How to make GG more user friendly...

[Kojanue]

Why is it this thread feels exactly like the thread about the critics? >_>

[zeech]

You say that like SF players are somehow incapable of understanding, but putting aside SF4 casuals, SF players can be just as intelligent as anyone. 3S and SF2ST are pretty well respected games, and even if you don't like them, I dont think anyone can accuse those games of being shallow.

Unless you meant that SF and GG are completely opposite in PHILOSOPHY, and thus they can't understand. Which is fair enough, but it then it's wrong to say that SF players are unable to learn BB/GG.

I hate SF tho :P I came from KOF/VF.

Why is it this thread feels exactly like the thread about the critics? >_>

It's because critics' biggest gripe with GG is its unfriendliness

[Circuitous]

IMO Street Fighter gamers will never understand Guilty Gear or BlazBlue...that's just how it's always been.

I came out of Samurai Showdown 3, so understanding it wasn't that big of a jump.

IMO there aren't any GG players that aren't/weren't SF players. Even if you didn't play Street Fighter... you've played Street Fighter.

I like how we're both using IMO wrong, too.

[Klaige]

- Amount of knowledge needed (which can be solved by standardising as much as possible - why do characters need different motions for moves? Melty has standard motions, and the standard combo works for almost everyone.)

- Making the game fun for everyone even if there's a big skill difference. (a better handicap mode.)

Ok this first point is flat out silly. You think giving everyone a hadou motion and making the cast more similar is a GOOD thing for the game? What a great plan, let's let venom do carcass raid/stinger aim with 236 motions, that wouldn't be broken or ruin the character at all.

The uniqueness in the characters is what makes them fun, and what gives the game more depth. I don't want a game where i learn to do K, S, H, jc, S, S, 236H and it just is the BnB for every character. That's a horrible design choice in every facet.

A handicap isn't a needed option. If you are playing for competitive natures (tournies, money matches, etc.) the game has to be standardized, there's no need for this.

If you're playing casually you just play, theres no need for a handicap mode, it does nothing worthwhile for either player. If someone is learning, then teach them as you play, just giving them a handicap doesn't make them better. If anything it will make them worse because the consequences for mistakes will start to lose their meaning. If you choose to learn a new fighting game, you are choosing to take it on the chin from experienced players while you learn the game, that's just part of competitive fighters. There is no way to skip this.

I think you have some jaded views on execution and general hurdles for new players. BB has a few more system parts than say SF, but that doesn't make it more complicated by default. Anytime someone brand new to a game starts playing, they are going to be a little loss. No one picks up a new game and just instantly knows how to play it. BB is not difficult to pick up and do some basics with, it's very friendly to learning a simple thing like small combos, supers, and basic defense.

Standardizing a game for tournament format (damage levels, speed, rounds, time, etc) is always a good idea. Standardizing the gameplay itself by dumbing down characters and options is the single worst thing you could ever do to a game. Depth is what makes guilty gear a great game, taking a step back from that is not the answer to improving the game. Sacrificing the high level play for entry level players defeats the purpose of a game that was born and bred for competitive balance.

[Blackgenma]

IMO Street Fighter gamers will never understand Guilty Gear or BlazBlue...that's just how it's always been.

I came out of Samurai Showdown 3, so understanding it wasn't that big of a jump.

funny you say that because I'm a street fighter gamer myself.

[bucklemyshoe]

e's no FRC in the game you can't get down rather consistently inside 30 minutes of practice.

Not true

[zeech]

Ok this first point is flat out silly. You think giving everyone a hadou motion and making the cast more similar is a GOOD thing for the game? What a great plan, let's let venom do carcass raid/stinger aim with 236 motions, that wouldn't be broken or ruin the character at all.

The uniqueness in the characters is what makes them fun, and what gives the game more depth. I don't want a game where i learn to do K, S, H, jc, S, S, 236H and it just is the BnB for every character. That's a horrible design choice in every facet.

Standardizing a game for tournament format (damage levels, speed, rounds, time, etc) is always a good idea. Standardizing the gameplay itself by dumbing down characters and options is the single worst thing you could ever do to a game. Depth is what makes guilty gear a great game, taking a step back from that is not the answer to improving the game. Sacrificing the high level play for entry level players defeats the purpose of a game that was born and bred for competitive balance.

Here's some game design things I linked in that other thread:

http://www.dustloop.com/forums/showpost.php?p=525748&postcount=91

I don't play GG, so I don't understand your Venom reference. But basically, if a character has a basic special move (or a projectile), then why shouldnt it be mapped to QCF? If a character has an antiair move, why shouldnt it be mapped to DP? (or in the case of melty, 22). Why shouldnt all supers have the same motion?

