My thoughts on the current state of fighting games

I don't agree with that either, and I didn't say that anywhere. There's a lot that can still be done, but nobody wants to take the risk to go and do it. If there is a reason we will never see another VF, that is it.

I have actually thought about how the wrestling/MMA games could have a positive influence on 3D fighters, but I don't think it's something that most people would be on board with. Infighting and ground game isn't nearly as exciting to watch (fuck as a spectator, I mean as a player) as getting in and out of range to hit people, not to mention the issues we'd inevitably run into with balancing that.

 

It's not about Seth dude, it's about what he's saying. I unequivocally agree with everything he said regarding the fighters of that era, so take Seth out of the picture and pretend that I said it.

It totally does though. 2D fighting game developers have been pushing the boundaries of the genre for years (for my money, they never stopped), whereas 3D fighting game developers have been way too afraid to do anything worthwhile to advance the genre in years.

Weren't we all excited when we heard FS was supposed to be "more like VF4"? That was because we didn't know any better. We should have been livid that they were moving the genre backwards instead of trying out new things like they should have been.

While I do think VF is good enough on its own merit, there's no denying that it is not a game that is going to keep being played the way it is. Balance issues or not, there is just not enough substance to keep people interested in the game anymore. It doesn't do much that the VFs before it didn't already do, which is the issue 3D fighters as a whole are facing right now. DOA5 is "more like 3". Tekken 7 is "more like 5". How about taking these games in a new direction, trying something radical, or God forbid, just making a new fucking game entirely?

Of course there is footsies in VF and in every fighting game. What I am saying is that the footsies in VF are little more than finding the right range you can troll people at vs figuring out a way to get around it (usually with stair/square stepping). This is not the case with 2D fighters, especially not the modern ones.

2D fighters tend to give each character a few distinct ranges to work at, so they can move in and out of their effective ranges as necessary. In 3D fighters, it's more like you have the one range where you can use your mid-range tools and the other guy has to call them out hard to not die for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This has nothing to do with fireballs or airdashes and has everything to do with 3D fighters not caring about making you work for your approaches. Soul Calibur has been the only non-mech game to attempt to fix this, but SC has its own slew of issues due to lack of refinement and Namco not giving a shit about it.

 

Creating a new kind of 3D fighter that would be decidedly superior to the ones we have now would be as easy as this:

- Take Soul Calibur's spacing game, but refine the hell out of it
- Take VF's freedom of movement and close range game and everything else

There you go. From there we can talk about implementing other things that would further change and improve the genre, but that is the next step.

 

Dude, all anyone has to do is watch tournament footage of 3D fighters to know what you're trying to sell here is clearly false. That is why no one is buying. What you're trying to sell with that statement is backward/defensive movement in a 3D fighter is as effective in covering distance over time as forward/offensive movement. This is false. Offensive movement covers more distance over time. This is why the lack of a "long range game" in terms of having buttons to press at full screen is a non-issue for these games. This is why turtling and running away after getting the life lead (ala the Snake Boss method) isn't as effective and doesn't dominate high level play. 3D fighters are mid to close range fighters and the movement options, along with the distance they cover, compliment that. A long range game isn't needed because of this and there is nothing wrong with that. You also need to consider things like character start position distance which is hella important in the design of these games. Specially when you take into account movement options and how much distance they cover. VF and Tekken start positions are a lot closer than what you see in SF or KoF. And even though Guilty Gear has closer start positions, you also have access to IABDs and invulnerable backdashes at round start. 3D fighters don't have this. The lack of IABDs and invulnerable backdashes make the close start positioning choice MUCH more crucial in them than in Guilty Gear.

 

I like the last part, because giant gram had a system like this if anyone remembers. It wasn't the best, but a great skeleton to build onto.

 

Not at all dude. I made it a point to explain that when 3D fighters work best is at close range and that the game does still mostly take place there.

But this is where the difference between VF and Tekken comes into play, as well, because it's hard to deny that Tekken really wants both players to play the poking game, whereas VF wants someone to move in and someone else to press a button. In both cases, keeping the game flowing is entirely on the onus of the player, and at any time one of them could decide to just back off.

You are thinking way too much in terms of extremes here. You are right in that people don't often try to run out the clock for easy wins, but it's hard to deny that people do back off a lot in 3D fighters when they don't feel like playing the close or mid-range game. There's less incentive to back off like that in 2D games because there are buttons to press at mid-long range, whereas 3D games force you to respect it and put the onus on the approaching player to close the gap.

Not to say that 3D games necessarily need buttons to press at fullscreen, but there does have to be something to keep the match going.

