What gameplay changes do you want in VF6?

Tying jumping to the /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/g.gif would make stagger recovery with random jumping really annoying. Plus what would it accomplish?

 

The POINT was that you can hit the rising opponent in tekken. This causes much too much emphasis on okizeme to my liking. The VF system is fine as it is.

oh, and give Akira a fullcircular.

 

Movement and spacing is important anyway. And walls accomplish the same kind of pressure without giving away 100% dmg combos...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ALSO, where are my precious stop-guard animations (or whatever they are called). We had that in VF3, why not anymore?</div></div>Players didn't like it because they felt it slowed down the tempo.

....What? You mean that it passes through tech rolling opponents?

And the ground game of VF actually allows faster tempo since it's pretty much based around everyone getting back to stand up playing as soon as possible?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally think that getting hit into a wall and taking the small wall damage is stupid if there's no damage for getting knocked down onto the ground. And there's no quick recovery system for wall hits, but once again, there's one for the ground?</div></div>just hitting the wall doesn't do any damage, only attacks do...AFAIK this hasn't changed in R.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Dashing is the preferred method of movement and should be defaulted to one tap in any direction. ARM would function as an extention of these taps by holding. Crouching and jumping should be tied to the guard button. And a slow moving, retreating guard could be added (but not advancing, because that would be overpowered).</div></div>This would just cause annoyance since there are windows in all dashes where you can't guard.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I forgot to put this but, open and closed stances are lame. Players would rather have this to focus on in combos than terrain? Plus it doesn't resemble anything fighters actually do. Want to have a select character do that, fine. But everyone? Silly. </div></div>It's been said before but I guess it's worth mentioning again: VF is a fighting game and not a fighting simulator. VF is not realistic and shouldn't aim to be either, it should be aimed to be a good fighting game.

And where does this relation between terrain and stances come from? VF3 had closed/open stance too afaik.

And there are actually real fighters that switch stance.

How would the removal of closed/open stance somehow make people more "pushed sideways" then before?

Won't stop anyone from evading as much as a delayed launcher will...

 

I honestly think too many moves knock down, so...

Virtua Fighter's claim is believability. As for VF3, if people didn't have to worry about foot position for combos, then maybe the terrain wouldn't have been so bothersome. Some fighters switch stance like that, which was my point. But everyone? I could see Jacky, Sarah or even Brad. But it makes no sense for most of the characters. There's no real difference between a lead side attack and a rear side one, because a rear side attack often switches stance. More moves would have a concrete purpose in removing the open closed stance situation.

But consistently making attacks push the opponent off axis always go the same way. Can you do it now? Sure, but it means people are less likely to use the moves in this way.

 

No, it's claim is that it's an excellent fighting game. There's nothing realistic about VF. And people boasting about how realistic it is, how supercomplex it is, how steep the learning curve etc etc are just hurting the game in some kind of misguided effort to hype it.

VF isn't that realistic and really, not that hard to learn either. (maybe slightly off topic, but was a necessary thing to say).


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for VF3, if people didn't have to worry about foot position for combos, then maybe the terrain wouldn't have been so bothersome. Some fighters switch stance like that, which was my point. But everyone? I could see Jacky, Sarah or even Brad. But it makes no sense for most of the characters. There's no real difference between a lead side attack and a rear side one, because a rear side attack often switches stance. More moves would have a concrete purpose in removing the open closed stance situation.
</div></div>Wow, you're really off in the deep end here and maybe this discussion isn't worth my time.

But, humor me.

What moves would have more "concrete" purpose with lack of closed/open stance?

 

Where did you get this idea?


"The biggest surprise was certainly a retired WWII soldier who sent us a postcard with these comments regarding the Tekken series: ' according to my own experience, it is impossible that bodies can be projected into the air like this.' We were all astonished."
Katsuhiro Harada, Tekken series designer, on fan feedback.

 

I'm off the deep end because I disagree with you? Right now, some circulars push the opponent off axis to the left or right depending on whether or not your are in orthodox or southpaw stance. If the switching were removed, the move could be counted on at all times to function the same way, increasing their use in most people's terrain control games. If one attack pushed left but the other one right, it wouldn't be a matter of just using the one with better damage depending on foot position, it would make "useless" attack more worthwhile.

You could have a character who's best moves might come from the right, so another strategy would be to evade and attack more often to their other side. So they might have attacks from their weaker side, that under the current system might seem "useless", used specifically to keep the opponent to their stronger side.

You guys use the terms realistic and believable interchangeably, when they mean different things.

http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/wiki/Development:Realism_vs_Believability

You can search and find more topics on this discussions than the one I posted. Virtua Fighter aims for a believable, but not a realistic, representation of fighting and fighting styles.

 

You didn't answer the question. Where did you get the claim that VF aims for a believable representation of fighting and fighting styles?

How did you come to that conclusion? The developers claimed it?

 

Stance switching can be used to put your most effective half-circular in the correct direction to stop someone's evade habits / movement away from ring edge. That seems a heck of a lot more useful in terrain control than whatever you're talking about . . .

