[Xrd] News & (Theoretical) Gameplay Discussion

[TiredOcean]

I read the entire thread, so now I'll try to share my opinion on Xrd while keeping in mind what people have said already. (I also was writing this yesterday and couldn't finish it, so this might seem a bit off the current topic.)

Long story short - I'm excited, but also slightly frustrated.

I got into GGXX:AC really recently - actually it was Novril's Guilty Bits that did it. My frustration comes from the fact that I haven't even started to properly learn the game yet when a new Guilty Gear is announced, especially considering the fact that as I live in Europe, I don't even have a proper PSN release of AC to practice combos and the like. I'm sure that this isn't much of a problem for most of the people on Dustloop, being veterans and all, but if you take the fact that ACPR was released relatively recently in arcades and home consoles, it seems like ASW is doing itself a disservice; I think it's better to have a game mature competitively before announcing a new entry to the series. (I am also aware that ASW was probably working on this while ACPR was also in development.)

While I won't say it looks terrible, I do think that the art style needs a bit more work to bring it more in line with previous Guilty Gear games (to be fair I can only compare it to Accent Core...) - it seems a tad bright and the shading doesn't feel right. I can't put my finger on why though. And yeah, Sol does look a bit too chunky. What really ticks me off, though, are the camera angles on the 5Ds. While ASW showed some restraint, for 5D it does seem that they have fell in with the "3D cinematic fighting games!!!!!" crowd - "Cinematic Launchers! Cinematic Throws! Cinematic everything guys!!!" (I'm looking at Capcom here, SFxT in particular.)

It was exciting but also a bit boring to see combos from earlier games - it would have been nice to have a teaser of a new special move, something reworked or a new mechanic, something we couldn't explain by looking at previous games. I liked the fact that they put in combos from old games, such as the Dust Loop, but creating a new game simply to change the engine and improve the graphics is again a disservice to ACPR.

... This sounds really negative. I liked Heavy Day, it sounded awesome. I guess the main reason I'm excited about Xrd is simply because it's a new Guilty Gear, and there's not much you can write about that.

Oh, and first post I guess. Hello everybody! (I'd want to post about the current discussion regarding making GG more inviting for casuals/new players and changes to the system, but I want to wait a bit instead of double posting.)

[The Loli Otaku]

I really doubt they are going to cut back on characters. But if they do then their replacements had better be worth it.

[Kyosuke Kagami]

Mostly premature crying, not much to see = w=

but crying is what makes the world spin ;~;

JAM

As for new chars, if they can feature Raven that's enough for me. And make him play like a bizarre Axl.

[reaVer]

I just want to be sure, FRC's are not random execution barriers, they are difficult because the nature of the mechanic an the intended behaviour of what happens after you successfully perform one

If anything, FRCs are not difficult, they are just muscle memory.

[SolxBaiken]

I've said it before and I'll say it again;

If you're expecting everyone from the start, prepare for disappointment. Period. There's almost no avoiding such an outcome.

Prediction: 6-4 ratio of New to Old in initial Arcade build, several returning as console timed exclusive characters to hype up the release, more (and possibly all remaining) returning characters as DLC to rack in nostalgia dollars, worst case scenario some characters will have to wait til a major revision or sequel to come back.

We'll get everyone, it just might take time.

but crying is what makes the world spin ;~;

80% of the world is [salty] water

[zerosoulreaver]

Mostly premature crying, not much to see = w=

This pretty much.

Every new trailer from this one on will be a new hissy fit it seems lol.

Let the butthurt begin!! Oh wait..it has already

[Hecatom]

snip

You have to keep in mind that many of the stuff on the video is to show the new GG, with every combo there they catered the nostalgia factor of the players, by showing iconic stuff to say in a way, if you notice, they didn't show anything beyond some pretty cinematics and some combos/specials that are recognizable for every GG player.

Plus from what we know, the game is very earlier in the development stage so more than probable there is not much to show.

This is just an announcement that there is a new GG in development, not an announcement of the new GG in totallity.

BTW, i don't feel that announcing this new GG that wouldn't come until 2014 or 2015 (leaning more on the later) while releasing GGAC+R is a disservice, if anything i feel that is a kind way to lessen the wait by giving us a new GG to play while getting the Next Gen entry.

Also, i hope that they only put the 3d cinematic stuff on the 5D to show the 3d aspect of the game, and that it will be gone for the real game.

