What's your method of learning FRC's?

[Hellmonkey]

You could just make the FRC window 10 frames before it comes out, but still come out at the same time. FRCs are the way they are for the same reason that there is no 5 frame buffer for every button like BB has. Fighting games SHOULD have an execution requirement to play them. If you don't want any execution requirements, go play a card or strategy game.

[EternalLurker]

I didn't mean because it's hard (should've been clear), but...I think making it 4x easier would take away from it.

This is logical how now?

This is why scrubs drop GG and go to BB instead. :8/:

Yeah, that was kinda the point I addressed when I said "it does make GG quite hard to introduce to people who I know are otherwise skilled gamers."

I disagree with missed FRC's 'harder makes it deeper' I heavily agree with 'longer frames on FRC's changes their functionality' because they completely do.

FRCs aren't fake difficulty, they're small cancel windows because they're not meant to be so versatile.

This is the angle of argument that might make sense, but I don't see how in most cases. Isn't it generally true that FRC windows which come after a move's active frames could be extended forwards, and FRC windows which come before a move's active frames could be extended backwards, without changing their functionality, as I pointed out with my Chipp examples and my response to MFRC's Millia example? If an FRC comes in the startup of a move, it usually won't adversely affect anything if the window is extended to include a larger part of the startup; the same is true for recovery FRCs. Active-frame ones would have to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, and there are certainly some dangerous FRCs even in the two other categories I mentioned, but in general I think there's rarely a valid mechanical reason for FRC input windows being only 2-3 frames. And Hellmonkey points out another option I'd considered but hadn't posted, figuring it would be even more flame-worthy than my previous opinions.

And if larger FRC windows would open more options, then that's great for depth, isn't it? Options are what allow the mental aspects of player skill to become a real factor in any game that isn't just about the timing (cough DDR). I mean, I'm talking about across-the-board changes, so it wouldn't be a balance issue; if anything, opening up more FRC-based options for lower-tier characters would be a good way to help them catch up.

[Hellmonkey]

FRCs are already an extremely powerful tool, how does making them even better add to depth? It would just make those FRC'able moves waaay safer or more effective in combos. Considering that GGAC is already so close balance-wise that every character performs well in tournaments, doing something huge like altering tons of FRC windows would probably throw the balance off by a huge margin; not to mention that you're asking to look back and re-balance the game simply by changing specific character's FRC timing, which is beyond the scope of the topic and a fairly stupid thing to mention.

[Kristoph]

Fighting games SHOULD have an execution requirement to play them.

why?

[tolore]

but adding a bigger window gets into the realm of confirmability, then you can watch for what they are doing and then FRC as soon as you see them do any thing. using hellmonkeys example I could tatami, and then as soon as I see him move FRC, instead of FRCing ASSUMING slayer's going to try and punish me.

[farranpoison]

why?

So this doesn't turn into Smash. :8/:

I agree that FRCs are hard, but it's a fighting game, and FGs are not party game quality. People who actually want to play FGs are going to have to learn the hard way; but that's why they wanted to play in the first place. It helps weed out the people who actually want to learn and get better from those that think mashing buttons and doing stuff is fun.

The only real problem I would see is if GG gets online support. FRCs are going to be SO GODDAMN HARD in lag.

[Kristoph]

So this doesn't turn into Smash. :8/:

I agree that FRCs are hard, but it's a fighting game, and FGs are not party game quality. People who actually want to play FGs are going to have to learn the hard way; but that's why they wanted to play in the first place. It helps weed out the people who actually want to learn and get better from those that think mashing buttons and doing stuff is fun.

None of this explains why fighting games should have high execution barriers. You're just saying that it makes less people play the game, and those that do take longer to get to the actual two-player "game" part because they're so busy practicing. None of that sounds good at all to me. I mean, hard work is important and I have nothing against physical sports that encourage people to be physically fit and whatnot. I don't see Guitar Hero-esque button pressing with extreme precision as a very good parallel to that, though.

In any case, I've witnessed these sorts of discussions circulate for years, and never have I seen a terribly strong argument in favor of high execution requirements improving the actual depth of a game. I mean sure, it would be stupid to go back and mess with FRC windows in AC without considering the possible imbalances that could cause. But if you're talking about a new iteration where balance adjustments are going to be made either way, I just don't see how you could convince me that having extremely tight FRC windows is the only way to maintain the same depth and balance that the mechanic had in AC.

