Most attacks also knock the opponent around. The higher the opponents damage, the faster and farther they fly.
  • Because players must knock opponents off the stage to kill, it's important to properly use strong attacks when the opponent is at a high damage %. Smash attacks generally do the trick. Some characters have killing throws and/or air attacks. These moves are known as "kill moves."
  • In other fighters, whittling down the opponent's health is the only way to win. Because racking up damage is a means to an end, pokes, projectiles, and other low commitment attacks develop into effective and shallow strategies. In Street Fighter 2 Turbo, players can effectively trap opponents against the sides of a stage wtih a succession of projectiles.
  • Having to always knock your opponents off the stage to win opens up the effective strategies for a variety of attacks and set ups. I developed as a part of my Kirby style in Melee. the most number of killing strategies without doing a single point of damage. By using strong stage positioning, and aggressive-defensive techniques, I was able to fight without fighting so to speak.

• Everything is variable and dynamic. In Smash, the attack strengths and player positions are determined by many factors.
  
  • stage (edges, platforms, hazards, stage transformations)
  • characters (attacks, damage %, stale-move negation, size, weight, air control)
  • positioning: the exact pose or position of the players down to small details like character footing.

• Visually based fighter. Most of the information needed to play effectively can be deduced from the games visuals. This includes hit boxes, tech jumps, lag animations, general knock back trajectories, and move strength. If you want to know how strong a move is, just look at how far/quickly the target flies away after landing the attack. Smash plays like how it looks. Unlike games like Soul Calibur where there's a disconnect between a move's animation and its strength (damage dealt)/properties (high mid low), if a move looks like it hits low, it hits low. In other words, form fits function.

• Commitment. The animation system creates natural pauses in the player's offense and defense. When players land on the ground while doing attacks, they go through specific recovery animations that prevent the player doing doing anything else. Moves don't instantly cancel back into the neutral player state like in Street Fighter. Adding commitment animations and durations to the attacks helps create the flow of combat.

• The flow of combat is created in part by mechanics that generate push-pull gameplay. In general, stronger attacks require more of the player whether it's charge time, meter consumption, revving up animation, or cool down/recovery animation. The strategies that are available to the player take into account the vulnerability that comes with these moves.
  
  • Interplay. Interplay is composed of back and forth counters between two game elements. In the case of Smash, just about every move/attack has some level of interplay.
    • Directional Influence (DI). In Smash players can influence the direction their character travels after being hit to try and push themselves into less dangerous positions.
  •  
    • Priority of attacks. Unlike most other fighters, the Smash engine allows for most attacks to interact with each other. If two players punch, swing, or kick at each other and their attack animations meet (match blows), both attacks are stopped and the players return to their neutral state at equal frame advantage. This property exists for most ground attacks as well as most projectiles.
    •  
      • Ground attacks can match blows with other ground attacks.
      • Air attack with either win or lose the priority battle against other air/ground based attacks.
      • All attacks can match blows with thrown items (except explosive items).
      • The duration of attack animations also determine the priority of attacks. Stopping a smash attack with a jab is possible, but very risky because the jab animation after matching blows will pull straight back while some smash attacks may continue to move after matching blows.

• Little to no auto moves or auto combos. In Smash, there are no simple strategies/move strings that are guaranteed combos because there are too many factors that determine the stun, knock back, and position of the attacked player let alone the condition and position of the attacker. Even the standard combo that Sakurai mentioned on his blog isn't a true combo. There are several factors and variables involve in the possible interactions to create holes in this "combo."

• Stale-move negation. In Smash, moves weaken when used in succession. The moves not only do less damage, but the knock back on the opponent is reduced to a fraction of it's original strength. Think of it as if the character's limbs get tired from repeatedly using their muscles in the same way without resting. To give the "muscles" a break, players have to land other moves on their opponent. This design element is significant to keep players from only using their strongest or most effective attacks only.

MISC. Design Elements

• CHARGE mechanic. I've already written about the genius of the CHARGE mechanic. Smash is designed with a variety of CHARGE like moves.
  • Some special attacks can be charged and then released.
  • All Smash attacks can be charged.
  • Many air attacks have start up animation before the actual attack comes out. If the character lands on any platform/surface before the start up time is complete, the attack doesn't come out. In this way, some air attacks have to have adequate falling time (charge time) before they activate.

• Fighting Stances. Because Smash is an analog fighter where attacks and hazards can approached from any direction and hit any part of the character's body, every move the player makes changes their fighting stance. It's important to note that all of these stances are natural extensions of the normal gameplay created from the simple controls and precise attack calculations.
  
  • Many fighters automatically face both players at each other. But in Smash, players are free to use a forward facing stance or a backward facing stance at any time. Because the attack animation accurately represent their hit boxes, the uses of attacks changes depending on which way the character is facing. Ducking is another stance that reduces the character's vertical space and limits them to low tiling attacks. Personally, I used a variety of stances in Melee, I used Kirby's backward stance for my offense, ducking stance for defense, and neutral stance to mix up my other two stances. Brawl added crawling, gliding, and wall clinging stances to Smash.
  • Players can also use specific attacks to change their stances. Kirby's inhale attack is a stance that players can hold. Holding the charge on smash attacks are also stances because of how they change the character's pose while limiting their defensive and offensive options. Yoshi and Captain Falcon's forward smash rear backward before crashing forward. By charging these smash attacks, players can dodge incoming attacks and take advantage of small openings in their opponents defenses.
  • Holding an item is another stance. While holding an item, players can't grab. Depending on the item, the players attacks may be swapped out for a new set of attacks. Grab the beam saber, and many of the player's A attacks are swapped with saber attacks. Dropping the stance is a simple as dropping the item.

• Nintendo Forms. Smash is a game that is filled to the brim with Nintendo characters, history, and nostalgia. More often than not, animations and attack functions can be traced back to older Nintendo games. Keeping true to the cannon/lore/fiction of Nintendo helps define the form of Smash. In this way, form fits function relies on the history of Nintendo's game to connect to the game's multitudinous functions .

• Limited clutter.
  
  • Limited use of invincible frames. Fighters generally give players invincible frames in situations so they don't get completely run over by their opponent. From Street Fighter, to Marvel vs. Capcom, to Soul Calibur, fighters usually give invincible frames to players that are getting up off the ground. Unfortunately, many fighters artificially hamper attacks to prevent players from easily juggling their opponents. In Smash, invincible frames are use sparingly, and because attacks are so dynamic, the core design didn't need to artifically hamper player attacks.
  • Limited use of flashy attacks and excessive graphics. The core of Smash follows "form fits function" very closely. Because the function of moves/attacks can be inferred from the game's visuals, there is no room for excessive graphics and flashy animations. Fighers like GuiltyGearXX, Marvel vs. Capcom 2, and Soul Calibur feature character animtations and attack forms that are often muddled and even swallowed up by visual effects. Though the colored tracers on the Soul Calibur weapons helps players understand how the attacks move through 3D space, it would make a cleaner game if the tracers weren't needed.
  • Limited use of cancels. Move commitment helps create a natural give-take, push-pull style gameplay that makes up the flow of combat. In general, attempting a more powerful move is a greater risk than attempting a weaker move. Usually, the risk involved with stronger attacks consists of leaving yourself open to attack. When fighers employ CANCEL mechanics, this is essentially a destructive move that works against the form and commitment of moves which, in turn, disrupts the flow of combat. After all, why wouldn't a player choose to remove the shortcomings and weakness of their moves if they had a choice. When moves function according to their forms, then adding a CANCEL mechanic would be an abstract addition.
    

• Limited abstract mechanics: Smash only features a damage meter which is basically player heath. Stock, time, points, and coins are score keeping devices rather than mechanics that influence gameplay. Many other fighters incorporate abstract mechanis like super meters, tension meters, and guard meters. Depending on the game, these meters can be filled up in a variety of ways that aren't necessarily connected to the mechanics and forms of their gameplay.

• 3D Hit boxes. Even though Smash is a 2D fighter, the stage and character models are rendered in 3D. In order to keep a tight relationship between the 3D forms and their 2D functions, Smash calculates its hit boxes in 3D. This allows for the player to understand the nature of moves in 3D but then apply them to a simpler scenario by playing in a 2D space.