 

Dude, they basically already have that. Every character has some more or less powerful moves starting from the stomach or the back... It's not about left and right but whether they dodge to your stomach or back; it's the same idea in practice.

Most characters you DO usually want to evade to a certain side to avoid their more dangerous half-circulars. So saying, "one guy should be stronger from the right..." is just reiterating something that is already a fully developed part of the game.

 

Where did I get the idea Virtua Fighter was intended to be believable and not realistic? From Yu Suzuki.
http://games.kikizo.com/features/sega_yu_suzuki_iv_feb06_p4.asp
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Kikizo: Virtua Fighter and F355 are pretty realistic simulations, is realism one of the main goals in your games?

YS: Reality is not really a goal of mine, no. Reality in the context of games is nonsense. If it's completely realistic, then what's the point? What's so entertaining about the usual and the mundane bits of life? What is more important is believability within the game itself. After all, being completely unusual isn't good, either. You need a fine balance, somewhere in the middle. But I like fantasy, too. </div></div>

If my opponent is open to an attack that would push them out of the ring or into a wall but my stance is wrong, you're saying it's better to throw a bullshit attack to switch stances to make my half circular go the right way, rather than having a dedicated left and right half circulars? That makes NO sense.

 

God dammit!!! They are dedicated to one side! They're dedicated to guard the stomach or the back from an evade!!! That's the same as left and right!

 

Are you feeling alright? Back and stomach are not always going to face the same way. They, just like circular and half circular attacks are dictated by your current stance, not left and right. A full circular travels one way when in southpaw, and the other way when in an orthodox stance.

So no, it's not the same.

 

Your right they will not always be facing the same way but they will always be on the same side.

You said earlier some bollocks about a character with his best moves coming from the right and this is the same, left and right won't always be facing the same way but it will always be on the same side.

 

You're right, my bad. It was just my imagination being able to pay attention to foot stance in order land /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/b.gif/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/f.gif/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/p.gif at will against certain people who always dodge up. I should have just settled for 1/2 the damage using a different halfcircular in the "right" direction.

Carry on then.

 

See, you're cool because you have the LEET skills to overcome a weird design mechanism. NIIIIIIIIIIIICE.

 

So you dont want to be able to dictate which side is the most dangerous like it is now? You want a situation where everyone would always evade to the "same side because thats where this character is weaker at"?

You proposition would be exact same thing as changing current system so that characters would not be able to switch stance. Thats just stupid and hugely restrictive.

Gee, my opponent is always evading to the left. And I cant stop him because...uh..this is so believable.

 

Just thought I would bold the entire sentence. Even though Yu Suzuki has nothing to do with VF anymore, I think that statement still holds true to the current state of VF.

Your stance won't be wrong, you'll have to know what move to use so they can't evade on the proper side. Or better yet just use a full-circular, if your character has it, so that they can't evade at all and be forced to block.

I think I get what you're saying here. In that when your full or half-circular move connects. They will push your opponent towards a certain direction depending on your stance. That direction in which they will be pushed towards to, may not be the direction you want to push them.

But I think this makes sense within the context of the game:

You'll have three choices in terms of circular attacks: a half-circular that can be evaded towards the back; a half-circular that can be evaded towards the front; or a full-circular that will force them to block because they can't be evaded.

Depending on where the ring-out or wall is, they will likely evade opposite that. In which case you should choose the proper half-circular attack in anticipation of that evade.

If they evade away from the wall or ring-out, you win and your half-circular attack hits. If they evade the opposite, they could ring themselves out (so it's not a very good option).

If you have a full-circular, you don't really need to pay attention to your stance in that situation since it will beat both evade directions.

So basically, your best choice if you're going to attack in that situation is a full-circular. 2nd best choice is a half-circular the proper way.

To avoid your attacks without the mistake of evading the wrong way, your opponent's best choice is to guard. But if your opponent guards, he/she is opening themselves up for a throw.

As a result, you are forcing your opponent to make a choice against two things: an attack or a throw.

And it all makes sense within the context of the game. As VF's system can be summed up to the two-choice mind games. NITAKU!!!

 

Whats the point of having an attack only dedicated to the left or right? If you know what side your opponent will side step to then use an attack that will hit them on that side either way in the end its the same exact guess. It's definitely not a weird design mechanism it just seems to complex for you at the moment

 

</div></div>

Hey nice job reading the interview we conducted completely wrong bro, he's actually kinda sorta saying that making a completely realistic game would be pretty goddamned terrible and that believability is different from realism but hey

It's believability that's the thing - I mean, shit, I can play a video game and honestly believe I'm a long-haired pretty boy who wields a sword twice his body weight and controls powers of gods! Nobody (except maybe fighting EXPERTS posting on MESSAGEBOARDS (on the INTERNET)) gives two shits that the sword's massively oversized because it works in the game context, see? It's totally believable in magical bishie sparkle land! Same with other silly things (like foot stances)

But I guess it all comes down to who's on the box because really