And Smash (at least Melee) has very high execution requirements.

[Hellmonkey]

why?

Because that has always been a key aspect of fighting games since they became competitive? Execution requirements are all over the place in fighting games: reaction while blocking or hit confirming, delaying moves for spacing, even simply movement itself is an execution requirement in a non-restrictive system like GG's. FRCs are really nothing compared to all of those things, if someone can't overcome FRC timing when learning GG, the game just isn't for them.

[EternalLurker]

So your answer is a combination of "because that's tradition" and "because everything else in the game requires executional skill". So it's somehow a good idea to add yet another such playability barrier for no reason other than to have such a barrier, even though it'd make much more sense to say that there's ALREADY enough of an execution requirement to play and thus making FRCs as hard as they are is unnecessary. (which I said earlier) That's great.

[farranpoison]

It's just a system thing. Other fighting games have their own versions of tight frame stuff. Just Impacts in Soul Calibur, IBs in BB, hell, even slash backs in GG require split frame timing and I don't see any complaints about those. FRCs are hard, but really only a few moves have difficult timing. The rest is muscle memory/ reaction time, which are what defines FGs anyway.

[Hellmonkey]

It's there because it's fun and adds depth for reasons I've already stated. Execution itself affects the metagame immensely, if you know you're going to get airthrown by messing around in the air above your opponent since they have the execution to do it, it's going to affect your gameplay. If you know your opponent is going to use his FRCs well to punish you harder for doing something dangerous, it will force you to play safer. You really don't even need to use FRCs to play many characters effectively, and compared to all of the other timing and execution needed to play the game well (this is when the game is most fun, and the level the game is designed for) learning FRCs is nothing in comparison to learning everything else. GG is a difficult game for many reasons, complaining about one single execution requirement (like FRC timing) being too hard really shows a lack of knowledge about the game at even an intermediate level.

[EternalLurker]

....You're all just repeating the same illogical thing: "Other elements of GG require timing, so FRCs can require it too." The truth is the opposite: since timing and other physical elements are already tested in GG, there's no need to go overboard with FRC timing as well. Spacing, instant blocks, slash backs, all of these that you've mentioned are interactive. They're fun elements of GG because they require timing relative to an opponent's actions. FRC timing is solely the result of practice. There's no interaction with the opponent involved in hitting an FRC. Thus there's nothing fun or competitive (unless you think DDR is competitive) about an FRC and there's no reason to compare it to instant-blocks and the like.

[Hellmonkey]

My point is that it's really not overboard at all when you look at any level of play above beginner. The learning curve for GG is a bit steep in part due to learning timing of combos/FRCs, but the game has been fine-tuned for a higher level of play so FRCs have stayed the way they are for what it adds to the game at that higher level. Using your argument, we should remove all difficult combos from the game because they aren't dependent on your opponent's actions after the first hit. Having good movement (which is very execution-intensive), reacting well, and many other aspects of GG are "solely the result of practice" because practice is the only way you get good at any aspect of the game. There are plenty of easier fighting games and plenty of competitive games in other genres that require little to no execution. Before criticizing something like FRCs in GG, I would recommend learning the game at a higher level to see how they actually come into play.

[qwerty]

but no man even daisuke said frcs are a shitty mechanic!!!! (in an uncited interview not on the internet anymore)

[Nakkiel]

Most FRCs are more lenient than 2 frames anyways.

[Zerite]

Execution difficulty allows players with better execution to have an edge over players whose execution is worse. It creates additional paths for players to outplay other players. It's not all that fighting games are about, and games like SSBB have minimal execution difficulty and are still certainly fighting games and somewhat competitive. The major point of execution difficulty is to increase the number of ways that players can be skilled at a game. It goes from space control and initiating contact to finishing combos and timing intensive space control and contact initiation. The game could be much easier. It could just automatically do the combos for you if you landed a hit. There is nothing wrong with this concept per se. It just reduces the number of ways that one player can be more skilled than another, which for most people is boring. Part of what makes guilty gear interesting to play and watch is that you can observe spectacular execution, and be wowed by it. Also, frc timing is not solely the result of practice. I can hit plenty of frc's on characters that I never practiced frc timing with, just because the frc points follow a sort of logic in their placement.