Sometimes there are reasons for certain motions:

- Charge motions provide restrictions

- 720s prevent easy use from standing position

- Sometimes you can't use a motion because it clashes too easily with another move (or sometimes a move has a motion deliberately to clash with another move).

- Unique mechanics that dont work with normal motions. (eg. In BB, Carl's Nirvana moves activate when D button is released).

Let's say you take a game with standardised motions (Melty, MvC, etc) and then you arbitrarily assign different motions to moves just for the heck of it. YOU DIDNT ACTUALLY ADD ANY EXTRA DEPTH. It's exactly what my linked article was talking about - additional complexity with no additional depth.

"Uniqueness in characters" you said. So if Ken had QCB for fireball, QCFx2 for dragon punch, and HCF for hurricane kick, he would suddenly be unique from Ryu? And the SF2 would be deeper? Of course not. So arbitrarily nonstandard move motions do not add any benefit in terms of depth or uniqueness.

So basically, standardised move motions. If a special move is similar or of a certain category, then it should have the same motion across all characters, unless there's some special gameplay / game mechanic reason not to. Obviously things with unique mechanics and properties might require a different motion - I'm not saying character MECHANICS should be made similar.

This makes it easier for new players, because it reduces the amount of knowledge they have to remember, to do the basic actions of a character. It reduces the amount of muscle memory retraining they have to do to switch characters. It reduces the amount of explanation I have to do when introducing friends to the game when they visit me.

All of these benefits - and game mechanics, mind games, gameplay, is not affected AT ALL. It's about the cheapest way possible to help new players into the game, one that has the least impact on the expert depth. Pointless and arbitrary complexity does not really add any extra depth, apart from rewarding memorization of movelists.

As for combos, most FGs already have standard basic combos. You can do jump attack > heavy attack > special move for most characters in SF2. You can do A > B > C > Launcher > (Jump > J.A > J.B > J.C)x2 > Air Throw for most characters in Melty. Most characters in VF have PPPK combos.

These might be bad combos that arent normally used, and characters will have better and different combos, but having something basic that works for (almost) everyone doesnt negatively impact those games. It's just one less thing to try to remember when you're trying the game out.

As for handicaps, your attitude is fundamentally wrong. You're saying "IF these guys want to get into the game, then they need to be prepared to take it on the chin. Otherwise, we don't need scrubs like that." Well fine, they'll just stick to a game they already know, or, I dunno, play sports or something. Maybe GG is such a niche game already that you're used to playing it with just with a small group of friends, but it's not an attitude that makes more GG games possible.

A useful handicap mode is a difficult thing to design, since, as you say, it distorts the gameplay. I'd say, at the very least, it needs to present "normal" gameplay to the weaker player, whilst making the game harder for the stronger player. (as opposed to making the game easier for the weaker player). This allows it to preserve its teaching properties whilst making the match interesting.

You have a friend who's good at Tekken or SF4 or some other game, and you can play each other relatively evenly in that game. You're trying to get him to switch to GG since it's better. If he already enjoys the game he's playing, why would he choose to suck and get crushed by you repeatedly in your game? There needs to be a way to have interesting matches despite the skill difference.

How? I dunno. Perhaps the advanced player can do less damage, thus forcing him to use bigger combos and score more hits to win. This preserves the gameplay from the weaker player's point of view (he still needs to do the same things to win) whilst removing the advanced player's benefit of more damage from bigger combos. It wont even out the mindgames, mixup and knowledge of matchups etc, but it's better than nothing.

Alternatively/additionally the advanced player could set some artificial restrictions that force him to work on advanced mechanics. (eg. Can't block, can only IB.) This distorts gameplay tho, although it might simulate "I'm new and can't block properly yet".

Shrug, I dont really care about GG, but I'm interested in game design theory. And I like to hear the sound of my own typing, hahah.

[Kristoph]

One potential reason I could see for avoiding "standardized motions" is that it helps players differentiate between moves. Let's say you play two characters; one of their anti-airs sucks, the other one is pretty good. If they have different motions, I'd argue that it would be easier to avoid getting into the habit of using the bad anti-air (which I guess could happen if someone got really really used to using the good anti-air with the other character).

Obviously this is probably very minor but I just wanted to mention it to offer some sort of upside to unstandardized move motions, besides "conservative hardcore players might complain about it!"