•  
  •  

Comments

[gammonwalker]

With the utmost civility I can muster, this is the worst piece of crap article, I have ever read. It becomes evident from early on that you have very little experience with real fighting games. It makes me sick to read this. This article is worse than Scientology. In truth, it isn't your fault you have no idea what you are talking about, it takes a lot of time to learn Street Fighter/Hokoto no Ken or understance the nuances that make Soul Caliber/Tekken work. Time you simply haven't devoted to understand. This is the sort of article that was pre-Wii, that glorified the Wii's design as "revolutionary". It's the brilliant gloss of Nintendo that caused the world to overlook the fact the Wii-mote is still a controller, the motion sensitivity contributes nothing to gameplay. It has not changed the gaming scene. It's to impress the 5 year old that lingers in our psyche. That is Smash Brothers (Brawl).

I, an official fighting game loser, am offended by you touting the Smash Brothers series as a progressive venture into "fighting games". It is regressive, and I will cover that later, only after I point out several damning highlights in your logic.

Let me first say that your arguements, as Smash Brothers contributing to the fighting games, is completely moot as the latest iteration, "Brawl," tainted the entire series with its backwards innovations. The latest introduction of any product line is supposed to represent the rest of the property with the best of its assets and years of development. Brawl fails to achieve any remarkable quality, except, obviously flawed game mechanics at the most basic level.

A large majority of the original competitive Smash Brothers audience will not even stand for Brawl, will not play it seriously. Is this bad? Not taking a game seriously? No, it's not, however what is bad, is the shroud that Sakurai pulled over the world when releasing a game that frowned upon scrutinizing a game, playing it to its highest capacity, enjoying the mastercraft of "refined gameplay". The competitive players are the ones who matter, the ones who take the game to its limits and appreciate the artful design of its code. Instead Sakurai introduced: tripping, final smashes, stale-move negation, and what you are laughably saying Street Fighter does not have, recovery frames or as your call it "commitment". I will overlook the dozens of other flaws in order to focus on this issue.

What is funny is that the Melee actually had L-cancelling which quite literally, removed recovery frames. This is an embarassing flaw in your arguement and cannot be overlooked. Brawl does not have this feature, however its game design is so flawed that people for the longest time believed that L-cancelling was still in the game due to how freakishly fast moves would recover. Auto-cancelling is still readily applicable in Brawl, a technique that simply rewards you for doing a move the moment you jump, cancelling a majority of the recovery frames as you land. Smash Brothers does not have the "COMMITMENT" you speak of and what I have said also invalidates your entire arguement on "Limited Use of Cancels". If you would watch a single match of competitive Brawl you would see people flying around like bees, wildly putting out moves, trying to suck people into their engorged hit boxes because there is no COMMITMENT. Brawl is all vectors, wild guessing games, and what characters are better. Can be said about a couple of other games, that is the point.

Smash Brothers is no more balanced than any other fighting game. This goes hand in hand with commitment. Certain characters are able to take advantage of this beloved, "stale-move negation". Characters such as Solid Snake, Metaknight, ROB, Game and Watch, have multiple options to produce killing strikes. This is what is important, THE KILLING STRIKE. The remainder of the cast all have killing strikes of course, however certain characters have very limited options. Random example, Lucas. He has a nice fsmash. This is a move with a wide coverage around his front facing, very applicable and very useful for a kill. However after a certain number of using this good move of his he has to rely on varyingly more ecceltic options to aquire a kill because of the stale-move negation. The game punishes you for using his useful moves by forcing you to try and score kills with his uair or whatever, limiting your methods of attack. However, Snake can kill you, EASILY, with a large number of options: throws, nair, bair, fair, neutral attack, ftilt, utilt. EASILY is the key word, and I say this in contrast to other characters. All of his moves have effective (if not absurd) range and angles of instance. This is bad game design.

MORE on commitment if you played Street Fighter 3, Capcom vs. SNK 2, King of Fighters 11, Tekken X, Virtua Fighter X, Soul Caliber X, every other sensible fighting game, you would be reversal supered/combo'd in an instant, because those games employ a brilliant abstract concept built into the moves themselves called, "risk vs. reward". The move you execute, is it worth the amount of benefits you recieve (on block or hit) in contrast to the detrimental effects you could incur (on block or miss). Brawl has this, of course, but in a much more limited respect. The risk is typically not great enough for to detract from wildly using moves in semi-safe situations. Brawl is very much like I said before, people flying around like bees hoping to land a sting on someone. This lack of care is because of the lack of a legitimate combo system. People in Capcom vs. SNK 2 play very cautiously because they know if they screw up, they are going to pay for it BIG TIME. This is of couse if the opponent is skilled enough. Same for Brawl? Nope, you will pay for most of your mistakes, SMALL TIME, no matter how good your opponent is. This is bad game design. Brawl rewards you for being only educated so-so. Go ahead kiddo, drive your father's car, you know what a green light is. It is for children. Even in Melee there was a higher implementation of risk vs. reward. There were combos, I am not even sure if you are aware of that. Now that my main beef is out of the way I can cover some other crazy stuff you said.

"RUMBLE SUPPORT," who cares?! It does not contribute to gameplay, a skilled player should be aware of everything on the screen at all times. You, talking about Smash Brother's wonderful interface, should be able to cope.

Speaking of which, LIMITED ABSTACT MECHANICS... how can any fighting game feature a bar that is not connected to the gameplay, are you suggesting these bars fill at random or unspecified moments? Yes, Smash Brothers has a stream-lined interface. Having bars that suppliment gameplay being displayed on-screen should not be a problem, read the manual. I think this alone calls attention to the reason you like Smash Brothers, because of trivial garbage like this, and because of your interest in easy-peasy gameplay and storybook interfaces.

Limited use of flashy attacks and excessive graphics. Here you speak of Street Fighter(???) having flashy animations or graphics??? The lack of it is EXACTLY why people are turning to Soul Caliber, Tekken, and other 3D fighting games, because each button press activates a spectacular to watch, easy to execute move. 236236HP (Ryu's super) is not as flashy and easy to execute as any two button throw in Tekken or Soul Caliber, or lets say a one button smash attack.

Nintendo Forms? People like the Nintendo game because it has Nintendo characters in it? Come on, how does this make a good game. Capcom games have Capcom characters in them, NOSTALGIA~MUST BUY<33333!!!!

Fighting stances. Been there, done that. It opens up possibilties for a new set of moves, but even in Street Fighter, King of Fighters or whatever, you can do an equal number of moves, and guess what... ALL FROM FRONT FACING. It complexifies strategy in placement and facing, however this can be achieved without the necessity of stances.

Little to no auto moves or auto combos. All Smash Brothers have combos, even Brawl. Brawl in a vastly more limited respect, but jamming on the neutral attack button DOES "combo," sorry man. How is this a good thing anyways???

Limited use of invincible frames. Example 23 as to why you don't know what you are talking about. Smash Brothers has the easy to access invincibility frames of any fighting game ever. GETTING UP requires that you be invincible so that you don't win a match the second someone gets knocked down. Tekken has a more limited application of invin. frames than Smash does. Its called ukemi, LOOK IT UP. Street Fighter, "MEATY ATTACKS" exist if you are skilled enough to execute them. In Smash Brothers you can literally TURN INVINCIBLE by holding guard and tapping a direction WHENEVER YOU WANT. WHENEVER YOU WANT. Let me say again, whenever you want. This inhibits a lot of the games mechanics, especially in Brawl where it makes it virtually impossible to continue pressure on an opponent in the air after they have been hit. What are you talking about.

The only way to win is with a ring out. Soul Caliber(period) Not the only way to win, but it's not that fascinating. Oh, and BRAWL, unlike Melee where the stage boundaries matter, you cannot take advantage of this supposed unique feature unless you run your brain through a meat grinder trying to figure out how to gimp, ROB, DDD, Pit, Kirby, etc's insane edge recovery potential.

"It's a shame that Street Fighter 4 changed their hit detection system from using the 3D models to using invisible 2D hit boxes." Do you understand whyyy they made this decision??? Because you obviously don't. It would have destroyed the gameplay. Do you play games? Have you played Doom 3? I believe that was the first game to use pixel perfect hit detection in an FPS, and it was, initially, effing difficult to adjust and hit anything in the head. In the end it was fine, but in a fighting game it requires guaranteed results, each button press needs to have a specific action/reaction for each move, not just a bullet to the head. With bizarre things like fists sweeping through someone's long hair, just above someone's scalp. That would prove ultimately frustrating and not condusive to a fun game. X move hits at X distance, that is how a fun game works. Not X variable works at X moment, "because its realistic" = X amount of fun.

