   good fighting games look like they are technical to make
  I don't know how many fighting game fans or good fighters we have up in here but if you are one and ever visit boards like shoryuken.com, virtuafighter.com, guardcrush.net and the like, you know what I'm talking about when you see people discussing the gameplay of a certain game.  If you don't know what I'm talking about take a look at some of these threads over at mortalkombatonline.com.  Thread 1Thread 2Thread 3Thread 4What these threads discuss is basically how to improve future Mortal Kombat games, (as well at discussing how to fix the ones already released and some of the failed attempts at doing so.) as I have seen many people complain on this board about how games since MK: Deadly Alliance through Armageddon have been severely broken in terms of playability.  So what they say would be wise for the MK team to do in MK8 is to implement certain game mechanics as seen in games like Tekken and Virtua Fughter which have deep fighting engines (Virtua Fighter more so) and which Mk has failed to do time and time again.  As well as to my knowledge, them not hiring skilled players to test out the game for balancing issues like how the games I mentioned do.I personally don't understand alot of what makes a good fighting engine.  I mean I know the stuff discussed on these boards, terms like throws, holds, auto hits,  parry, auto evade and reversals, throw escapes, guuarding throw escapes, etc. are the kind of things that are supposed to make a good fighting engine according to them.  So my question is why do these concepts work so well when it comes to making a fighting game? Because, to me, there just seems to be to many possibilities as far as complicating the game goes by throwing in this move with these move properties, damage, speed (aka frame data) range, recovery etc. and having sometimes more than a hundred of moves per character at your disposal with all these attributes.  To me it just boggles my mind as to how people can understand and learn (by the way, how do they learn all this) all this stuff and make sense of it.If you just read through those threads I posted, you'll see what I'm talking about.  This is why someone told me fighting games have the most strategy and learning involved because of the sheer depth these Japanese fighters have.  Someone on those same boards also commented as to why Americans never get it right when it comes to fighters.If I got my idea across to you then those of you who know what I'm talking about, would you mind filling me in?  By the way I have asked about this on fighting game boards before but no one ever really seems to want to answer me.Thanks   
  Sure dude, I don't really keep up with the 3d fighter scene, but it looks like about the same as the 2d fighter scene.  I noticed in those threads that they want a lot of features from pre-existing games, but they don't ask for "innovative gameplay" ;)I'd like to help but your post doesn't really ask a specific question.  Like, are you asking how to balance a fighting game engine, or like how to make a hardcore fighting game?   ;Quote:Original post by SwordmasterSo my question is why do these concepts work so well when it comes to making a fighting game?Options.Depth in gameplay is about options. It's about having several different ways of potentially accomplishing a goal (in the case of a fighter, it's defeating your opponent), and if the fundamental options built into the game are then multiplied by the variables of player knowledge and skill, then you have a truly deep fighting game.You punch. I can parry, block, evade, counter or grab. On top of that, my execution of whichever one I select is a function of my reflexes and timing. Suddenly, a single exchange of attacks/defenses between us becomes a 10-element possibility field. Give people with plenty of spare time and little else on the mind more options and they'll find more depth, and then they'll link individual encounters/exchanges to form overarching strategy. Voilà!   ;  I absolutely love 3d fighters.  I used to love 2d fighters too, but high-level play requires input timing that I just can't be bothered with.Making any game with an engaging multiplayer component is "technical", in the sense that the players will be more engaged if the game requires more technique than button mashing.  The height of technical play in Mortal Kombat is MK2 (IMO of course), and the newer games are all about memorizing canned combos.Aside from that, I'm not really sure what you want this thread to be about.  Do you want us to tell you what we like in a game, or what's popular?  Do you dislike depth in fighting games?  Honestly, I'm a little confused.   ;Quote:Original post by Swordmasterboards like shoryuken.com... the gameplay of a certain game.Rant: (shoryuken.com is, of course, the Street Fighter-fanboy version of the "fighting game board", being named after one of the moves from the game.)People who actually *like* Street Fighter, IMO, are in no position to say anything about gameplay, because the only ways I can think of to make the SF user interface significanly *worse* would be generally considered outright bugs.  