Narroo

I agree with Hecatom on this. For instance, consider Amane. His gameplan is to build up to a level 3 drill and chip you to death. His only high move is j.A. He is not a mix-up oriented character in the slightest. I would expect his CT to be different than Ragna's.

I understand what you're saying. But, the only real solution is to then homogenize the characters which I think is worse; I'd rather have balance patches and characters that excel at different aspects of the game, rather then everyone being somewhat similar. As for Ragna; that's a good question. It's possible that they didn't want him to have a good Crush Trigger because he's rush-down oriented, so perhaps they thought it would be too much. That said, isn't his mix-up kinda mediocre? (Haven't been watching too many CP videos.)

So? What's wrong with everyone not having the same Crush trigger? It can be made up for in other ways.

In principal, Go is much simpler than Chess. In practice, no. Not even close. It could end up like that as well.

Oh god. This one guy in my college's game club plays Ky. When ever he uses that move he shouts at the top of his lungs: "RIAHDE ZDEE LRIGHTNG!!!" Very fun!

It's not like people use them often anyways. I can imagine a 5 round match with someone loosing 4 rounds in a row and getting an IK off. That would be so entertaining.

Correct. I mentioned this before. Someone wrote an article about this, but it's gone now. This is a good kind of execution barrier, if you want to find my post a few pages back.

It is if you like CT Arakune!

Some people apparently do see a bad side. I'm not sure what it is though.

To be fair, I think part of the problem here is differentiating between good and bad execution barriers. Certain types of execution issues do enhance gameplay. Someone wrote an article awhile ago about it here, I think, but I can't find it. For instance, take button inputs. With a game like Guilty Gear, you run out of buttons and eventually have to place specials onto motion inputs. Consider the following: reverse DP motions and running; Going from 66 to 421 is much slower than going from 4, blocking, to 421. Your opponent knows this so when dashing he knows that your ability to quickly pull out that reverse DP motion is hindered if you're running, and enhanced when blocking. This can play into how you approach and respect your opponent. Motion inputs for specials are both necessary and can be implemented in such a way to enhance positioning and options. This is a good execution barrier because it is unavoidable and is used to enhance strategy. A bad execution barrier is making 1-frame button windows to make basic moves or specials arbitrarily hard, such as FRC. There's no reason for it. It's doesn't really affect gameplay other than: "Can this guy do a FRC?" And as someone pointed out, making a move balanced because few people can do it is not real balance. We're not arguing that the game should consist of a single button. That's impossible. Nor can the game read your mind. That would be awesome though. We're arguing against arbitrary barriers that add no depth to the game, but rather require you to hit training mode for 5 hours for the sake of training mode, which is boring and pointless. Training mode is good to practice your skills to enhance player quality. But, that doesn't training mode time should be artificially inflated for no reason. EDIT: And just to make this clear, this means that things like 1 button DPs would be bad, unless the game is designed around it like Persona.

Why? Why does the game being simpler mean that should DPs be harder to execute?

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.

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.

A lot of the posters here, yes. But if you read back, there are a few people that seem to really value arbitrary execution barriers. For instance, one guy was complaining that they "might put in a buffer like BB." My post was aimed at the few people that are afraid of reducing execution barriers. Also, I am aware that many execution barriers are natural.

The problem here is that people are confusing complexity and depth with execution. Execution is the ability to perform an action on command. No more. Execution is important, but it is not the point of the game. If it were, the game would consist of two screens with everyone comboing punching bags to see who get's the highest score. This game is a competitive, versus, game were you interact with your opponent to beat him. Being able to execute FRCs, links, combos, Reversals, and the like are just a means to an end. As such, arguing that moves need to be difficult to perform for the sake of difficulty is nonsensical. For instance, let's say you could have a maneuver that either takes: 1 hour to learn 1 day to learn 1 week to learn 1 month to learn. And say the difficulty to learn is completely arbitrary. In this case, why have the move take longer than an hour? So veteran can proudly say he spent a month not playing the game, but repeating the same thing over and over again in training mode? That's nonsense. You want players to be able to pick up your mechanics and actually use them within a reasonable amount of time. Making them have to play for months before they can even control the game, when not necessary, is arbitrary and silly. What's fun about the game is about zoning, mixups, and mind games. Not memorizing 1-frame links or FRCs.

I remember renting some GG game in elementary school. Or was it 6th grade? Eitherway, I played it through with Sol and what not via button mashing and not knowing what I was doing. It wasn't till high school or college that I figured out how fighting games are meant to be played, and that's only because I found out about the FGC and had a friend who was into FGs. So, having a tutorial that explains how you play the game would be a good idea I'd say.

Maybe he DID get a new host and he's just using his shapeshifting powers to imitate Zato-1 or something. Why? Who knows? Maybe to appease a vengeful Millia? It would be a good twist and possibly character development for both Millia and Eddie. Never going to happen.

Please don't. I mean, I guess it could end up like Metroid Prime. Maybe.

Oh, okay. Some guy was complaining that some Injustice character was nerfed because "casuals" were complaining about him. I was just pointing out that there is no firm way of saying whether or not a character is broken, and asked how one can tell the difference between the character in question, and someone like Arakune.

So here's the catch: How do you know that the Injustice guy just wasn't broken as well?

I meant Arakune. He apparently could spasm on the controller and get 9000 damage.

Well, he did get nerfed to heck after CT. So, who decides when he's over powered, and when he's just right?

Well, he'd no longer be a trap.

Well, is AC cannon? I recall that Daiske...something...didn't direct it.

Well, in the sense of sand paper, I suppose so.