I've said it before and I'll say it again;

If you're expecting everyone from the start, prepare for disappointment. Period. There's almost no avoiding such an outcome.

Prediction: 6-4 ratio of New to Old in initial Arcade build, several returning as console timed exclusive characters to hype up the release, more (and possibly all remaining) returning characters as DLC to rack in nostalgia dollars, worst case scenario some characters will have to wait til a major revision or sequel to come back.

We'll get everyone, it just might take time.

80% of the world is [salty] water

While very possible, i hope that they aim to release the game with the major number of characters of the previous entry, like it or not, not doing it will be seen as something very negative by the fan base (serious players and casuals), not to mention that to this day, there is still a lot of idiots who cringe at the idea of DLC characters and see them as a thing of the devil born from the greedy intestinus of an evil and heartless company.

[TiredOcean]

Well, that was fast.

Most people have been talking about the fact that Xrd might change some of its mechanics to make them easier, in an attempt to attract new players/casuals. I get the feeling that most people are missing the point when it comes to trying to attract casual players (hell, almost all fighting game developers have missed the same point):

Casual players do not give a single fuck about mechanics. They look at the presentation and the fun you can have from the "surface" of the game.

One or two people have made this point before, but they didn't develop it much. So here goes:

What is the first thing that comes into the mind of a regular person when they look at (for example) UMVC3?

Is it: "This game has stupidly powerful comeback mechanics in the form of X-Factor and most characters can one-touch of a random hit. I'll pass."

OR is it: "This has Wolverine and Ryu fighting each other! Neat! Shopkeep, one copy please."

It's most likely the second quote, because most people don't have a great understanding of how fighting games work, and simply want to have fun mashing buttons to deplete a life bar.

The thing is, guys, that Guilty Gear does this really well. Gatlings allow people to do 4-5 hit combos with ease, gigantic amounts of hitstop make those attacks feel visceral, and cool character designs combined with an absolutely badass soundtrack makes GG, well, fun.

Daisuke and the Xrd team need to work on presentation to appeal to new players and casuals, not dumbing down the game. The marketing and aesthetic appeal will draw people in. Now, the question of drawing players already part of the FGC into GG is a different matter, because they do care about the mechanics. Hopefully the increased presence of Guilty Gear due to it getting a new game will bring people into the fold, and hopefully they will like it enough to stay.

[Rishtopher]

So maybe the popularity vote was for a secondary purpose then? They could've been polling the most popular characters to bring back first, or something.

[Hecatom]

Who knows, since japanese love their popularity polls.

[Narroo]

I just want to be sure, FRC's are not random execution barriers, they are difficult because the nature of the mechanic an the intended behaviour of what happens after you successfully perform one

They could be easier while preserving their properties.

Take SFII For instance. If I recall correctly, doing a proper reversal on wake-up is a one frame deal, no? That game, if I recall correctly, has no buffers and rather strict input requirements in general.

That said, I think we can all agree that GG not requiring the same strictness of SFII is a good thing.

I think FRCs can be made easier to preform with either a buffer or a "hold the button down" deal, while still preserving their properties.

[LeonD]

Something off-topic a little:

Is it right for a guy who plays SSF to say Guilty Gear Pre-Xrd games are dead??

This is what I heard mostly from gamers who didn't play GGR#

[Celerity]

All this FRC talk really comes down to a philosophical belief of whether or not execution belongs in fighting games. In theory, we could make the game like Injustice where you can chain moves together as early as you want. We could create an IAD button. We could, eventually, remove every remotely difficult thing about the game's execution so that matches only come down to decision-making. Is that a good or a bad thing? It's really just a matter of opinion, but I think most of us would agree we don't want to see that happen.

While I agree that adding a buffer window to FRCs wouldn't affect gameplay too much, it begs the question: why not do more? FRCs aren't even the most difficult thing about the game, after all, and they're one of the last things a new player notices/will mess around with. Why not give each character a bunch of near-optimal auto-combos and simplify all the more difficult inputs (like I-No's HCL)? Would that make the game better? I, personally, support execution requirements in fighting games, and I like the fact that GG has a wide range of characters with easy to difficult execution. You can relax these execution requirements a bit, but I feel like once you start going overboard (yes, extending every FRC window by 5 frames is massively overboard), you're hurting the spirit of the game.

[Hecatom]

They could be easier while preserving their properties.

