Narroo

Pot heads.....

Well, difficult is difficult. If it takes a lot of effort, it takes effort. Rather, I like to think of good difficulties and bad difficulties.

Thank you! There is always an execution element to an action game. But, there's a difference between route execution and interactive execution. route is simply things keeping your combos together; interactive is things like mixing up and blocking. I prefer the latter because it is not an arbitrary exercise in difficulty. It exists for a reason and is fun. And as far as the sports analogy goes, two things: One, at some point, yes, you do have to practice. If you want big muscles and a good throw, you have to work for it. The catch here is that you HAVE to. It's a rule of biology, and no one has made a magic fitness pill yet. With what we're talking about in fighting games though, we're talking about arbitrary requirements. We're asking: "If the FRC window and other moves can be made easier with little or no impact on the game, should we? No, we should we keep execution artificially difficult?" That's like saying quarterbacks should be running in lead weights to make the game harder and more impressive. They'd never agree to it because professional football is already demanding and hard enough naturally. And secondly: There's a difference between playing poorly and lacking advanced tactics and simply being unable to play the game. In the Dart Chess example, you're not playing the game if you can't throw darts. You're practicing your dart throwing so you can maybe learn how to play chess eventually if you stick with it. This is fundamentally different from making bad throws and passes in Basket Ball. Also, the dart-chess example is an exaggeration; Guilty Gear isn't that bad, we're arguing the principal of the matter at this point it seems.

No, not really. As long as you're physically able you can play any popular sport. That's why they're popular! Anyone can kick or throw a ball. I don't need to spend weeks practicing how to throw a football to play a game of football with friends and get the general idea. I don't have to be able to Rainbow or do a flip in soccer to play. I won't be good at soccer, obviously, but I could still play and get the general idea. I could play against my friends, who aren't much better, and we could play the game as it's meant to, minus advanced strategies, and tell if we like the game. Conversely, with GG we're talking about basic mechanics that require training just to pull off some individual moves, let alone some character's BnB's. Why? Just because. And there are a number of mechanics which if you can't perform, or don't know about, you just simply can't play the game "right." You and your friends can play together and button mash all month, but it's not really going to be the same game until you invest large amounts of time into execution requirements. Imagine if we made a game of "dart Chess." The same exact game as chess, except now you have to throw darts on a board to place pieces. This would be the stupidest thing ever. You can argue that it would take more skill to play "dart chess." That's technically true. That's not a good thing though. The dart element would completely work against the strategic play of chess. You wouldn't be even able to play the "chess game" until you became a master of darts, in which case it would be something of a non-factor that adds nothing to the game. All it would do is to prevent anyone from playing chess until they could ace their shots 9/10 times, and only THEN could they begin playing the game for real. Why? Because some guys like playing darts so they demanded shoving it into chess? Darts is it's own game for a reason, and note the fact that it isn't considered to be even close to the same as chess. Dart Chess would be an exercise in arbitrary game requirements that do not help the game at high level play, and hinder it at low level play. It's pointless. In the end, a game should be designed to be lean and mean. All game elements should exist for a reason that aids in the goal of the game: Fun. If it doesn't aid this, it should be removed. Throwing in requirements to prove you have a commitment, or satisfy a random person's arbitrary accomplishment*, or whatever, isn't good game design. * Sense of accomplishment is something a bit dicey. Many games are difficult and give you a sense of accomplishment for wining, which is good. But these games are usually difficult for a reason and do not have random fluff added on for the sake of difficulty and pride. Devil May Cry and Ikaruga are difficult because they need to be to work, and thus the games are fun to play AND you get the bonus of feeling accomplished. Playing a random IWBTG rip-off on the web does not because the game sucks and the difficulty exists for the sake of itself. That's the short of it.