I am really dissapointed people are going to read what you have typed and soak it up like little robots. Maybe this was an attempt at being really avant-guard and supporting nuclear power in automobiles or something. I don't know, but I really hope you understand that you need to re-evaluate this article, because its filled with so many opinionated, untruths it cuts me at my very soul and is spreading misinformation about the long debated arguement, "Is Brawl a good fighting game." No, sir it is not.

[gammonwalker]

"236236HP (Ryu's super) is not as flashy and easy to execute as any two button throw in Tekken or Soul Caliber, or lets say a one button smash attack."

Meant to say a FINAL smash, silly me.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@ Gammonwalker

Judging from your comment you don't have the reading comprehension nor the sense to produce an intelligent rebuttal to my article.

You should have learned in school that when you intend to point anything out about someone's writing, it's best to quote their material. I don't argue in generalities. I debate in specifics.

Not only is your colloquial writing hard to follow, but your logic is as well. You can't tell me what's good or bad game design without backing it up. I've written over 100,000 words on this blog backing my statements up. I even have a glossary with links to supporting articles in case the definitions aren't enough.

You, on the other hand, have nothing.

Do yourself a favor next time and instead of failing to point out flaws in other people's logic, try asking a question that would clarify the issues in question. Doing this won't make you seem so rash and juvenile.

Or you can just learn to read and do your research.

[alvare]

Huh, it's the third time this month I read someone with obviously a high level of knowledge about video games being absolutely wrong about what fighting games are about. First of all I just wanna say that I'll try my best but I sadly lack the knowledge and language to fully express what I think, and second I'd like to establish what me and the Fighting Game Community in general mean with a True Fighting Game: A game that enables for Direct Confrontation between 2 humans. FGs just decide who is more mentally and physically skilled, nothing more. They function as judges. And as electronic judges they need to be precise above anything else.

Another important thing about FGs is how players interact with each other. In Tetris two people can play a hi-score competition, but a player can't affect the other's performance (following Tetris rules). This is crucial: in fighting games you are directly playing against your opponent, everything you do affects him and vice versa, it's a closed zero-sum system.

FGs, being about winning, also make the players interact trough the idea of Commitment. When you do a crouching MP with Guile in ST (SSF2T) on "Turbo 0" speed, you are committing yourself to 4 startup frames, 4 active frames, and depending on whether your active frames hit the opponent's hitbox or not (whiff), 8 recovery frames. You are committed to those frames every time you press cr.MP, and there is nothing you can do about that. This is incredibly important. For example I learned some of Jam's frame data in GGXXAC+, some because I needed to (read it at dustloop.com) and some just by playing a lot.

This leads to the other "thing" (I really can't define this yet) that FGs have in their Core: Precision. FGs are so rule heavy because of the amount of precision it is needed to enable the two players to confront their skills with the leaser amount of noise and "luck" involved. That "10 frame window" Brawl gives players that you categorize as a feature would be absolutely absurd in a FG. In ST you need the skill to be able to make a "touch of death" combo with Dictator, if a person who played the game for 10 hours can do it the same way one that has played 8 years, where does skill come into play? Because as I stated FGs are about a balance between mental and physical skill. I have won battles where superior knowledge gave me the advantage and battles where I was being out-smarted but where my superior skill let me make more damage out of my opponent's mistakes. ST is incredibly balanced in this aspect: something as simple as hitting the recovery of a crMK with a crRH (which isn't as easy as it sounds, since if you fail your crRH can be hit too, this is how mental skill comes into play) can let you make a combo that stuns the opponent or just kills him, if your physical skill is high enough.

I recognize Brawl and Melee have this traits, but they are far less refined. That's why gammonwalker described a Brawl match as "bees wildly putting out moves", because the game makes it too hard for the superior player to use his skills, because of it's lack of precision and commitment. The amount of mental and physical skill that comes into play in that previous footsies example can't be found in Brawl or Melee

From my experience it seems that it is usually people from the Miyamoto School of Design those who don't understand fighting games. The "form fits function" Sūtra is usually applied incorrectly because FGs have a different "purpose" than the single player or co-op games of the Miyamoto School. It's

In my personal opinion Smash is crap as a fighting game, but very fun as a single player game. I enjoy versus matches but as in any loose and imprecise fighting game it gets boring quite fast.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@alvare

It's been so long. I wrote this article in 2008. I wonder how my thoughts have changed since. The sad/interesting part is, you seem to say a lot, but you don't seem to be against the specifics of my article. You didn't really quote the material to form your post, for whatever reason. No matter. There's a lot to discuss from what you said.

" First of all I just wanna say that I'll try my best but I sadly lack the knowledge and language to fully express what I think"

I'm glad you said this up front. No worries on not being able to fully explain or articulate your thoughts. I'll back you up as you go along.

"A game that enables for Direct Confrontation between 2 humans. FGs just decide who is more mentally and physically skilled, nothing more. They function as judges. And as electronic judges they need to be precise above anything else."

This definition captures some of the spirit of competitive fighting games, but it's not a very good definition. I can replace the work "fighting game" with "racing game" and the statement still holds true. I know you go on to further refine your stance/idea/definition, but I wanted to say here that it's important not to think of fighting games as being very different from many other competitive video games.

"This is crucial: in fighting games you are directly playing against your opponent, everything you do affects him and vice versa, it's a closed zero-sum system."

Again, you can say the same think about any game of "direct competition." Fighting games, racing games, RTS, FPS, and many other genre share the same crucial quality.

"FGs, being about winning, also make the players interact trough the idea of Commitment"

This can mean many things. Here's how I interpret it. First, aren't all competitive experiences about winning? Second...

1)Commitment can refer to a kind of stop and pop gameplay where, in general, doing actions prevent you (or commit you) from doing other actions. Read more about that here... http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/7/the-coefficient-of-clean-pt2.html

2) Commitment can simply refer to the fact that attacks are animated and generally cannot be canceled. Many games are share this feature/design.

3) Commitment might mean that the the gameplay and interactions are consistent which allow players to learn more and more about it over time. Since knowledge is one of the most important skills, digging deeper usually makes one a better player. Read more about skill in this series... http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/31/an-examination-of-skill-pt1.html

"This leads to the other "thing" (I really can't define this yet) that FGs have in their Core: Precision. FGs are so rule heavy because of the amount of precision it is needed to enable the two players to confront their skills with the leaser amount of noise and "luck" involved."

I read this as saying "fighting games are complex." But whether you mean precise controls or complex mechanics, again, many games share this quality. It's nothing unique to fighting games. I will say that fighting games generally need a lot of complexities to fill out their design space and to create interesting choices in the gameplay. If there weren't enough moves or parameters for the moves, it would be too easy for the competition to devolve into a few dominant moves/strategies. But not all fighters are like this. I'm not sure how much you've read in this series or on this blog but Monkey Fight 2 in Super Monkey Ball is an example of a very simple top down fighting game.

I also want to say that a game doesnt' need to be 100% skill based to be a great, long lasting competitive game. 75-100% is fine. The more "luck" involved, player generally for more rounds to ensures that skill is the determining factor. After all, all fighters are real-time games. And most of built around a triangle of interplay with attack, block, and grab. This allows for double blind encounters which is technically similar to guessing. Sure, we make educated guesses and we try to read our opponents. But it's still guess work. Read more here http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2009/4/27/counterpoint-the-depth-of-interplay-pt5.html. Read more about yomi here... http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/17/gamemental-state-pt3.html.

"That "10 frame window" Brawl gives players that you categorize as a feature would be absolutely absurd in a FG. In ST you need the skill to be able to make a "touch of death" combo with Dictator, if a person who played the game for 10 hours can do it the same way one that has played 8 years, where does skill come into play?

Street Fighter and many other fighting games have since incorporated frame buffering into some aspect of their gameplay. In fact, the combos in ST have natural timing leniencies based on hit stun and other factors. Having moves that cancel into each other (2 in 1s) is a buffer of a different sort. So don't think ST is some kind of exception. Frame buffers help player time some things better but not all things. Just like there are 1 frame links in SF4 there are the same frame tight techniques in Smash Brothers.