Take SFII For instance. If I recall correctly, doing a proper reversal on wake-up is a one frame deal, no? That game, if I recall correctly, has no buffers and rather strict input requirements in general.

That said, I think we can all agree that GG not requiring the same strictness of SFII is a good thing.

I think FRCs can be made easier to preform with either a buffer or a "hold the button down" deal, while still preserving their properties.

Reversals are 1 frame in pretty much every game out there, on SF2 were harder because the frame skip.

Something off-topic a little:

Is it right for a guy who plays SSF to say Guilty Gear Pre-Xrd games are dead??

This is what I heard mostly from gamers who didn't play GGR#

Truth be told, every GG game has been replaced by the newer iteration, yes there is small community that still plays GGXX#R, but they are the minority.

The only thing that could prevent GGAC not being totally replaced by GGXrd is that they end being as different as SF2 and SF3.

That said, with the current mentallity of the FGC, i don't know, if is not UMVC3 and SSF4, every game is "dead"

[Star-Demon]

This game will never meet your expectations.

You will never be satisfied with it.

You will continue to dump on BlazBlue just because.

Please proceed back into the woodwork.

Anyways - I don't think adding/changing up an input buffer or putting in a few more input polling patterns would hurt the game or community. If you seriously are flouting your ability to push exact buttons at high speed over netplay or offline as mastery of the game then not only is that laughable but arrogant and ignorant and disrespectful to the game.

Execution isn't just buttons to me - It's spacing those buttons, timing those buttons, moving your character around and using those buttons. GG and KOF are considered high execution, but they aren't considered deep or competitive because of it. If the crux of competition is "who's gonna drop input first" then don't you think that'd be a bit screwed up? (precisely why KOF13 gets dumped on as a combo game)

I know you guys want a competitive game. I think many games should be designed so they can be competitively played. But to me? About 80% of this thread looks like someone trying to protect their personal turf - and so far many of the responses look like selfishly-disguised excuses to protect themselves. We've already descended into a typical MMORPG argueboarding about what casuals want and how they should just play BB, for christ's sake. Nevermind that we want them to play GG - no - send them to a game that you have nothing else to do but shit on. Brilliant.

They are building a new GG game for the modern era, where the expectations and functionality are higher.

You need it to play online.

You need it to play in arcade.

You need it to play on console.

You need it to be competitive, faithful to the original, and expanded to include characters and developments in the franchise.

You need it to have modes, content and functionality that have been brought by newer games.

Yes, this may require an input buffer and some new input shortcuts - things that Marvel, Blazblue, Persona and skullgirls might have.

Or they can release a product only 0.5% of you will play - each copy should cost an absurd amount to recover the cost of production.

CHOOSE. Accept it or go home!

Edited May 22, 2013 by Star-Demon

[reaVer]

That said, with the current mentallity of the FGC, i don't know, if is not UMVC3 and SSF4, every game is "dead"

In the NL SF4 is also starting to near extinction.

[LeonD]

In the NL SF4 is also starting to near extinction.

I lol'ed

[Kitsoru]

Casual players do not give a single fuck about mechanics. They look at the presentation and the fun you can have from the "surface" of the game.

[snip]

Daisuke and the Xrd team need to work on presentation to appeal to new players and casuals, not dumbing down the game.

This is an important point, and basically what I was trying to say here. GG has always been really good about drawing in a crowd on its presentation alone, and obviously, on the fandom side (which seems to be a dirty word sometimes but look, it exists) this is the core focus of that crowd. Being a dirty casual for many, many years, I can speak for myself at least that it's what drew me and it's what kept me long enough to actually stay on and learn the game itself. They don't need to dumb down the game to draw the casuals; but keeping them is another thing. And that's really what the argument is about, keeping the casuals on, not attracting them. That's how the community actually grows.

[Narroo]

All this FRC talk really comes down to a philosophical belief of whether or not execution belongs in fighting games. In theory, we could make the game like Injustice where you can chain moves together as early as you want. We could create an IAD button. We could, eventually, remove every remotely difficult thing about the game's execution so that matches only come down to decision-making. Is that a good or a bad thing? It's really just a matter of opinion, but I think most of us would agree we don't want to see that happen.

