zeech

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?

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.

Viper is so much uglier, less tasteful and unstylish compared to Mature/Vice/Vanessa/Elizabeth

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

BB is too complicated for new users, even. (from trying to get SF3/4 players into the game). I think it's always going to be a problem for GG/BB games - every character has unique mechanics, there's a lot of meters, and a lot of subsystems. Combos are usually pretty long, and involve many different moves. FRC windows etc only matter to intermediate players. The hurdle for beginners is the large number of things to learn and know before being able to play the game at a basic level. Even something like BB's getting up system is a small hurdle, since players from other games will often forget to get up and thus lie there getting OTGed a fair bit. None of this matters to people who want to pick up a new FG. They'll read forums, practise, and do all it takes. But a big part of growing a community is introducing friends and other people to the game, by getting them to try it out, etc. This is a situation where the person only has an hour or so of access to the the game, he doesnt own it at home, and he's not going to waste time reading manuals or tutorial modes. How much fun they have during that hour is going to determine whether you get someone into the game or they go back to 3S or whatever they've already learned. It's also a time where you'll be playing them, and there will be a huge disparity in skill/knowledge. This is a problem all competitive games face. You're trying to get some friends into the game, but you'll be crushing them for at least a few weeks until they get better. Making this period of time meaningful is a big challenge. I think some sort of well-thought-out handicap mode, that makes the game more challenging for the better player and still educational for the weaker player, is pretty necessary. So yeah, I think the biggest issues are: - 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.)

Ah k. I hadnt considered defensive escape at all, that makes a lot of sense, thanks.

I'm still interested in this if anyone can help me.

Ah k. Thanks.

Slightly offtopic, but I have a question. I've heard people say that IB is too good in BB, but yet in top match videos, I see people IB all the time, but rarely retaliate afterwards. It certainly seems a far cry from 3S where a successful parry seems to almost guarantee punishment. Why is it too good? What detrimental effect on the gameplay does it have? Oh, a second question. FRCs are famously regarded as ridiculously difficult. Yet, as I understand it, its just pressing RC during a small frame window during certain moves? (is that correct?) If so, isnt it about the same as 1-frame links, Just Defence and other things with tight timing? Why is it considered so hard?

Since you guys are saying ASW still owns GG, maybe they should pursue a 2 tier strategy for their products. They should further simplify BB, (for example, making combos less character specific, make combos shorter and easier) and then offer a new GG as a hardcore fighter. BB can be a "gateway game" for GG, for people who want to pursue it further. But in such a case they will spend less resources on GG, so you might not get nice graphics, story mode, etc, since it will be more niche. Essentially, BB will be funding GG so they will concentrate more work on that instead. But this is probably a solution that satisfies most people, maybe? ----------------- I'm somewhat casual as a FG player, but as a gamer I'm still more hardcore than most of the population. My difficulties in attracting SF4 friends to BB have generally been that the game is too complex. If we refer to the article, this is complexity and not depth. For example, if we look at BnB combos, we see that there are many that dont work on Carl and certain other characters. For any given opponent, you generally want to do the best BnB. So theres only one real choice. Yet you have to remember which characters that BnB doesnt work on, and remember the best alternative BnB for them. More complexity that doesnt really improve depth. For true casuals it doesnt matter - they just mash buttons. But for intermediates like me and my friends, (semiskilled amateurs that arent interested in pro tournaments) the amount of trivia you need to remember is a big turnoff. So, maybe BB could benefit from a bit of combo standardisation - hit boxes and other properties should be adjusted so that BnBs work for all characters. (or, all characters except Carl, or maybe divide characters into categories like Light and Heavy with different BnBs for each). Of course, this is somewhat at odds with ASWs philosophy of "make a system and let players invent/discover the combos themselves", but after a sequel or two, generally the BnBs are well known, so ASW could retain them, and tweak things to organise them a bit. Possibly move properties too - if a character has an overhead, it will be 6B. If they have a head-invul move, it will be 6A, etc. It's already mostly like that. They should avoid adding new mechanics to sequels of BB, and keep the character count low. They should be on the lookout for mechanics that dont really benefit gameplay much, and be prepared to cut or replace them. By making GG3 the hardcore game and keeping BB more streamlined, it might be a good strategy for ASW? Hah, I realise this could be an offensive idea to those who prefer BB for nongameplay reasons and want BB to be more complex in its own right