People are assuming here that if FRC's and other execution barriers suddenly became easier everyone would be a grandmaster at the game. Ultimately, the real skill in the game doesn't come from being able to hit that combo everytime- that's the baseline. The real skill is how you deal with other players. This begs the question then: Why demand "dedication" to be expressed in arbitrary forms such as execution? If someone is truly good at the game its because they like it and play it often, which IS dedication. Demanding that people have to go through rituals and traditions to prove they're good at the game for the sake of being "a real Guilty Gear fan" is silly. It's a game! Play it if you like it, and you'll get good at what matters eventually. Demanding that it should take arbitrary longer to get good at the game to "confirm" that the players like it is an irrational fanaticism that makes the game worse, because let's be honest: If you're given the choice between two different fun games, one which takes a month to learn and have fun with, and one that takes a day, which is the better? EDIT: He's a point I think most people missed: If someone is trying to learn things like FRCs and what not, they just picked up the game probably. In that case, how can they like the game enough to dedicate themselves to it? Does someone pull out a random strum viper and decide: "THIS GAME IS AMAZING. I MUST MASTER THIS!"? Let's be honest, no. Demanding that people need to dedicate themselves to the game to simply pull off BnB's is pretty much saying that they need to decide how much they love the game before they can even play it properly. Doesn't anyone else think that's backwards?

DMC writer? That explains a lot. That said, "Jester" was an awesomely written character though. Was he responsible for the English Jester?

Exactly; if it happens he/she wants it to happen in a way that feels right instead of it just being: "And so Baiken got really angry and killed him" You know what? I'd like the Teach me Prof. Kokonoe to actually be done by Kokonoe. We can get a bit of forth wall breaking crossover fun in this. "Why am I here?! This isn't even my game! Jesus, even the girls here have jugs. Wait, does this mean I'm going to be playable? Bring it on!"

You're missing SolXBaiken's point. It's not that he/she didn't like the idea or plot of the endings, it's that he/she did not like the actual writing. The bloodlust ending didn't tick SolXBaiken off because he/she doesn't want to see Baiken become a serial killer; he/she hates it because it was just poorly written, in his/her opinion.

Anyone figure out what Unlimited Azeral's Buff DD does yet? It's not on the main page, and searching the thread for "unlimited" did not help.

It's over before I even got here and no one even mentioned Sane/Heroic Arakune. I just want to see him do his Farris Wheel special and screem "WEEEEEE!"

In short, his Nox Nyctores may become important to the story, but it's more than likely just going to be used as a means for Bang to save Litchi from becoming like Arakune. Wasn't it stated somewhere that she's just going to die instead of turn into a monster?

Neato! Still...I want to see this as official art work. It would make for a great April Fool's Day joke. EDIT: I've seen the picture. I feel happy now. Thank you.

I just had an epiphany. I want to see Sol Badguy in that pose.

You mean Lambda? Well, I suppose they reworked Nu quite a bit, but I think it'll still carry over.

I don't think so. But maybe.

But, half the cast doesn't use an Ars Magus. Tager doesn't, nor does Taokaka or Arakune. Litchi's drive doesn't really either; it's more of a stance change with a weapon that happens to be magic. There's Makoto who doesn't use an Ars Magus. Valkenhyne, Bang, and who else am I forgetting?

So, if he loses his Grimore, he's not allowed a drive at all? Why can't he adapt his style and use different moves? That would be the whole point of getting a new Ragna. He could completely imitate order Sol and use special cancels for his drives.

So? He could have a different Drive.

So, when in the corner, how does one do 2C -> Comet Cannon/Break Shot -> Dash 6A? I find it incredibly unpredictable; sometimes Makoto will be pushed back if she's a bit close, other times the dummy will tech during the attack. (For thee curious, this is part of Challenge 15.)

At the least, the no clipping thing has been explained. Clipping is actually a natural logic error that you usually have to program out. What's going on is Z-planing something or nother where is that one guy who explained it. The other stuff? I have no clue.

Oh well. I'm hoping to get something about BBCP because if Arcsys does the localization again it's going to be a disaster, again.

Now I'm more confused. Why the heck is Ragna wearing a cooking apron? Why does dead spike look embarrassed? I need to learn Japanese. And maybe get back on topic. So, anyone think there's a chance of Kagura being in a similar boat with Ragna and the black beast? It would be interesting if he had "tamed" beast moves, if he had gotten over the whole angst Ragna has with it.

So, where is your avatar from? I assume it's fan art?

Which means we could get everything or nothing.

All the more reason that she should stop wearing her little sister's pants.