While I agree that adding a buffer window to FRCs wouldn't affect gameplay too much, it begs the question: why not do more? FRCs aren't even the most difficult thing about the game, after all, and they're one of the last things a new player notices/will mess around with. Why not give each character a bunch of near-optimal auto-combos and simplify all the more difficult inputs (like I-No's HCL)? Would that make the game better? I, personally, support execution requirements in fighting games, and I like the fact that GG has a wide range of characters with easy to difficult execution. You can relax these execution requirements a bit, but I feel like once you start going overboard (yes, extending every FRC window by 5 frames is massively overboard), you're hurting the spirit of the game.

No. You've twisted the argument into something else. You're confusing "making execution easier" with "making the game play itself." Having optimal auto-combos would, in effect, remove player choice and knowledge during the game, which are non-execution related.

Here's my example. Look at chess or Go. These are classic strategic games which some people devote their entire lives to. They're considered to be in-depth, competitive games. There are similarities to to Fighting Games in that FG's can be picked up by anyone, but have complexities and skill caps that go far beyond a casual player's ability.

Chess, or Go, has no execution barrier. As long as you can pick up a piece and place it, you can play. Even if you're too feeble to do so, someone can move them for you. To play Chess, you do not need to memorize precise movements, lift 50 pounds, recite poetry, or anything.

This works because chess and Go are based on decision making, not dexterity. Adding any sort of mechanical skill requirement to those games would detract from the game.

What you're suggesting is the equivalent of making Chess or Go easier by eliminating bad moves. Players can't use different strategies, make mistakes, or do anything unorthodox. This obviously would ruin the game and has nothing to do with execution.

Similarly, your argument with auto-combos suffers the same defect. It goes beyond execution barriers and intrudes onto actual strategy. It's a poor argument.

In the end, FGC are mainly about knowing your options, your opponents, quick thinking, spacing, mixing-up, and all that jazz. If getting those super hard combos or FRCs were what the game was about, you wouldn't be playing it, now would you? Ultimately, the gameplay we like is more about our heads than our hands. Execution should simply require us to be able to tell the computer what we mean to do at any given moment and nothing more. Any difficulty beyond that is extra, and so if the difficulty of telling the computer our desired actions can be reduced, it should be reduced.

[Celerity]

No. You've twisted the argument into something else. You're confusing "making execution easier" with "making the game play itself." Having optimal auto-combos would, in effect, remove player choice and knowledge during the game, which are non-execution related.

Here's my example. Look at chess or Go. These are classic strategic games which some people devote their entire lives to. They're considered to be in-depth, competitive games. There are similarities to to Fighting Games in that FG's can be picked up by anyone, but have complexities and skill caps that go far beyond a casual player's ability.

Chess, or Go, has no execution barrier. As long as you can pick up a piece and place it, you can play. Even if you're too feeble to do so, someone can move them for you. To play Chess, you do not need to memorize precise movements, lift 50 pounds, recite poetry, or anything.

This works because chess and Go are based on decision making, not dexterity. Adding any sort of mechanical skill requirement to those games would detract from the game.

What you're suggesting is the equivalent of making Chess or Go easier by eliminating bad moves. Players can't use different strategies, make mistakes, or do anything unorthodox. This obviously would ruin the game and has nothing to do with execution.

Similarly, your argument with auto-combos suffers the same defect. It goes beyond execution barriers and intrudes onto actual strategy. It's a poor argument.

In the end, FGC are mainly about knowing your options, your opponents, quick thinking, spacing, mixing-up, and all that jazz. If getting those super hard combos or FRCs were what the game was about, you wouldn't be playing it, now would you? Ultimately, the gameplay we like is more about our heads than our hands. Execution should simply require us to be able to tell the computer what we mean to do at any given moment and nothing more. Any difficulty beyond that is extra, and so if the difficulty of telling the computer our desired actions can be reduced, it should be reduced.

You're right. Removing real combos would indeed infringe on knowledge and not just execution, but my overall point stands. Chess and Go are 100% cerebral, but fighting games aren't. They require some degree of reflexes and manual dexterity. Execution is just another dimension of your play skill. Once you start making a game too execution-friendly, it closes the gap between skilled players and unskilled players to some extent. And again, I agree that widening the FRC window is not the end of the world in this regard, but it's a slippery slope.