There's skill in every aspect of gameplay. And it takes more and more skill to continually play at a high level. A game doesn't need to have frame tight techniques to support a high level of skill or a diverse level of skill. You should read more about the misunderstandings of competitive gaming here... http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2011/5/13/competitive-multiplayer-collective-misunderstanding-pt1.html.

"Because as I stated FGs are about a balance between mental and physical skill."

I know what you're saying, but if you're not careful to define skill you'll too easily make overreaching statements. Yes, ST is a good fighting game. But many fighting games and many competitive games have a balance been "physical" and "mental" skill. You should really just adopt my DKART skill system. It's more more objective and comprehensive.

"I recognize Brawl and Melee have this traits, but they are far less refined. That's why gammonwalker described a Brawl match as "bees wildly putting out moves", because the game makes it too hard for the superior player to use his skills, because of it's lack of precision and commitment. "

How much experience do you have with competitive Smash? It can't be more than me. And I can tell you that you don't know enough to make these kinds of statements. I don't care what gammonwalker says. You havent' made a strong argument here or supported this statement. It's better for you to refer to experts (like me) and ask questions rather than overstep.

"From my experience it seems that it is usually people from the Miyamoto School of Design those who don't understand fighting games. The "form fits function" Sūtra is usually applied incorrectly because FGs have a different "purpose" than the single player or co-op games of the Miyamoto School. "

And it's here where you've really overstepped. I can confidently say that me with my "Miyamoto School of Design" have explained far more, researched far more, and experienced far more than any other writer on the net. You've done so little compared to me, how can you be so bold?

I could have guessed your opinion before you stated it. Gather your thoughts, read my blog, do your research, refer to experts, and then you'll have the understanding and the language you want.

[alvare]

Now some quotes from your article and what I think of them (I'll be refering to True Fighting Games like GGXXAC+, ST and KoF2k2 as simply "FGs"):

Analog Controls.
Digital input is far more precise at hardware, software and physical level. How many degrees of tilt define a crouch? In the heat of the battle, how consistently can a high level player tilt the stick the exact amount of degrees he wants to? It only detracts precision. And what does it add? If I want to move little in GG I press back a few frames, if I want to move more frames I just hold it longer. The variable that matters is the max speed, that's the only thing that affects the character balance since it doesn't matter how you get into position, just how fast (Jam has a fast walking speed and running speed because her strength comes from her frame traps and her ability to pressure the opponent in close ranged combat). Also, when you say that in Smash movement is independent from the attack animations as a good thing I see a bad thing. That is removing commitment from the move, in ST you can't move while doing a Fierce Punch and some moves move while hitting, adding "mobility" as a property of the move, with it's pros and cons out of your control. This makes the system more precise and makes things easier to deal with, as long as you have the knowledge (what counters a tatsumaki, what beats Guile's Sobat Knee, etc) and skill (the timing, the reactions, the left hand ability and speed if the counter is a special move).

Rumble support.
The "hit spark" and "hit sound" combination is far more precise than the vibration of the controller. A friend of mine can tell what level an attack in GG is just by hearing and looking at it being blocked. Rumble also adds unnecessary movement to the controller removing precision.

In Street Fighter 2 Turbo, players can effectively trap opponents against the sides of a stage wtih a succession of projectiles.
I doubt that you really think this is like this, that's why it's so poorly explained, but using an analogy out of context like this is not correct.
Ryu's fireball trap works by throwing a LP Hadouken (faster recovery let's you act faster) so that it hits a cornered opponent as late as possible (with the back of it's hitbox). The block-stun is always the same, so doing this ensures having the greatest frame advantage (needed for positioning for the next one), and the enemy being in the corner ensures he won't move backwards by blocking it. Doing this correctly enables the Ryu player to be at the advantage, which he rightfully earned (the other player was cornered and knocked down), because he now has the right to choose: a FP Hadouken will hit the opponent if he tries to jump over it and will knock him down repeating the process, while a LP Hadouken will give the Ryu player enough advantage to repeat the process (if he throws a HP Hadouken after a LP Hadouken at the correct distance, the enemy can't jump it either). Also, if the positioning is correct, if the Ryu player throws a LP Hadouken and the opponent jumps it, he won't be able to fully punish it, but depending on the character, just to reset the situation. A lot of other variables come into play of course, because some characters can go trough the fireballs, but it always means to commit, and the fireball trap is a lesser commitment, because the game is so correctly designed that the player who should have the advantage actually has it (I'm always talking about "advantage" in the meta-game terms, not because the character is better technically).

Having to always knock your opponents off the stage to win opens up the effective strategies for a variety of attacks and set ups.
You are saying that less options open up into more "effective" options. That is false, and in FGs you have more real variety anyway.

Visually based fighter.
A move that is visually confusing whether it's high or low has exactly that as a positive property. A move that hits "obviously high" may have some kind of disadvantage like being punishable and advantages like being quite fast, while other overhead move that is very slow can has as an advantage being visually confusing.

Little to no auto moves or auto combos. In Smash, there are no simple strategies/move strings that are guaranteed combos because there are too many factors that determine the stun, knock back, and position of the attacked player let alone the condition and position of the attacker
There are way too many factors. This takes away the ability to dominate from the superior player. All those factors too aren't obvious or even known to the players. GGXXAC+ even has the "guard bar" that tells you how much proration your attacks have, and while it's not absolute precision, it is better than nothing. ST and GG also have their factors, but with enough knowledge and skill one can actually maximize the damage out of a punish, something that is impossible in Brawl. But I repeat, it depends on the skill of the players, watch at any GGXXAC match in a-cho or mikado and you'll see a lot of damage opportunities not taken because the player doubts it's own skills, and this is also how the superior player prevails, by overcoming his insecurities.

Stale-move negation. This design element is significant to keep players from only using their strongest or most effective attacks only.
How FGs accomplish this seems better to me. Every move has it's use, but using them correctly is what matters. That mechanic you mention makes me take Brawl even less seriously, moves shouldn't be too powerful without big disadvantages, that's what commitment is all about. GGXXAC performs extremely well at this trough the use of FRCs, which are simply a form of canceling an attack, but one that requires skill and knowledge and that have clearly defined disadvantages and consume meter. Slayer's 6P is a move that beats almost half 80% of the moves in the game because of it's invulnerability, but it's easily punished by, simply, blocking. If the Slayer player thinks it's appropriate to throw out a 6P he knows that if he was wrong he will have to FRC it to make it safe, and even then he can fail to do the FRC and get punished. The Slayer player doesn't throw 6P out all the time because of it's disadvantages, even if t cleanly beats 80% of all other moves.

Limited use of invincible frames. Unfortunately, many fighters artificially hamper attacks to prevent players from easily juggling their opponents.
Juggling doesn't work like that in the SF and KoF series, and in GG air-combos just follow the rules of ground combos with some more variables (height, hitstun deterioration, etc). SF's juggling is too complicated for me to explain here, but it's actually really simple mathematically, you can read about it anywhere else. Invulnerability frames have a lot of uses, not "being run over" is one, but they have their risks, so it comes, as always, to the player's skill and knowledge. The invulnerable frames given to waking up players are a balance between letting the attacker hit the attacked forever, letting precision escape by making the attacked move out of range and still giving the attacker the advantage, because while the defendant player is on the floor the attacker can set up his strategy and control the flow of the match. This is so evident in ST that some characters like O.Hawk can win with one knockdown, as long as the player doesn't screw up, and even with this O.Hawk isn't considered Top Tier, because actually getting that knockdown is hard for him and executing the loop perfectly is incredibly difficult.

Limited use of flashy attacks and excessive graphics.
But moves in GG and MvC2 and ST are way more clear than in Brawl. The "flashiness" just comes into play when it doesn't matter, like for example Super Flashes, where the screen actually freezes. That just adds eye candy in ST, but is a mechanic that can be used both positively and negatively in GG and KoF.

3D Hit boxes.
2D hitboxes are more precise and controllable, both for the designers and the players, because the screen is 2D. A "deep hitbox" is impossible to represent with the precision a FG needs in a 2D screen. I can't comment on new 3D TVs.