[bbq sauce]

Hey guys, I wanna play Guilty Gear, but, it's hard. I think rather than practice, the game should be made easier for me, and people like me.

[Hellmonkey]

Hey guys, I wanna play Guilty Gear, but, it's hard. I think rather than practice, the game should be made easier for me, and people like me.

Thanks for your input! I have a great idea, let's make an entire new game that removes most of the execution barriers by slowing gameplay down, adding 5 frame buffers on every move, and restricting movement. How's that sound?

[St1ckBuG]

Thanks for your input! I have a great idea, let's make an entire new game that removes most of the execution barriers by slowing gameplay down, adding 5 frame buffers on every move, and restricting movement. How's that sound?

I see what you did there...

[SimpleKiss]

You could just make the FRC window 10 frames before it comes out, but still come out at the same time. FRCs are the way they are for the same reason that there is no 5 frame buffer for every button like BB has.

Fighting games SHOULD have an execution requirement to play them. If you don't want any execution requirements, go play a card or strategy game.

Why should a Fighting Game *require* execution? I accept that GG is a very execution heavy game, but I do not accept that every Fighting game must have very high execution requirements to be a fighting game.

And just fyi, Starcraft is a strategy game, and if you dont think that game requires execution.. oh god. if you think FRC's is hard, try playing SC on a pro level. Or better yet, go to youtube and see if you can't find a clip of a korean playing that game. It's nuts.

If you like high execution in your fighting games, that's fine and understandable. But I think it'd be wise to realize that's just your subjective preference, just like it's my subjective preference that I do not think high execution should be a pre-requisite for a fighting game.

[Hellmonkey]

Why should a Fighting Game *require* execution? I accept that GG is a very execution heavy game, but I do not accept that every Fighting game must have very high execution requirements to be a fighting game.

And just fyi, Starcraft is a strategy game, and if you dont think that game requires execution.. oh god. if you think FRC's is hard, try playing SC on a pro level. Or better yet, go to youtube and see if you can't find a clip of a korean playing that game. It's nuts.

If you like high execution in your fighting games, that's fine and understandable. But I think it'd be wise to realize that's just your subjective preference, just like it's my subjective preference that I do not think high execution should be a pre-requisite for a fighting game.

I'm very familiar with the pro-starcraft scene btw, and there are actually many parallels between execution requirements in Starcraft and in GG.

I think there should be execution requirements because it makes the game much more fun to play and adds depth; just like you could go play Warcraft 3 or a large number of other RTS games, the one that has become by far the most successful RTS of all time and continues to have a huge fan and playerbase is easily the hardest popular video game out of any genre execution-wise.

I feel like removing this very basic component of play has a much larger effect than simply shifting the learning curve. Starcraft players feel the same way about RTS. To say that the execution requirements can be removed without affecting anything else really just makes that person's lack of experience actually putting those tools to use as intended quite clear. Thankfully for people who think it's too hard, all of the new generation of fighters are appealing to the lowest common denominator and much of the execution is being dumbed down.

[vedasisme]

Hey guys, I wanna play Guilty Gear, but, it's hard. I think rather than practice, the game should be made easier for me, and people like me.

Thanks for your input! I have a great idea, let's make an entire new game that removes most of the execution barriers by slowing gameplay down, adding 5 frame buffers on every move, and restricting movement. How's that sound?

Thanks, that made my day.

[SimpleKiss]

I'm very familiar with the pro-starcraft scene btw, and there are actually many parallels between execution requirements in Starcraft and in GG.

I think there should be execution requirements because it makes the game much more fun to play and adds depth; just like you could go play Warcraft 3 or a large number of other RTS games, the one that has become by far the most successful RTS of all time and continues to have a huge fan and playerbase is easily the hardest popular video game out of any genre execution-wise.

I feel like removing this very basic component of play has a much larger effect than simply shifting the learning curve. Starcraft players feel the same way about RTS. To say that the execution requirements can be removed without affecting anything else really just makes that person's lack of experience actually putting those tools to use as intended quite clear. Thankfully for people who think it's too hard, all of the new generation of fighters are appealing to the lowest common denominator and much of the execution is being dumbed down.