Yeah, that's what my joke means - people seem to automatically respect VF without really playing the game or knowing it. Here it is. Its probably nothing that you guys don't know, but since I dont play GG it was very interesting. Heh, and now that I've read it again, it makes me want to play a BB with GG's systems but BB's character designs :P http://www.sirlin.net/articles/fail-safes-in-competitive-game-design-a-detailed-example.html Also whilst searching for that article I found some interesting ones: Complexity vs. Depth: http://www.design.wrong.net/?p=13 Death of Genres: http://www.design.wrong.net/?p=17 (Heh, so BB is "rebirth" ? :P )

Ok, wow, really? I've heard that SF2ST is well respected for its "complexity through simplicity" and 3S is famous for, I dunno, the Daigo parry moment or something. I hear good things about GG, but it doesnt seem to garner the reflexive respect that VF does (heh, my joke is, "Everyone respects VF, but noone plays it. Everyone plays Tekken, but noone seems to respect it."). So GG is *that* much deeper than every other 2D fighter? Well, that thread summed up some superficial things, although I guess the main points have been addressed - throws, jumps, movesets. I'm a professional games programmer / wannabe designer. Although I will probably never get the chance to work on a fun genre like fighting games, I'm still interested in the theory. Since GG is such a technical and complex game, I thought I might find some technical and complex analysis here I've read Sirlin's oldold article on GG, which was pretty interesting.

Ok, to me it sounds like what you're saying is BB is either on par or above SF4 then, but below SF2ST, 3s, VF5, KOF98/02 in terms of depth? I dont know anything about MvC2, CvS2, or Tekken to compare. I've played MBAC casually, but I dont know enough about it to really compare either. Can people give me an opinion on BB's place in the world of FGs? Because I see that you guys can give all this detailed analysis of BB vs. GG, but its hard to understand without seeing the greater context with other FGs. I'm talking purely gameplay and depth here, not about style or fun or art or story.

Also it's interesting that people here accuse BB of being simplistic. Of course you're comparing it to GG, but can someone put it into perspective for me? In your opinions, in terms of depth/complexity, how does BB compare to other popular non-GG fighting games? And why? (SF2ST, 3s, MvC2, CvS2, MBAA, VF5, KOF98, KOF02, SF4, etc etc.)

Yeah, definitely personal taste is a big factor. I was shocked and dismayed at seeing how many people on SRK were devoted fans of Cody's horrific "striped body paint" prison outfit.

Ok, well it seems the 2D FG feature tick box is fairly similar between the games then. So what's wrong with BB? Does all the fault lie in the differences you mentioned? (damage scaling and barrier, lack of frc's). Or is it more the movesets/move properties of the characters, etc? (which is the thing that would take time to iterate and improve). You're forgetting that the most extreme members of GG's cast have been omitted. Only the normal characters have equivalents in BB. (well, there's Arakune, but I accept one or two freaks in a FG cast for comic relief, ie. Korea team in KOF.) At any rate, I dont think you can argue the fact that BB's cast is closer in terms of normality to KOF/SF/VF than GG is. The lack of teddy bears and cars being summoned out of nowhere helps a lot. (the same argument applies to Tekken with its pandas and kangaroos etc)

But that's just it - if someone went back in time and released the latest GG as the first in the series, it probably wouldnt be as popular in the end. (Actually I'm just assuming here, since noone has bothered to inform me if the first GG is less complex than the latest one.) Game sequels accumulate complexity because existing fans demand new things to try, learn and see. And thus with each sequel the game becomes increasingly forbidding to new players, and increasingly relies on the existing fanbase. Also game design is pretty hit and miss. BB is not identical to GG, so it's probably impossible to try for a different game with the same complexity and yet be balanced and playable first time. Since ASW doesnt do patches or open betas, they probably had to start simple and iterate up with sequels, or else their new game would be too much for the designers to handle in one go. I dont understand your point with the characters, are you trying to defend BB or GG, or what?