Brawl is made to be played by more than 2 people, that's why you can look back at your opponent, and to me that solely excludes it from being considered a True Fighting Game. Maybe in the future someone will come up with the way to maintain the precision of FGs in a 3 or more players game, but Brawl doesn't even come close. Guilty Gear Isuka tried this too and also failed horribly.

Brawl functions beautifully when played by one person (like if it was made by Nintendo). Like in any single-player game, it's cool to find the cheapest way for disposing of the CPU, with the least amount of effort and the greater amount of fun. But as a game that judges between two players who has higher skill, it's far too imprecise and uncontrollable.

[alvare]

Woah that was fast, and what you still haven't touched specific facts: How often does frame data come into play in Brawl? If it is not important because precision comes into play in other way, what is it? And if precision doesn't come into play, how can you be sure it is you who is winning and not another factor? And I didn't say "FGs are complex", I said they are precise. FGs are extremely simple.

I play racing games too, exactly for the same reason I play fighting games, but the difference relies in the degree of exactitude they allow and in how they are balanced. In GT4 I can easily slam my opponent into the sand when he breaks on a curve: if he is ahead of me, and thus has the advantage, why can I so easily destroy that? Racing games lack the fairness of FGs because they model real life. I'm sure racing in real life is fair! But just not as a video game yet.

And I didn't mean the "Miyamoto School of Design" is a bad thing at all, just a different thing. And honestly, how much has that school of design researched, explained and experienced fighting games? CAPCOM and SNK have a long story making fighting games, why would you say you know better than them?

I honestly started reading your 4 years long PDF compilation of the site with enthusiasm, and lately started to notice that I was agreeing with things I didn't really understand. The first thing I understand is this essay and it's extremely clear how little you know and how confidently you talk anyway.

Also, I am nobody, but this essay is against shoryuken.com, meltybread.com, dustloop.com and all other serious fighting game sites since alt.games.sf2. I think you are being bolder than I am.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@alvare

"Digital input is far more precise at hardware, software and physical level. "

Digital input is better for digital mechanics. Analog inputs are better for analog mechanics. Generally buttons are studier hardware than analog sticks, but it all just depends on the quality of the hardware and the care you give it. For more on controller design read here... http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2011/8/8/controller-design-buttons-pt1.html

"How many degrees of tilt define a crouch? In the heat of the battle, how consistently can a high level player tilt the stick the exact amount of degrees he wants to? It only detracts precision."

It takes more skill to be more accurate with input devices that are more engaging. Because analog sticks have many degrees of control, it takes more dexterity skill to use them consistently. You wanted to know where some of the skill comes into play, this is a simple example.

"And what does it add? If I want to move little in GG I press back a few frames, if I want to move more frames I just hold it longer. The variable that matters is the max speed, that's the only thing that affects the character balance since it doesn't matter how you get into position, just how fast (Jam has a fast walking speed and running speed because her strength comes from her frame traps and her ability to pressure the opponent in close ranged combat)."

It clearly adds analog movement control and variability. This is not to say that good games can't be made without analog sticks. It more specifically means good analog mechanics can't be done without analog input devices. You don't need to describe how games with digital inputs have compensated to create an end product that works given the hardware. Like I said, digital mechanics work with digital controls and are tuned for digital gameplay. At this basic level of consideration, it's not about what's necessary for movement. We're just talking about how movement is different.

"Also, when you say that in Smash movement is independent from the attack animations as a good thing I see a bad thing. That is removing commitment from the move, in ST you can't move while doing a Fierce Punch and some moves move while hitting, adding "mobility" as a property of the move, with it's pros and cons out of your control. "

First of all, ground attacks are just like Street Fighter. It's only in the air that you have some air control to help maneuver the character. Some street Fighter moves also have this control like EX blanka rainbow ball. Yes, it does remove some commitment, but not all. In fact, not most of the commitment. There are plenty of ways to commit the player including landing lag animations, decay (like using meter), etc. In fact, being able to cancel attacks (2 and 1's or L-canceling from smash) is a pretty egregious example of canceling commitment. Obvious, you have to look at how multiple parts of a game's design come together to limit or commit the player rather than a small part like air control.

"This makes the system more precise and makes things easier to deal with, as long as you have the knowledge (what counters a tatsumaki, what beats Guile's Sobat Knee, etc) and skill (the timing, the reactions, the left hand ability and speed if the counter is a special move)."

This is not much of a statement. Basically as long as I'm skilled enough I can deal with things easily? Yes, this will always be the case with skill-based games.

"The "hit spark" and "hit sound" combination is far more precise than the vibration of the controller. A friend of mine can tell what level an attack in GG is just by hearing and looking at it being blocked. Rumble also adds unnecessary movement to the controller removing precision."

Sure. But Smash has all of the above. So the rumble only adds to the feedback design. It allows players to feel out the game even if they're not looking at the hit sparks or if they didn't hear the sound. You're reaching too hard if you're trying to claim that the rumble control is enough to significantly throw off player inputs. It's nice to present theories, but this is too far. To prove you wrong, here's a simple test. Start smash, set the controller down, and cause it to rumble by holding DeDeDe's rocket hammer. If all that rumble action doesn't make DDD walk forward even a tip-toe, then the rumble isn't enough to affect inputting in any way. Read more about clean design here... http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/5/the-coefficient-of-clean-pt1.html

"A lot of other variables come into play of course, because some characters can go trough the fireballs, but it always means to commit, and the fireball trap is a lesser commitment, because the game is so correctly designed that the player who should have the advantage actually has it (I'm always talking about "advantage" in the meta-game terms, not because the character is better technically)."

You basically take a long paragraph to explain what I already said. The player with the advantage in the scenarios you described has the advantage and the ability to trap the opponent against the side of the stage. I understand this clearly. You understand this clearly. Sirlin understood and explained it clearly. I'm not sure why you took so much time to explain my point.

"You are saying that less options open up into more "effective" options. That is false, and in FGs you have more real variety anyway."

I'm saying that you can't win a game using the same simple string of linked-weaker attacks that repeatedly knock down the opponent. Remember the classic example of Vega (claw?) and his mixup game. In smash there are strategies that vie for various positions, amounts damage, or killing blows. You can't projectile turtle the whole round and win. You eventually have to get close enough to use a kill move. Don't be so flippant with your responses. It's not about options that are all viable for almost the entire match. It's about a dynamic that changes the context of how well moves work and how they can be applied.

"A move that is visually confusing whether it's high or low has exactly that as a positive property. .... being visually confusing."

Ok. Not sure if you made any kind of counter argument here. Moving on.

"There are way too many factors. This takes away the ability to dominate from the superior player. All those factors too aren't obvious or even known to the players."

Too many? Says who? You? How does it take away the ability to dominate? It seems to me if there's a lot to learn, whoever learns the most (knowledge skills) has a significant advantage over the players who couldn't handle it. If you don't think tourney pros like M2K, Ally, or gnes can't take lesser pros to task with their superior knowledge and other skill, then you don't know much about what's been going on with smash.

"ST and GG also have their factors, but with enough knowledge and skill one can actually maximize the damage out of a punish, something that is impossible in Brawl. But I repeat, it depends on the skill of the players... this is also how the superior player prevails, by overcoming his insecurities."

Everything you say is very general and can be applied to many competitive games. X games has lots of factors. With X game if you have enough skill you can play more effectively. X game is won by the skill of players. In X game you can be more successful with skill and by overcoming one's insecurities. This is nothing new. And the fact that you don't think these generalities apply to Brawl is just your ignorance.

Just for you, I created this playlist of 93 high level Smash videos. Many have commentary. Study up. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAF01A47C91DBD157&feature=mh_lolz

" Every move has it's use, but using them correctly is what matters. That mechanic you mention makes me take Brawl even less seriously, moves shouldn't be too powerful without big disadvantages, that's what commitment is all about. GGXXAC performs extremely well at this trough the use of FRCs"

Yes, and in Smash every move has its use also. Using them correctly still matters. You take Brawl less seriously because you can't let go of other myopic biases. Fighters are such complex games that many use decay design features to curb the advantage/disadvantage of moves. Street Fighter has meters, ex moves, and supers. You build them by doing things. You lose them by doing things. That's one way. GGXX has all kinds of meters and features like progressive gravity that makes moves less viable as combos go on. And Smash has stale-move negation so that even within the balance, if you don't mix up your approach, you'll moves will lose some (but not all) effectiveness.