[Circuitous]

Sometimes there are reasons for certain motions:

- Charge motions provide restrictions

- 720s prevent easy use from standing position

- Sometimes you can't use a motion because it clashes too easily with another move (or sometimes a move has a motion deliberately to clash with another move).

- Unique mechanics that dont work with normal motions. (eg. In BB, Carl's Nirvana moves activate when D button is released).

Uhh... aside from these convenient restrictions, all the moves are standardized.

[zeech]

Uhh... aside from these convenient restrictions, all the moves are standardized.

lol, ok. Someone tell me these things before I type up a huge wall of text :P

So what was that other guy complaining about then?

[Klaige]

lol, ok. Someone tell me these things before I type up a huge wall of text :P

So what was that other guy complaining about then?

What I am "complaining" about is the idea of standardizing moves that would cause gameplay to stagnate. Now perhaps you just mis-worded your original idea, or you're backtracking now but essentially what you said earlier was that moves/supers/combos should have similar motions and inputs. This would destroy the individualization of the characters in guilty gear. Their unique mechanics are what give them distinct styles. A character like Eddie would be impossible without the unique controls he has with using negative edges to control the shadow.

The specific example i gave with venom, is that venom is a charged based character capable of long and potent guard strings and mixups. If he did not use charge motions his gameplay would become broken due to the restrictions being removed from his charge buffers. You have since mentioned that this restrictions are nessecary and you are correct in that statement. Standardizing combos would be even worse. Nobody wants every character to play the same. Universal combo into launcher into air combo is boring, and doesn't give characters any identity. You will find that very few characters in guilty gear combo like this, and that is a major part of the appeal.

At this point however I have to say the thing that really bothers me is this:

Shrug, I dont really care about GG, but I'm interested in game design theory.

How can you possibly try to discuss the theory behind the design of the game if you have no experience what-so-ever in it's practice? It sounds to me that you are more interested in the theory of basic design for fighting games. While that is all well and good, how can you try to call for a design change to make guilty gear "more user friendly" when you don't care about, nor play the game.

Even the term "theory-fighter" which many people would consider a dirty word, actually employs the use of experiences and playing the game. What you are doing here isn't even theory, it's just a blatant guess at fixing one game based on the entire genre in general. A major part of gears appeal is that it isn't like every fighting game out there. It's full of unique mechanics, aspects, and quirks that allow it to stand out.

What you are proposing with more standardization is again what good players in gear don't want to see: dumbing and simplifying it down. I already stated that guilty gear is a game that is at it's best and in the end was designed for high level play between two opponents that are relatively equal in skill. That is where the game thrives and shines as an extremely well done fighter.

You seem to think that motions and combos outside the norm are just arbitrary difficulty barriers that prevent new players from getting better at the game. If the designers made moves difficult just to do something different i would agree with you, but again the inputs and styles used for these characters are there to make them more unique and to give the game more depth. Something you can't really understand since, you know, you don't actually play the game.

The handicap issue i already explained. It's not needed for casual because the players themselves can determine how they want to play. If one player is better and wants another to get into the game, they are probably going to attempt to teach the other player what is going on, why certain actions cause certain results, and give the player an idea of to improve and get better. You ask why someone who is "good" at one game would ever start playing another game if they know they are likely to get crushed while they learn. Well any player that is "good" at a fighting game had to take their lumps to get good at it in the first place. Anyone who has an understanding of playing fighters competitively knows that when you jump into a new game, you will take some beatings as you learn.

There is no reason to have an overly complex handicap mode for these players. In contrast for players who just want to tinker around or play the game extremely casually, there's really no need for anything beyond a basic damage modifier. They aren't interested in improving or playing competitively.

When people are discussing making gear more user friendly, in this thread that is, they are basically saying "how can we get people to give this game a fair shake without feeling overwhelmed, so they potentially become a player in the community" a handicap mode does not serve any purpose to meet this end. Again if you give someone a crutch in guilty gear and they start to lean on it, they are unlikely to ever improve and be able to succeed in a tournament setting. And in the end, that is the kind of result we are discussing here: How do we get more players to feel comfortable learning guilty gear so they can play it long enough to possibly join a community of higher level players.

I fully respect your interest in game design as a whole, I think that's something a lot of gamers should take an interest in and be willing to critique. But at the same time, using design theory in a game you don't play doesn't really get you very far, and causes gross generalizations on the subject at hand.

Buckle- care to give examples. Notice i said learning the FRC, not learning something that goes on top of it (I.E. learning how to air dash after chemical love FRC).