Well, if you're really curious, then for me it's the character designs/story/theme. GG is too ridiculous and crazy for me. (I'm sure that's part of why GG fans love it though). Even BB is slightly pushing it in terms of characters, but at least it's more reasonable than GG. BB seems to also be developing a fairly respectable story (for a fighting game). I'm a longtime player of VF and KOF, recent fan of Melty, and only switched to BB out of curiosity (and to my surprise found that I liked it.) So I like believable human characters, not crazy ugly freaks. I'm not a tournament player though, so you can consider me part of the "casual" crowd that dustloop hates so much :P Oh, and another major reason is that BB is a "living" game, especially with good netplay, whereas KOF12, Melty (in the west) and VF (in the west) are "dead" games. No point dedicating any time to learning a dead game with no opponents. I asked this before but noone responded. How does BB compare to the first GG in terms of gameplay depth, balance, etc? All games add more and more features and complexity with every sequel, so it's understandable that the last GG is probably more complex and deeper than the first one. So is BB even more simple than the first GG? Or were they similar (and thus we can expect BB to possibly become more complex in the future...)

Actually, we're getting close to an issue I've been thinking about recently. When it comes to competitive games, how much change do we want? Is the games industry addicted to change? On the one hand, traditional games like Chess, Go and Poker have remained pretty similar for decades or even centuries, apart from minor tweaks. Noone expects those games to have sequels or updates. The closest thing in competitive video games might be Starcraft and SF2ST, which still enjoy a lot of popularity despite being 10+ years old. On the other hand though, video games are much more complex and unbalanced than symmetrical board games, plus graphics technology is always moving forward. So there's pressure here to update games with bugfixes, balance fixes, graphical updates. I asked this question on another forum, and the general feeling seems to be, "I'm fine with updating a game I like, but don't expect me to pay again for it." So, in other words, if an update doesnt have any new content, then people expect it to be a free patch. Great, we love free patches, right? But a games company can't survive that way. Unless it's someone like Blizzard who make money off other (single player or ongoing) products, noone can keep their team employed and paid for 10+ years doing free updates for a game that has already sold most of its copies. And dont forget, games developers usually receive a fixed fee for a game to be delivered, they dont get any extra money from ongoing sales. So instead they keep making new versions of the games, adding just enough content to justify another purchase, and in the process destroying or at least not improving the balance and gameplay. (as a KOF fan since 94, I feel butthurt by this especially.) So to the GG fans, would you pay money for another rerelease of the last GG, with some fixes and tweaks? Or, since ASW is not the developer anymore, would you pay money for a true sequel, but developed by a different team with new ideas, new (probably worse) gameplay, new (broken) characters, etc? And if you wont pay money for either of these, and are quite happy with the GG you have, then why should anyone (software devs, publishers, other players) care about you in any way? They'll keep making BB and other new games that keep them employed, and you can keep playing your game with its current community.

Well, it will probably be CS Rachel with some mechanical "cheats" enabled. Actually, that's interesting. What cheats would you like CS Unlim Rachel to have? If its something similar to CT Unlim Rachel: - Frog doesnt go away unless killed. - Sword Iris makes multiple lighting bolts, not just at the poles. - More wind regen? Unlim wind?

Maybe unlimited Rachel really will be tournament legal on console

Wow, is my joke prediction coming true? Rachel is headed for top tier on her unstoppable time out game? :P

Oh sorry. I thought I would do a service for people who cant read japanese, since its not obvious where the BB movies are. Fixed.

http://gamechariot.com/ Hmm, can someone please make a list of good players that often feature in videos, what their names are in romanised form and also japanese, what characters they play, and what area they normally play? Its a lot of work but I think we would all appreciate it :D

From the video, you have to manually keep blocking correctly. But your blocks become IBs. Also you have to continuosly be in blockstun the whole time, not just be blocking for 6s.