[_rFX]

In the end, FGC are mainly about knowing your options, your opponents, quick thinking, spacing, mixing-up, and all that jazz. If getting those super hard combos or FRCs were what the game was about, you wouldn't be playing it, now would you? Ultimately, the gameplay we like is more about our heads than our hands. Execution should simply require us to be able to tell the computer what we mean to do at any given moment and nothing more. Any difficulty beyond that is extra, and so if the difficulty of telling the computer our desired actions can be reduced, it should be reduced.

I disagree. The duality is something I really appreciate. The fact that fighting games demand a multi-faceted skill-set is what sets them apart in my mind, and those super hard combos are what lured me in in the first place...>.>. Execution/dexterity/whatever is never the most valuable skill to have in a fighter; that much I've learned all too well; but to diminish it's role to the bare minimum would detract from my interest in the genre. I don't want chess in fighting form. I like fighters as they're currently constituted. I don't think reducing one of it's aspects would be an evolution. There are enough characters in every roster that they can appease those who are less fond of that aspect of the game, without depriving the ones who do enjoy it.

[Digital Watches]

Okay well, I wasn't going to chime in on this "are execution barriers inherently good" debate heavily because it's kind of a tangent, but since people seem to want to talk about it, and I have a pretty strong opinion on the subject...

While it may be that some people like things to be challenging for being challenging's sake, I disagree heavily that unnecessary execution difficulty adds anything of value to fighting games. This is not to say that I think we should get rid of things that are hard, or resent games for having hard things you can do in them. After all, a lot of things are hard because their usage is an edge-case that the developers didn't intentionally build into the controls of the game. Some things are also hard because they involve predicting or reacting to the opponent quickly, which is interesting from a gameplay perspective.

However, when there's a situation where some control-scheme thing can be made easier to do without changing any interactions between players, it should always be done. Every damn time. I'd argue that this does not diminish the challenge of playing a fighting game in any way. In many cases, it makes the game harder. It merely eliminates the friction involved in learning how to play the game. Imagine a fighting game where everyone was frame-perfect in their traps and combos. This would in fact, from the perspective of a player, be a harder game, because you would not be getting away with shit because of your opponents' poor execution. When you make it so that the players don't have to spend any attention to make sure they do what they meant to do, they can spend all that attention, focus all their dexterity and reflexes, on making things harder for their opponent. Being able to do a frame-perfect link consistently doesn't mean you can't still delay your attack to mess up your opponent, it just means you always mean to when you do.

Whether or not you believe fighting games should be a purely mental game, I should hope you believe that fighting games, and competitive games in general should, fundamentally, be about interplay between two opponents. Along these lines, I would argue that any difficulty you take away from merely being able to do stuff in the game frees up brainpower, attention, and muscle memory to be used against the opponent in interesting ways. I defy you to come up with a counterexample.

Obviously there are definitely going to be things you can't make easier and still do what they do, and I'm not advocating changing those things. Microing a ton of units in starcraft in precise ways to spread out the damage among your own forces and concentrate your fire on the opponent is going to always be hard, because any amount of skill you can devote toward that task is directly in competition with your opponent. Blocking an ambiguous mixup is always going to be hard, and should be, even though block is a one-direction command and takes 0 frames to come out. It's difficult because your opponent is deliberately trying to trip you up. I'd even say slashback and other parry mechanics are a grey area, because a lot of the difficulty in doing them is knowing what attack your opponent will be doing and when it will hit you. But executing a combo? Cancelling an attack? Yeah, I'll learn how to do that shit no matter how hard it is, because there's no good reason not to if you want to compete, but I'm not going to complain about it suddenly becoming easier. All I gain from it being harder is bragging rights about a purely manual dexterity task, and less competent people to play against (Which I hope you agree is a bad thing). It's not an interesting component of why I'm able to beat someone at the game. It's just required minutia to get to the point of being able to do the thing I want to do at a given time.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Digital Watches

[TheRealBobMan]

So... the voice that says "Guilty Gear Igsurd" sounds pretty good. Anyone else hope that he's the announcer?

[SolxBaiken]

I personally pronounce it "Zurd" as I assume the intention is word play to make it sound like "Third" as X and XX were never pronounced as such (ゼクス/Zekusu and イグゼクス/Iguzekusu respectively).

But yeah I wouldn't mind him as the announcer, but it would be nice to hear from Gregory Payne again XD

[Aiddon]

I still don't get how they made the Unreal Engine look GOOD, let alone make it look like sprites at first glance. Apparently Daisuke's team has some sorcerers in its midst.