I couldn't give a shit about the claimed depth of gameplay if I can't easily access it. IMO again, but I find it mind-boggling that anyone would disagree, the skill in a fighting game is supposed to come from *using* that depth (i.e. knowing what to do when) as opposed to *accessing* it (i.e. doing what you want when you want it). If I wanted to challenge myself *physically*, I would (and do) play a music game instead. Also, you're supposed to be able to learn things by *intuition*, but there's hardly any of that to be found. They give you more buttons (6) than the typical 3d fighter (usually 4 or 5; in some cases 3) and you have fewer game-space dimensions to worry about, yet you feel less in control. Why?a) You have to remember bizarre, abstract command mappings that lack parallelism.(1) All the circular motions are a complete WTF in my mind. Also, I've discovered (actually, had explained to me, after accidentally triggering them) that some *aerial* moves involve *downward* joystick motions, which is really ridiculous.b) There are quite fewer distinct moves, and "modifications" to one move don't affect another, even when you'd expect them to (e.g. forward + light punch doesn't necessarily differ from ordinary light punch in the same way that forward + medium punch differs from ordinary medium punch, and in fact doesn't necessarily differ *at all*).It's really only fun to watch. But then, they don't even get the freakin' *shadows* right. An object's shadow is not supposed to get smaller when it moves closer to the light source. But SF does this - you jump, your shadow circle gets smaller. It would be an *improvement* to the game to *not draw shadows at all*, because the existing shadows are *wrong and visually distracting* to the viewer (to the player, they probably don't matter at all).(1) Yes, I do feel that Soul Calibur 3 is a step backwards from SC2 in terms of user interface - lots of moves were remapped in seemingly arbitrary ways for no good reason that I can think of, where they used to make sense. The *new* moves and the tweaks to physics seem to work pretty well, though, and the graphics are miles beyond.And yes, I also do feel that Ivy's command throws are an *unbelievable* WTF. But that's only one character, and mostly only for showing off with that character; you can't reasonably expect to play SF3 at an even passable level without consistently being able to input double-QCF for supers, and, well, I spent a whole year, probably twice a week at the arcade trying to make myself able to do that, and failed. I still wonder where that determination and/or stupidity came from.Quote:Because, to me, there just seems to be to many possibilities as far as complicating the game goes by throwing in this move with these move properties, damage, speed (aka frame data) range, recovery etc. and having sometimes more than a hundred of moves per character at your disposal with all these attributes.  To me it just boggles my mind as to how people can understand and learn (by the way, how do they learn all this) all this stuff and make sense of it.Actually memorizing numbers is rare. You tend to remember things like "this move beats out that move" or "this category of moves automatically avoids and/or counters that category" or "move M is my character's bread-and-butter because it does XYZ quite nicely and s/he's an XYZ-y kind of character" or "character C is slow but powerful, so I have to keep the initiative when I can, and make sure I'm not guessing his move when I don't have to". The data exists for geeks who want to establish that the reason they're getting hit out of move X by move Y really is because that move is faster, and not because their *opponents* are faster than they are.Quote:If you just read through those threads I posted, you'll see what I'm talking about.  This is why someone told me fighting games have the most strategy and learning involved because of the sheer depth these Japanese fighters have.  Someone on those same boards also commented as to why Americans never get it right when it comes to fighters.I call at least partial BS; the apparent "sheer depth" comes from extensive testing and *attention to detail*, but the basic strategy really can only be elaborated so far.   ;  Thanks for the replies!@ the_dannobot- I think they want to include those mechanics (parries, reversals, ground game, etc.) from pre=existing games, because to them, it's something they are familiar with and works well.  When you talk about innovative gameplay, what exactly do you mean?  Can you give me some concepts of some mechanics you have thought of, that would work well in a game (I'm only assuming you have thought of some things.)?  Thanks for trying to help me out and sorry for the lack of direction regarding my questions in the first post but I think I had multiple questions and just didn't know how to convey my thoughts across correctly. @ templewulf- Quote:The height of technical play in Mortal Kombat is MK2 (IMO of course), and the newer games are all about memorizing canned combos.So like these canned combos for example, I hear they are no good and break gameplay.  Is this true? What makes that so?