"The invulnerable frames given to waking up players are a balance between letting the attacker hit the attacked forever, letting precision escape by making the attacked move out of range and still giving the attacker the advantage, ..."

Yes many fighters use invincible frames to help keep the gameplay clean and to focus it on a certain kind of action. This is good. In general I dislike invincibility frames. Since writing this article, I've softened up on this stance greatly.

"But moves in GG and MvC2 and ST are way more clear than in Brawl."

ST is pretty clean looking. But not GG or MvC2. Those games have color and blood and huge sparks that fill the screen.

'2D hitboxes are more precise and controllable, both for the designers and the players, because the screen is 2D. A "deep hitbox" is impossible to represent with the precision a FG needs in a 2D screen. I can't comment on new 3D TVs."

I wouldn't say they're more precise. Look at this screen shot... http://www.sirlin.net/storage/street_fighter/street_fighter_hd_remix_hitboxes.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1227417591457
See how the squares don't quite line up with the bodies. I know that you have to exaggerate hitboxes to get the game to work better, but with Smash the hit bubbles are more accurately mapped to the exact 3D models of the characters. What you see is what you get. So even with the camera tilted, you can see very precisely how an attack hits or misses. You keep talking about "precision" and other impossibilities, but you don't know. Do you program games? Do you study them? You really talk out of a bunch of theory. So unless you present some credentials, I suggest taking a more reserved stance.

"Brawl is made to be played by more than 2 people, that's why you can look back at your opponent, and to me that solely excludes it from being considered a True Fighting Game. Maybe in the future someone will come up with the way to maintain the precision of FGs in a 3 or more players game, but Brawl doesn't even come close. ...But as a game that judges between two players who has higher skill, it's far too imprecise and uncontrollable."

Again, do your research and stop being so close minded. Brawl has 1v1 and 2v2. This is how we maintain competitive fairness and balanace. Just because the game supports 3foralls and 4foralls is irrelevant.

"How often does frame data come into play in Brawl?"

I'm glad you asked. Players are just as intensely frame specific with Brawl as with any of the FGs you like. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=258564

" If it is not important because precision comes into play in other way, what is it? And if precision doesn't come into play, how can you be sure it is you who is winning and not another factor? And I didn't say "FGs are complex", I said they are precise. FGs are extremely simple."

When you don't quote specific things that I say, I get lost in trying to figure out what you're talking about. You're popping from subject to subject so quickly without directly acknowledging my replies. This isn't a good way to carry on a conversation. But if you insist on carrying on like you're doing, then I'll do my best trying to answer your questions.

I'm not sure what you mean by precision, but Brawl is very much like every other fighting game on a core level. It's skill based. It has a thriving metagame that grows by the day. And only skill will get you victory. Just playing Brawl and competiting will show you this. Just watching enough videos with an open mind will show you this. Just taking my word for it (as a smash expert) should tell you this. And FGs are very complex as are many competitive games. To abstract it or simplify the action is simple... FGs are games where characters fight each other and every move has a counter, but not every strategy.

"Racing games lack the fairness of FGs because they model real life. I'm sure racing in real life is fair! But just not as a video game yet."

Maybe you should play some other racing games. I play Mario Kart. No need to worry about real life for that game series.

"And honestly, how much has that school of design researched, explained and experienced fighting games? CAPCOM and SNK have a long story making fighting games, why would you say you know better than them?"

Capcom and SNK aren't writers on the net are they? Do they make regular posts? Sure between the developers and the fans, they know all about their games. But that doesn't mean they can explain things. And it doesn't mean they know about non Capcom/SNK games. Since 2008 I've studied a lot of other fighting games. Like I said, this article is very old and I've learned a lot since.

"I honestly started reading your 4 years long PDF compilation of the site with enthusiasm, and lately started to notice that I was agreeing with things I didn't really understand. The first thing I understand is this essay and it's extremely clear how little you know and how confidently you talk anyway."

I encourage you to keep reading and push through my early years. Seriously, 2008 was the first year I wrote for the blog. I had a lot to learn and you'll only see my growth as you go along.

The only thing that's clear is how little you have pointed out about my article. You came here talking about so many different topics, yet you haven't actually quoted and countered any of the arguments I made in the article or the article series. Yes ST and other FGs are great. But you haven't explained why what I've said invalidates their quality in any way. There's plenty of room here for me to explain my preferences and ideas for a next gen fighter without trashing the quality of what we already have.

"Also, I am nobody, but this essay is against shoryuken.com, meltybread.com, dustloop.com and all other serious fighting game sites since alt.games.sf2. I think you are being bolder than I am."

Again, you haven't done any counter arguing here. Just a lot of discussion. I never said other FGs are bad. If I did, please quote me. And if I did, I'm sure I've corrected my thoughts in later articles.

Good day.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@alvare

Hang in there. I know I've been bold in the past and overstepped myself at times. If you're trying to call me out on anything, do quote me and I'll either defend myself or freely admit when I was wrong. You're putting in some good energy into this conversation. I didn't want you to leave without knowing that I appreciate you taking to time to read any of my blog and to write such detailed comments.

If you ever want to chat live, you know where to find me (see about page or the chat on the side)

[alvare]

First of all I want to say that my objective wasn't to devalue Smash but to state why what you wrote about it and Fighting Games is wrong. It must be hard for you to read your own 4 years old article and try to remind what mood you had in the moment, but it's clear to me that you aren't just promoting Smash, you are criticizing FGs, as being too complex ("If a sequel to a beloved fighting game completely changed things up, players would have to absorb another encyclopedia worth of data.") and too imprecise ("It's a shame that Street Fighter 4 changed their hit detection system from using the 3D models to using invisible 2D hit boxes.") and others than can't be synthesized by quoting.
You know, I wrote all that because I felt my own Core Values threatened. You obviously know a lot more than I do, and I've learned things reading your words, but after reading your fighting game articles some kind of dissonance appeared in my thinking.

I am kind of absolutist, but the most plausible reason is that I am wrong, and Smash is a serious FG that doesn't let anything get between you and your opponent when you want to decide who is plainly better at it.

If this is so, why are some characters banned? ST had a LOT of revision to become as solid as it is, Smash has 3? And you are you so sure it's better than ST? I would have never imagined to even smell a bias in your writings, but take for example this quote:

"GuiltyGearXX, Marvel vs. Capcom 2, and Soul Calibur feature character animtations and attack forms that are often muddled and even swallowed up by visual effects."

(SC is not a Pure Fighting game, for an example of a 3D FG we can use Virtua Fighter. Also I don't like to include MvC2 in my list of FGs, because I don't fully understand it, but I'm almost sure it is, I just can't talk on behalf of it.)
Smash has attacks that actually put fire on screen, obscuring everything behind it. Like I said, visual obfuscation is a technique in FGs, like Testament's trap, which for example can cover his 6P overhead. Apart from that, I can't think of another thing that muddles attacks, and certainly not one that doesn't do so with a specific reason. Why is it that GG looks so clean to me and Smash so muddled? My experience with FGs started with some version of SF2 I can't remember, MvC and Smash Bros 64, and I clearly remember dropping SSB64 gradually because of how obfuscating everything was: there were little hurricanes, bombs, fire, etc.

Where it's clear we digress is in the hitbox theme: "See how the squares don't quite line up with the bodies. I know that you have to exaggerate hitboxes to get the game to work better."
Not at all, it's not about exaggerating, some hitboxes are smaller than the limbs that represent them. The issue is about balance, since in True FGs hitboxes make such a big difference, they are the most retouched thing. A silly example: people dropping Ryu ins SSFIVAE because his crMK hitbox was a few pixels smaller, Hitboxes need to be adjusted all the time during development, and after development when planning how to balance the next version, that's why the can't be so closely connected to the graphics, because one would need to re-draw the sprites every time.