That is wrong and Sega knows it, which is why they've been hellbent on making the stages smaller from vanilla 5 onwards. This has been their way of politely telling people to play the game up close, along with counterhit state on the most useful movement options.

Close start positioning is actually what you want in 3DF, if you ask me. If I could crouch dash on people from the moment the round starts in VF like I can in DOA, it would be a very different game, would it not?

Besides, you still have a ton of options at round start in VF and Tekken, so I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.

 

I don't get what the end game for this thread is beside click bait for your blog. OK he wants VF to be more like 2d games. Cool. The VFDC doesn't want that in VF. Awesome.

How about this, somebody throw out a idea on how a 2d game mechanic can improve a 3d game or vise versa. Say something constructive. So we can work on building this exciting new 5d game that AM2 or Capcom is just going to screw up anyway with all the focus group'ing that they are going to do.

 

Chess needs to make some updates while were at it... where are the rooks diagonal fireballs, and nerf the queen ! and pawns are way under powered... I agree quash

 

What you said in the opening post is actually true, that's what I thought, at least it could make some sense.
Then I read the blog post and eventually realized it's another of these 2D vs 3D random antic.

Now one thing that they share in common is that they have that habit of making their opinion a fact always disregarding those who are directly concerned: the actual player base.

And there you go.

That must be a troll.
Either way, good joke.

This is escaping me, I can't understand why so many people want to change virtua fighter, if you deem the game impossible to succeed, as it is, then fine, at the very least make it not that obvious that your opinion is biased, then it would be easier to hear why you think the game isn't as good as it could be.

 

Man, I feel like I'm too stupid to join this conversation, because I'm not following what's being said at all.

It seems to me that we are comparing apples to oranges. I'm going to agree with @ShinyBrentford on this. Someone needs to give an example of a 2D mechanic that would improve a 3D game.

Otherwise, this thread is useless...

 

I think a good example of 3d games with 2d elements

 

I was about to make a super long post detailing exactly why is seems you're just hell bent on trying to make issues out of non-issues, but after seeing these I'm going to pass because the reality is you've just got a heavy bias and you aren't even trying to be objective here. How about this. Link some high level match vids that demonstrate and point out your issue with 3D fighters why they are "inferior" to 2D and then we can get somewhere with this discussion.

And no, lack of a long range game (aka projectile/stretchly limb zoning) is not a reason because matches still play predominately at mid and close range in top level play and people don't run away across the stage after gaining a life lead to win matches. In other words, these games still play as the game design intended.

Anyway, I'll be playing VF now. Oranges are superior to Apples.

 

@quash I completely agree with you.
I can see clearly what you're saying.

In fact it's quite some time I'm toying around with ideas for the evolution (imo) of the 3D genre.
Just to be clear it has not to be the next VF (even if at its core is VF).

When I approach a new game (new for me) I always look at it on paper (obv I had physically seen it somewhere) to see how its mechanic/rules/freedom/limitations/deepness/complexity could unfold.
I'm not someone who jerks on theory fighting but it does help see much much further, even ahead of time sometimes (not talking about me).
That's the case for Seth' sentence.
And keep in mind that I do find boring most of street fighter games (third strike and a few others are the exceptions) so I'm not biased towards street fighter at all.
I play a lot of fighting games, some more seriously some other less or way less, and for the ones I don't play (time constraint or they are just uber shit imo) I have still looked at the system and watched "pro" players at tournaments.
Having said that my favorite games that I (try to) play seriously are VF and GG.
I didn't start my 3D experience with VF neither my 2D one with GG.
I "discovered" them because the other games I was playing felt "lacking" of something.
The discover of these games happened because I felt the need for something "better".
It's the same need that drives me and all the other players for the search of the next "better" game.

For sure GG has taken a lot of things from VF (directly implemented or just the concept), and in fact when I try to describe it to other 3D players I always refer to it as the VF of 2Ds.
But GG isn't just a 2D VF clone, it has its unique things.
So as soon as I went deeper into GG I had this fuzzy idea for the next "better" 3D.
I can't picture it clearly (I have some rough concepts though) but I know it's there.
To see it you need to be open minded with no whatsoever strings attached.

Beside the (very good) Gundam Vs series now they have just announced Final Fantasy Dissidia, a new fighting game that goes in the very same direction.
I'm not saying in any way that's the way the new VF should be but they are trying something new (even if it is based on the Gundam Vs series) for the 3D fighting games.
And for those who do not think those two games are fighting games you should know that they have frame advantage/disadvantage, okizeme, ukemi, pokes, all range movements, dashes, punishes etc.