In the same vein, I don't see how a Fighting Game that would be designed with a low exection barrier in mind would be any less deep than most heavy execution games. They could be Deep for very different reasons.

I think that SFII: ST actually doesn't require that much execution. Somethings are executionally difficult in that game, but you could win and be a really amazing player without good execution in ST.

That being said, I have nothing against games that have designed high difficult execution requirements. But I don't think it's the only way to make a good FG, either.

And yeah, SC is a great game and better than Warcraft III, but I think Warcraft III was a good game in its own right, and furthermore, wasn't worse than SC because of easy execution, so much as a whole bunch of other stuff such as: a much bigger focus micro to where macro wasn't that important, less focus on economy, you lose one battle in WC3 you lose the game (which isn't necessarily true in SC.)

So WC3 dumbed a lot of many other things down, not just execution. I have nothing against GG, and I admit I'm very new to the game. I just started playing AC last week for the first time (and I love the game.) But I have shitty execution, even if I practice a lot, I can never get my execution quite where I want it to be. I know that will be a huge liability for me in the coming months as I continue to practice the game. But I accept that because that's Guilty Gear.

So, IMO, I dont think having low execution in new fighting games is necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't have to be a bad thing. And there are so many execution heavy FGs around, I think it'd be a nice change of pace (I don't consider Smash Brothers to be a fighting game, and not because of easy execution either.)

[Zerite]

Should is too strong of a word. As far as guilty gear is concerned, making frc's easier would be a bad choice. But you're making this argument too difficult to agree with by saying that fighting games categorically need execution barriers. Also, most popular fighting games are either not as fast, or not as execution intensive as guilty gear. I imagine that you're railing against blazblue, but that is a different game. If it had all the same qualities as guilty gear then they might as well not make a new franchise. There are plenty of execution intensive fighters, like tekken, street fighter and KOF. The only series I can think of that aren't execution intensive are soul calibur and dead or alive. Possibly Virtua fighter as well, but I'm not very familiar with that series. I know the mind games are complex enough to allow for great depth in that game at least. Blazblue is somewhat easy on execution, which just makes the emphasis of the game on solid play. There is less of a skill differentiation between players on average than in guilty gear, but that doesn't make it worse. What made calamity trigger worse than guilty gear isn't the way it deals with execution, but its slow speed, mediocre balance and repetitive gameplay. The gameplay would be less repetitive if the execution was more difficult, by increasing the odds of player error, but making execution harder would not have magically removed the repetitiveness of the game. They appear to have mostly solved this issue in CS, and the reason execution is probably easier is to facilitate online play, more than broader market appeal. And to be honest, most people are not competitive enough to enjoy guilty gear. It takes alot of time and effort to become skilled at the game. This is fine, because the reward for that effort and time is boatloads of fun games, with many WTF and OMG moments. For the average gamer though it is too high of a barrier. There is nothing wrong with a game being too difficult for the average person to thoroughly enjoy: traditional strategy board games are often this way, where beginner play is no where near as enjoyable as skilled play. Also, it's not as though less skilled players could just play with other players that are less skilled. You don't have to frc to play guilty gear, but you have to throw accepted character match-ups and balance out of the window if you don't. Honestly, I find that most players are more frustrated by throws than frcs. I'm better at throwing than many people I play with, and that aggravates them to no end.

[Narcowski]

While I love Guilty Gear and have no problem with FRCs, some of the arguments being made for them in this thread are pretty invalid. The claim that higher execution requirements make a game better has some other implications. It would suggest, for example, that the existence of slashbacks in Accent Core would have automatically made the game better than Slash even if nothing else had been changed. Different does not necessarily mean better, and neither does the presence of additional options.

While there is a base level of player choice (and related execution of those choices) required to make a game fun, there is also a level of complexity that begins to drive away casual or semi-casual players, and those players are the main source of income for any developer.

Starcraft was and is so successful because learning the basics is very easy in spite of its depth. By appealing to non-hardcore players, it managed to create thousands of new hardcore RTS players. Fighting games have slowly lost their approachability over the years, and therefore were, up until very recently, a stagnating market.