This is what I mean with the "form fits function" Sutra being incorrectly applied to FGs. This is direct competition we are talking about here, graphics Don't Matter. Yes, they don't, a FG can be fair without them, just by displaying the hitboxes (but then they would be boring because for other reasons that you know better than I). The "form" here isn't an "extended arm" and the function isn't only "hitting", the form is a "square hitbox" because the function is far more specific (hitting this exact area for this amount of frames after X amount of frames, etc), I was even against "diagonal" hitboxes in SF4 because I knew that squared hitboxes had their share of advantages: they let the player picture them easier in the screen plane (I've already said why we can't use the actual graphics for this). The only easier polygon for the human brain to visualize is the isosceles triangle, but it also has to be simple in the software/hardware level, making squared hitboxes the simplest option.

Another things I know about Smash that make me unsure of it being a Pure FG ussing this http://balancedbrawl.net/ as a guideline:

-balance issues: look at that infinites and lockdowns lists. Brawl seems to be so badly designed (for some people) that they took the effort of doing what Nintendo won't, because Nintendo probably doesn't care for Smash as a FG.
-tripping: how can randomization of this kind allow the best player to dominate?
-stages: I understand that several stages aren't viable for tournament play,and yet you say this is a balanced fighter worth being played as a pure skill judge.

In true 2D Fighting Games you are constantly facing your opponent, you can't turn around, how can it get Purer than that? FPS have spread, if two people start at the same frame shooting at each other's head there is no telling what will happen, but for example, Quake III doesn't, Quake III is as precise as ST, and I consider QIII to be a True FPS. Maybe that will clear up what I mean, because like I said before I lack the knowledge and language to put it into words. (I know QIII has multilayer but I didn't consider that aspect of the game when categorizing it as a True FPS, like I don't consider GGXXAC+'s Team VS Mode)

A professional Quake III arena knows the exact timing for item re-spawn, only his skill defines where the bullet goes, maybe not as pixel exact as in a 2D FG but precise enough for it to be absolutely fair, and his decisions directly affect the opponent. I know man, I've said this a hundred times, but the difference between Q3 and Brawl is in how exact and precise things are, and I don't mean how they actually pcise are, because I doubt the engine is faulty in that sense, I mean how precise they have to be. Brawl has to balance a gigantic field, and in close quarter combat the amount of precision one needs to be effective is less than the one you need in ST, where it comes to pixels and frames, the smaller quantifiable units for a Video Game. I don't personally know it, by how is it not obvious by reading trough the community's forums, looking at youtube comments and video descriptions or reading trough your own articles? Please just compare that Frame Data link you shared (which I already knew about, I wasn't referring to that but to how it doesn't come into play, I've seen frame data for Puzzle Bubble).

Compare it to jam's Frame Data in GGXXAC (which I have bookmarked because of how often I look at it): http://www.dustloop.com/guides/ggac/data/ac/jam.html

Frame Data of True FGs is usually organized in tables because of how "systematic" (probably not the correct word) they are. Brawl's frame data is formated differently for every character! That is not consistent, learning a character in GG lets you learn a lot about the rest because of how they share the same core with only different combinations of variables, which under no circumstance makes them play similarly (even the meta-objectives of a Sol player are greatly different from those of a Jam player, and it even varies between styles).

But let's stop this for a second, I don't think we should live chat because we look absolutely different at fighting games, and we are both incredibly attached to our beliefs. I love the shoryuken and dustloop communities, I've learned tons of things with them, and only have had bad experiences (which means I haven't had good ones, of course I've had neutral ones, but I don't count them) with the Smash Community. Why do they ban characters? Why is that even discussed?!?! About AE people would say "BAN YUN" as a joke, because we all knew it has nothing to do with that but with the inherent skill of the player, and a so a Fei Long player came up first on this year's EVO, the Best Plyer.

On the other hand, when I realized you where the same CrazyKirbyKid of the Smash Community I instantly knew you were someone with real experience. But it seems you only have experience with Smash games, everything you've said about FGs so far is flawed.

I want you to be hones with me. Do you really know about GGXXAC and ST? Because if you really do and you are just skipping specific examples because they are obvious or you already wrote about them, then my bad, Smash has to be a True Fighting Game, and I will honestly add it to my list and defend it (linking to your articles of course) if someone says it isn't.
In the other hand, if you know them superficially (and I can't decide that, you have to), then you should stop comparing Smash to them.

[alvare]

Forget about that last paragraph, it doesn't matter, I know you have researched FGs and that you will always include them in the same bag as plataformers and MMORPGs, your quest is for unifying theories, like mine, but you take an occidental approach and come up with theories and functions, while I use an oriental approach and try to link them to the Spirit of Human Kind.

For example, I fucking hate Freud, and I love Gregory Bateson.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@alvare

"It must be hard for you to read your own 4 years old article and try to remind what mood you had in the moment,"

Indeed. And to add, the article is old and sloppily written. So many bullet points. How embarrassing. I'll also say that I was working through my thoughts by writing things out. Back then, Brawl was still young and I knew very little of Street Fighter or other fighting games. Since then I've played more brawl, I own 3 copies of SF4 games (and even made a MegamanXStreet Fighter indie game), I've talked to and done interviews with top players of obscure fighting games like Naruto. I've read up on other games, done more research, and followed the metagame of SF4 and MvC3 closely. So.... back in 2008 I didn't know what I know now.

"but it's clear to me that you aren't just promoting Smash, you are criticizing FGs, as being too complex ("If a sequel to a beloved fighting game completely changed things up, players would have to absorb another encyclopedia worth of data.") and too imprecise ("It's a shame that Street Fighter 4 changed their hit detection system from using the 3D models to using invisible 2D hit boxes.")"

It's very important to understand that my criticisms don't mean that these other FGs are bad. At the top of the article I explained what I meant by a next-gen fighter. But next-gen doesn't mean good or bad. LIkewise, oldschool style fighters aren't automatically good or bad. So for the rest of the article, you have to be open to considering the "what if." I wrote those particular comments to express that I understand why gamers would want to keep things the same from game to game. This is not criticizing the game or community for being samey. Changing from 3D to 2D hitboxes doesn't necessarily make SF4 less precise either. That wasn't a criticism of the preciseness, rather of the technology or "next-geness" of the design. I know now that ultimately, 2D boxes was a probably the best decision for SF4. And playability is more important that strictly adhering to tech design choices.

"You know, I wrote all that because I felt my own Core Values threatened. You obviously know a lot more than I do, and I've learned things reading your words, but after reading your fighting game articles some kind of dissonance appeared in my thinking."

I don't blame you. As I've said, and will continue to say just to make things clear, I didnt' know enough about the other fighting games when I wrote the article. It's tough feeling one's core values being threatened or challenge. You've been right about a lot of things in this discussion, and you've been very open about your positions. I do realize there are some statements in the article that wrongly assume/attack FGs like ST. You kinda called me out on the "shallow projectile trapping" part. And as you described, there can be a lot of strategy in gameplay that looks like the same thing over and over to the untrained eye.

"I am kind of absolutist, but the most plausible reason is that I am wrong, and Smash is a serious FG that doesn't let anything get between you and your opponent when you want to decide who is plainly better at it."

Smash is a serious FG. Smash is skill based. And it's largely these things because the community (over time) have refined their tournament rules and dedicated lots of time to make it to their liking. Being an absolutist is a very difficult position to take. It'll make your observations and comments very hit or miss. The truth is there's a lot more variation of design and styles for FGs that you'll likely miss if you hold too strongly to the ideas/values you formed from your experience with some of your favorite FGs. I think you understand this. Again, your clarity of self and openness here is admirable.

"If this is so, why are some characters banned? ST had a LOT of revision to become as solid as it is, Smash has 3? And you are you so sure it's better than ST? I would have never imagined to even smell a bias in your writings, but take for example this quote:"

1) There are no rules to how a FG community SHOULD or CAN operate. If some communities see fit to ban things, that doesn't legitimize the potential/quality of the FG. The Street Fighter games have banned plenty of characters (including the Japanese soft bans). Akuma, Sagat, that red/blue guy (forgot his name), Oni in SF4 I believe.

2) Smash is designed to appeal to lots of different players, not just competitive touranment players. So there will always be crazy levels and options that the community will find unsuitable. It's the same with SF4. There are modes that the pros don't play or care about or know about really.

3) I don't think I ever said Smash was better than any other game as as main point in this article. The point is, Smash is of a particular style (that I like) that other FGs don't represent. It's not about being better or worse. This article is about being next-gen (or just different).