I have no desire to "change" VF nature (I just want a better VF if possible) but those who neglect possible changes because of the realism of VF that made it what it is I would like to point out that when VF came out videogames were far far away from any realistic results.
People were eager to see realistic graphic, realistic charachetrs in a realistic setting.
At that time its "realism" was a really strong selling point.
Nowadays we are used to realism in videogames and it's not a selling point like it was before.
And as far as the reality where I live in there are no air juggles, bounds, launchers, refloats, Ten Foot Tosses etc.
The world evolves, people change and so it could happen even for iconic videogame series like VF.

 

How can you even say that lol. If they gave Akira a four foot lightsaber in the next VF, you're telling me people wouldn't try to run away and chip people to death? That giving people a real option at long range wouldn't fundamentally change the decision making process behind positioning yourself?

Again, I don't necessarily think VF or 3D fighters in general need full-screen buttons. I think the Gundam games do a good job of making positioning and boost management reason enough to gradually work your way in (like 2D fighters) instead of dancing toward the opponent (like 3D fighters, and that is something Gundam does allow you to do at closer ranges).

The game design is taking the lack of a fullscreen game into account. Why are there no more endless stages in VF? Why are endless stages less of a problem in Tekken?

You are clearly well versed in the genre as a whole, and I am not questioning that. I do think however that you are failing to see the bigger picture here.

 

This is a discussion that needs to be had. 3D fighters are in a vulnerable position right now, probably the worst it's ever been. If the genre is to die (which I really don't want it to, but it seems nearly inevitable as of right now), it would do everyone well to understand why, instead of blaming bad business decisions, lack of marketing, etc. Not that these things don't all contribute, but they are the effect and not the cause.

That's what the article is about, dude. How 2D fighters took the best aspects of 3D fighters, and how 3D fighters are now left with almost nothing unique. 2D mechanics can and have improved 3D fighters, look no further than Virtual On and Gundam.

Truth be told, I am not sure I want another VF because it would likely do little more than refine the things that 3D fighters already do well (which are things that 2D fighters now also do, in addition to their superior spacing game). The series will always have its place in history and was responsible for pushing the genre forward, but there hasn't been much of that going on since VF4.

I would love to be proven wrong, and I would love for VF to introduce something as groundbreaking as sidesteps again. I just don't see it happening for a number of reasons.

 

The unblockable tackles in Tekken are a thing, but they are more of a reward for creating a great distance from your opponent via knockdown. Whoever runs 1st gets the tackle. Also it's fair to mention that even in the open stages, the is a set limit to how far you can distance yourself from your opponent, and from neutral, Im pretty sure its fairly hard to create the appropriate distance needed to generate a tackle. But when the tackle is coming, its legit unstoppable afaik.

The command runs in VF can be somewhat threatening from far, but are better utilized as oki tools, which when used properly are very scary. From those absurd distances, some characters have run unblockables, but they aren't overly spectacular. I dunno how I'd feel about running mid unblockables.

 

How much playtime are you judging VF4FT on? Have you ever played it competitively? The VF4 series according to those who've been in Japan and the arcade ratings from Magazines was massively popular in Japan, rated number 1. It started to fall off with VF5 and hit rock bottom with FS. There were waves of negativity coming out of Japan about FS before it came out on consoles. I don't like it that much myself and it could be the worst game in the series I've played. I dislike the movement system, the way risk/reward works, the cut down throw system, cut down movesets, changes to OM, removal of clash, staggers etc. I especially miss VF4's movement, that was incredible and something you'll never see in any 2d fighter.

VF4 deserves to be regarded as one of the best fighting games of all time. I have seen interviews with several top players (Itabashi Zangief, Ryan Hart, Fuudo and Gamerbee) of both 2d and 3d fighters say that VF is the best they've played. 3 of them specified VF4 (Itabashi didn't say which in the series). That's the opinion that interest me most since they've played both types of fighter at a very high level. VF4 is my own favourite with KOF2002UM as probably my 2nd all time fave. I like both 2d and 3d, they both offer something different.

I do agree with you that there has been little innovation in fighters but that's a problem I expect for both 2d and 3d fighters.

 

There's an arcade I go to that has a FT cabinet and sometimes a few people will play it. I played it on and off for a few months late last year against some pretty decent players.

It was undoubtedly the best 3D fighter of its day, but anyone who thinks 5 was not an overall improvement is delusional. Characters became way more fleshed out, movement options were made stronger, etc. This is in spite of some of the more questionable changes such as 0f throw and throw clash, which were later removed anyways.