[Shiawase]

IMO Street Fighter gamers will never understand Guilty Gear or BlazBlue...that's just how it's always been.

This. I'm trying to get one of my friends into BB/GG but he plays Street Fighter IV which is "superior and more technical" compared to BB/GG which is "a combofest that you should start playing to understand combos... THEN play Street Fighter."

[SSMugen]

This. I'm trying to get one of my friends into BB/GG but he plays Street Fighter IV which is "superior and more technical" compared to BB/GG which is "a combofest that you should start playing to understand combos... THEN play Street Fighter."

Paying SF has nothing to do with whether or not someone would understand BB/GG that's an ignorant generalisation. Your friend is just being narrow-minded.

[Kojanue]

For once, I agree with SSMugen >_> Your friend is very narrow minded.

[4r5]

mah ignore list don't work if people keep quotin the people i ignoren

[Kojanue]

Err... sorry?

[iora]

okay guys, i got an idea let's just make it so theres movement, and there's 1 attack button and you just rapidly hit the attack button on hitconfirm to do the best possible combo the game engine allows the skill is still there, because you shouldnt get hit by that first random poke in the first place we can call is abare core, and it would be the most technical game in history, tearing down all the walls of arbitrary difficulty from things like 236 inputs, remembering movelists, and managing your super bar intelligently ...o wait... -_-

[Rabbit360]

The game is plenty user friendly. Just give it to me on 360 so I can use my TE stick, and give me online so I have someone to play besides the computer.

[4r5]

Yo, computer no joke. He did the Bridget unblockable on me once. I was like, "Yooooo, if I've known you knew that I wouldn't of put myself there!" nah, but we cool

[Kristoph]

What I am "complaining" about is the idea of standardizing moves that would cause gameplay to stagnate.

Has anyone suggested this? Pretty much the only qualms people like zeech tend to have with technical games like Guilty Gear is the arbitrary execution requirements that only serve to heighten the execution requirement of the game (and not enhance any other gameplay element). Nobody here is saying, "well shit guys, wouldn't it be great if Guilty Gear were easier, at the expense of it being a worse game overall?" I don't know why anyone would interpret it that way either. I think a lot of people get overly-defensive over this sort of subject because of the amount of time they might have put into the game.

[danceljoy]

As a fan who can't play the game, I want a tutorial mode like that of Tekken with basic combo lists. I have difficulty reading and memorizing formulas such as 234+p like that. Arrows make it easier. Sorry for my noobishness

[Klaige]

Has anyone suggested this? Pretty much the only qualms people like zeech tend to have with technical games like Guilty Gear is the arbitrary execution requirements that only serve to heighten the execution requirement of the game (and not enhance any other gameplay element). Nobody here is saying, "well shit guys, wouldn't it be great if Guilty Gear were easier, at the expense of it being a worse game overall?" I don't know why anyone would interpret it that way either. I think a lot of people get overly-defensive over this sort of subject because of the amount of time they might have put into the game.

If you read my whole posts..and his.. you wouldn't even need to post this.

[Kojanue]

As a fan who can't play the game, I want a tutorial mode like that of Tekken with basic combo lists. I have difficulty reading and memorizing formulas such as 234+p like that. Arrows make it easier.

Sorry for my noobishness

Actually, the formula is for the advanced people that use this to explain the movements through typing since arrows aren't really type-able gameplay wise. But if you went into the training mode and paused the game, then went to command list, it shows you with arrows what to do.

Plus your noobiness isn't that bad, not as bad as mine anyways xD Me + Forums = lots of people flaming me for no reason >_>

[zeech]

If you read my whole posts..and his.. you wouldn't even need to post this.

Well, I'm not going to waste bandwidth with "I said, you said" games. We seem to be on similar pages, just that there was a misunderstanding due to me maybe not explaining myself well enough in my first post. My second post clarifies my position a bit more - basically standardise as much as you can whenever there isnt a gameplay reason not to.

I mostly made assumptions based on "GG being a more advanced BB" so my points mostly reflect the hurdles a beginner faces when getting into BB. (so not the beginner->intermediate learning curve, but the never saw game before -> beginner learning curve.) Which presumably applies to GG as well, but you guys can tell me if it does or not.

Anyways, I've said all I have to say on those particular things, so we can agree to disagree if you still have disputes.

[danceljoy]

But if you went into the training mode and paused the game, then went to command list, it shows you with arrows what to do.

I actually do that and can perform basic 5-6 hit combos but that's pretty much my limit for now. Having nobody to play with here certainly does not give me motivation to improve.