@ Oluseyi- Thanks for the insight@ Zahlman- Quote:I call at least partial BS; the apparent "sheer depth" comes from extensive testing and *attention to detail*, but the basic strategy really can only be elaborated so far.Thanks for the info on the moves and correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying there is another genre of game that involves more strategy and knowledge than fighters do?To all- But yes, ultimately I was asking how does a team of game developers go through the process of balancing out a fighting engine? Also, can one get good at playing fighters by just observing what is going on screen, going through your character's move list and going through the training tutorials/ (although theres games I have like Tekken 5, King of Fighters: Maximum Impact, and Guilty Gear X that do not have tutorials, which makes it that much harder to become good at the game, IMO)  I have tried to get good at the games I mentioned but have not been successful as the A.I. beats me most of the time at higher level play.  Although I feel I am a somewhat better at Tekken 5 than I am at Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution.  Is this becuae Virtua Fighter is deeper, thereby making it harder to learn?  I would really like to get good at these games but am severely lacking and testing out my character's move against another character's move, seems like alot of work, with the amount of moves each character has.  So another question would be, do good players end up testing moves on one another and if so how many moves will they test?  Looking through forums like virtuafighter.com for help on how to get better probably sounds good too right?Last thing I wanted to mention is, the co creator for MK, Ed Boon, says he will be using the Unreal Engine 3 for the next MK.  I was wondering, will the Wii be able to handle its power? (since they haven't announced if they will be developing for that platform)[Edited by - Swordmaster on September 6, 2007 1:45:17 AM];  I never played a fighting game where a moderately good player could reliably beat someone just bashing the buttons. I haven't played anything more recent than Tekken 4 and others from that time, has much changed apart from more prettiness?   ;  Try Street Fighter Alpha three on the original Playstation, once your good you can show those button mashing fools who is boss.   ;  The only games I have ever gotten angry from have been fighting games, and only when playing the AI on hard. It's always the last fight, and I always win the first round with a perfect or near perfect win. Then, I lose 10 straight rounds, with continues in between, almost all of them complete losses, before I win another one. The fact that it has only ever been the last boss character that has done this to me, and that I usually beat the piss out of them on the first encounter, indicates to me that the AI is rigged.I haven't played fighting games in years because of it. It drives me nuts. I've never been closer to smashing a controller than with fighting games.   ;Quote:Original post by Swordmaster...ultimately I was asking how does a team of game developers go through the process of balancing out a fighting engine?They don't. They balance out the game, not the engine. This means tweaking data parameters like how high a character can kick or how great his range is, or how fast he moves/recovers and how much damage his blows/throws cause. This is an iterative process, but it rarely has anything to do with modifying the "engine" itself.(As an aside, "engine" is an overused albeit largely meaningless word in game development. The tragedy of its convenience is that it confuses many people into thinking that everything is done in the engine, when that is simply not the case. All an engine is, is a stable base of functionality on which to build the game.)Quote:Also, can one get good at playing fighters by just observing what is going on screen, going through your character's move list and going through the training tutorials?Can you get good at basketball by watching NBA games, reading a "Basketball Fundamentals" pamphlet and running drills? Can you get good at Formula 1 racing by watching SPEED Channel, reading vehicle specs and training with a simulator?No. You've got to get out there and do it - and fail, and get back on the horse and try again.Quote:...do good players end up testing moves on one another and if so how many moves will they test?Have you ever actually played a fighter? Your questions make little sense. Good players try everything to figure out what it actually does - not what it is supposed to do - and then figure out how to use that behavior predictably in unpredictable situations. And that goes for pretty much every type of game (not just video game) in existence.Good players take calculated risks. Sometimes they fail, but more often than not they win.Quote:Last thing I wanted to mention is, the co creator for MK, Ed Boon, says he will be using the Unreal Engine 3 for the next MK.  I was wondering, will the Wii be able to handle its power? (since they haven't announced if they will be developing for that platform)Will the Wii be able to handle Unreal Engine's power? Unreal Engine doesn't have any intrinsic "power"; it's a collection of algorithms, data structures, objects and procedures that leverages the hardware's power to produce the physical and visual simulations we enjoy. Running on lesser hardware, its results will be lesser, and that's about it. (That said, there is probably a minimum computational ability requirement for the algorithms and routines within the Unreal Engine not to stall the graphics update for minimal data, but I'm sure that the Wii exceeds this baseline.)   