Playing FT gave me something of a phantom limb syndrome; I was often times wondering why my OM wasn't coming out, why the third hit of my string wouldn't come out, etc. It's not that I was fucking up, it's that the game didn't have any of that stuff yet.

It's not bad by any means, and for its time it was the best 3D fighting got. But everything that game pioneered has since been refined, and as such I see little reason to play it over any game of the 5 series.

The issues I've heard about FS from players over here are mostly balance related. A few people are still salty about losing MTE among other things, but for the most part people seem to appreciate the streamlined nature of FS. It could definitely use a Version B, though.

Worse than vanilla VF2? VF1? VF Kids?

Hyperbole doesn't make your point stronger, it makes you look like an ignoramus.

I beg to differ. Play Arcana Heart 3 sometime and try to tell me the movement is too restrictive.

For all of the dudes you'll find who like VF4 more, I'm sure you could find two that prefer VF5.

Not to say that an opinion is better by virtue of being more popular, but I think you'll find that those people are basically a fringe minority, like the people who prefer HF to ST, Slash to AC/+R, etc.

You aren't the only person guilty of thinking that Japan is some sort of fighting game utopia where people still play and prefer older versions of games, but I can assure you that is not the case.

There's been tons of innovation in 2D land, dude. It's Sega and Namco who have their heads up their asses and refuse to try anything new or creative.

 

I'm saying the only incentive to play long range is to have long range options. When you have no long range option, you have no incentive to play long range because you can't. In 3D fighters like VF and Tekken, having no long range option is UNIVERSAL. In 2D, it's character dependent. This is why 2D games are more match-up dependent, generally, and why defensive movement isn't universally worse than offensive movement in those games. Characters are more gimmicky to the point of some being straight up counters to other characters. It essentially amounts to playing rock paper scissors at the character select screen more than in the actual match. GG takes decent measures to mitigate this with it's extensive universal systems, but it's still victim to it due to the nature of the characters themselves still being heavily gimmick focused. And the game most victim to it, Street Fighter, is still popular. So honestly, what message is that sending? The game that even bothered to implement some inkling of 3D element (ie including a universal system to level the playing field more among characters despite being gimmick focused) still isn't as popular as the one that doesn't.

Working your way in IS dancing around/toward the opponent. They are one in the same. You're trying to downplay 3D footies game and why movement is so important in these games.

Already been over this. What you said is only part of it. There is also the fact of offensive movement > defensive movement as a universal rule, stage layout, timer, round start positions. There are no endless stages in VF because the threat of ring-out is a VF staple and the original comeback-factor. Why abandon it?

The big picture is that these games offer the same shit at their cores. That's the nature of being a part of a genre of games. It's simply a matter of "pick your flavor". Which is why I'm leaving my bias at the door. Meanwhile, you're sitting here trying to tell me cookies and cream is "superior" to mint chocolate chip while telling me you're being objective about it.

Still waiting for that tournament footage to demonstrate your reasoning why 3D fighters are "inferior" btw.

 

First, all of the fighting games are in a vulnerable position. You can thank capcom for flooding the market with BS SF4 games until they finally got it kind of right with ultra. Welcome to the dark ages son. We have been here before and survived.

Second, All I hear is yada, yada, yada, I can't think of a new idea, and Seth Killien is god. You haven't brought anything good to the table beside I like 2d fighters over 3d fighters. You brought up the fact that VF hasn't brought up a new idea, but I think a side turn game is a pretty good thing. I can name a thousand of games that use both mechanics, but usually when they do they become more like shooters than fighting games. Which is fine for them. I'm all up for innovation, but I don't think fireball or Ultra is going to help VF. BTW VF5FS has a pretty useful jump game.

Third if your really worried about why 3d fighting games isn't that popular is cause most of the FGC is just anime groupies. The reason SF4 is popular isn't cause its a good game it's cause it has pop culture behinds it. When a new guy wants to learn a fighting game they go to that cause It sold the most T-shirts at hot topic. Look at SF v T which proves capcom doesn't even have to finish a game and it will make billions. Honestly you keep bringing up great things SF games do, but what is the newest thing that SF4 has brought us beside revenge meter. Revenge meter what a great idea. Lets reward the guy for losing and then namco had to jump on that comeback mechanic bandwagon with rage. I love VF comeback mechanic it's called a wall or a ring out. You know that thing that comes in handy when you use ring awareness and spacing.

Yeah your probably going to go off and say that well Street fighter is the most popular fighting game of all time, but so was the twilight, 50 shades of grey, and the Nazis. Just cause something is popular doesn't mean it's good.