"Why is it that GG looks so clean to me and Smash so muddled? My experience with FGs started with some version of SF2 I can't remember, MvC and Smash Bros 64, and I clearly remember dropping SSB64 gradually because of how obfuscating everything was: there were little hurricanes, bombs, fire, etc."

The more you know about a game the clearer the action looks to you. Discussing this further would require video links and examples. I'm don't think this is necessary. I will say that SSB64 is pretty minimal and clean because of the lacking N64 power.

"Not at all, it's not about exaggerating, some hitboxes are smaller than the limbs that represent them. The issue is about balance...., that's why the can't be so closely connected to the graphics, because one would need to re-draw the sprites every time."

Balance = making the game (play) better. We're saying the same thing here. But I'm surprised at your explanation. Yes it would be more difficult on the artists to redraw things as hitboxes are tweaked, but this limitation is still something that can be fixed if the developers wanted to. If you're basically saying that having the hitboxes not match up with attacks is the result of not putting in enough work, that's not much of an excuse. I'll live with this middle ground, but it doesn't mean developers can't do better or that we can't hope for FGs that do.

"This is what I mean with the "form fits function" Sutra being incorrectly applied to FGs. This is direct competition we are talking about here, graphics Don't Matter. Yes, they don't, a FG can be fair without them, just by displaying the hitboxes "

It's clear to me that in your immense love and appreciation of FGs, that you've gotten to a point where you look at things backwards. Yes the gameplay and the function are important and the technical side (hitboxes, etc.) are what's really behind the game. But this doesn't mean that the visuals are not important or that they're not a very important part of helping players learn about them (though they be invisible).

Everything you said about hit boxes and hit-triangles is neat, but it's a very detailed extreme view that sort of overlooks the fact that people have to learn a ton about a game anyway. Having to memorize data means, in some ways, that little differences in diagonal, box, or triangle hitboxes are negligible.

Basically, we both know that it takes a lot of study and practice to be competitive at an FG. Knowedge is perhaps the most important DKART skill. Form Fits Function is still important even for hardcore FG pros. For an extreme example, imagine if Ryu's jab shot of little invisible projectile hitboxes in random directions. You might think that this move doesn't make any sense. Though it looks like Ryu is punching the air, somehow the opponent gets hit from across the screen. Sure, eventually we could experiment and discover that Ryu's jab is actually launching projectiles. But this whole long process can be cut out if we could see the projectiles. In other words, if what we see is mostly what we get, then we'll be able to learn that much faster.

So even if you play an FG with just the hitboxes displayed, that's another type of form. And it would be one where the function and form of the boxes would line up 1:1. The point is, whatever form the game displays should be as matched to the function as possible.

"-balance issues: look at that infinites and lockdowns lists. Brawl seems to be so badly designed (for some people) that they took the effort of doing what Nintendo won't, because Nintendo probably doesn't care for Smash as a FG."

I don't assume to know what Nintendo thinks or knows. Many fighters have infinities and other glitches that are patched. I know that Nintendo has a history of not patching their games because they believe in working hard to create a (near) perfect product and moving on. It's not that they don't care. It's that they have different views. Such is life.

Nothing will stop people from wishing a game was different. Some actually have the ability to hack and make the changes themselves. So what? You can't please everyone. Such is life. And so it is with every game/product. Honestly, you do know SSFHDR exists right? That's Sirlin's way of fixing a game that he wasn't 100% satisfied with. This doesn't necessarily mean that either version of the game is better. It's just what it is.

"-tripping: how can randomization of this kind allow the best player to dominate?"

Tripping is the worst feature in my opinion that was added to Smash. Sakurai, the creator, does have a twisted sense of humor. He wanted to add just a bit of uncertainty so that there's always the possibility of surprise. You can avoid tripping by not dashing. Most players just live with it. It only happens 1% of all dashes. And with less deadly combos in the game compared to Melee or other fighters, the amount it affects the game isn't too great.

But to answer your question, like i said before, if a game is anywhere between 75-100% skill based, it stands to reason that the more skilled player can and will win most of the time. To ensure this happens, multiple rounds are played. It's this way with tennis, and rock paper scissors, and ST, and Smash. Multiple rounds gives players a chance to adapt and overcome any unlucky happenings.

"-stages: I understand that several stages aren't viable for tournament play,and yet you say this is a balanced fighter worth being played as a pure skill judge."

Like I said before, the game has many options for many different purposes. Just because an option exists, doesn't mean it affects other aspects of play.

"In true 2D Fighting Games you are constantly facing your opponent, you can't turn around, how can it get Purer than that? FPS have spread, if two people start at the same frame shooting at each other's head there is no telling what will happen, but for example, Quake III doesn't, Quake III is as precise as ST"

Constantly facing the opponent is just how some fighting games work. Some, but not all. Doesn't 3rd Strike have moves that will turn the opponent around? This is what I mean by thinking backwards. ST works with constantly facing opponents. ST is a great FG. But this DOESN"T mean that all great FGs MUST have constantly facing opponents. It's nice to appreciate games for their difference, but let's not get carried away and claim that the differences are necessarily required for greatness.

I hear what you're saying. Unpredictability and randomness are elements that you don't necessarily like (at least in your FGs). While this position is fine, that doesn't mean these elements are bad for FGs. In fact, there's a lot to learn about randomness. Read here... http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/23/interesting-choices-interesting-gameplay-pt8.html

And here.... http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/6/random-knowledge-quirks.html

"Brawl has to balance a gigantic field, and in close quarter combat the amount of precision one needs to be effective is less than the one you need in ST, where it comes to pixels and frames, the smaller quantifiable units for a Video Game...
Compare it to jam's Frame Data in GGXXAC (which I have bookmarked because of how often I look at it): http://www.dustloop.com/guides/ggac/data/ac/jam.html

Frame Data of True FGs is usually organized in tables because of how "systematic" (probably not the correct word) they are. Brawl's frame data is formated differently for every character!"

Sure the formatting isn't uniform. This isn't an issue of the game, rather of the community of volunteer researchers. I can say that Brawl is fought over pixels and frames. We even have a special hit-spark that appears when you are just a pixel or so off from hitting an opponent. Brawl has frame tight links and other combos/strategies. And more will come with time.

I remember sitting next to a smash buddy of mine playing DeDeDe vs a great Lucario player. At one point in the match, he did a special buffered-sliding-smash attack from a grab release. To ensure the hit, his timing had to be executed within a few frames after reacting to when Lucario broke free of his grab. The moment I saw it, I knew he had done a few high level techniques just to shave off a few frames. All of this was possible because of the frame data he and others work with.

"Why do they ban characters? Why is that even discussed?!?! "

Different communities have different customs and practices. So it is with FG communities. So it is in life.

"Do you really know about GGXXAC and ST? Because if you really do and you are just skipping specific examples because they are obvious or you already wrote about them, then my bad, Smash has to be a True Fighting Game, and I will honestly add it to my list and defend it (linking to your articles of course) if someone says it isn't."

I think my opening statements on this comment answer your question. I hope you keep reading and commenting on my blog. There are a lot of topics to learn about that I know will help you articulate your feelings of your favorite FGs.

laterz.

[alvare]

Huh ... ok. Really, it's ok, I've been watching high level Brawl matches, and it seems you are right, "deep" concepts like yomi and frame advantage are applied all the time, and that's kind of enough for me, I will even put it above 3S.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. A curious thing: a friend told me the game we are making is like a Smash, and I hadn't realized but he is (kind of) right. We are making a fusion between Megaman, Super Metroid and GG: a shooting zoning-heavy combo-based 2 player vs fighting game. The only smash-resembling thing are the stages though, the gameplay is almost how a high level Bridget plays, using position and projectiles and timing (though it is based on that you can only shoot in 8 directions like in Super Metroid). I'd give you a link to our little blog but my server is currently down and it is in spanish anyway.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@alvare

The neat part is when you understanding where emergent gameplay like yomi and frame traps comes from, ie what gameplay features allows for such things to emerge. You'd be surprise. It really doesn't take much.

When your server kicks back in, do send me the link. Google can always translate it from Spanish. From what you've said, your game sounds very interesting. I'm a fan of 3 parts of your game project. More so, I'm a big fan of Megaman and Super Metriod.

This conversation ended well. Keep in touch.

Later