And it's still not applicable as there are a few top elite players and many players who really just suck. Compare Tokido to say... DSP. "I didn't DO THAT" "It dropped my input!" "I'm blahking that!"
Actually no, the original Dota or Dota 1 was way harder. There are multiple shop, no guide (Item draf), no ability range ring either, you have to calculate the range itself...etc
I love everything regarding #37. The skill required, the ball crushing guts needed to perform it, the 1HP pixel, the crowd fucking loosing it, Justin Wong trying to shake the table to annoy Daigo's performance, the game giving it a B score.
@@cottony4dr Yeah it's incredibly hard. You have to do it BEFORE it even lands. With it being a on frame thing as well, you had to be perfect in not only landing it, but predicting it as well since you you couldn't see it.
It was a great line for sure. It showed my frustration with sfv in it's general scrubbiness and ease of play. Players have nothing to strive for, since sfv gives them everything: damage, no defense, no execution, no footsies...you know things that made sf actually sf?
What people dont seem to understand/confuse too often is the difference between lowering the skill gap and lowering the skill floor. Cause lowering the skill floor, while keeping a high skill ceiling, is good. It lowers barriers for entry. Lowering the skill gap just reduces the incentive to get good, because its easy for people who dont care to keep up.
@King of The Zinger The problem with this is that no matter how focused you are, if a poke ball or some other powerful item spawns right next to another player, there's very little you can do about it.
Yes but your attitude is probably 1% of the population. Most ppl would rather have very little skill and guess(rock, paper, scissors) to win. They would rather win without skill than have the pain of losing, learning, mastery.
@@jacobr4558 Well, it's probably more than 1%. Most people do like their skill and investment to be rewarded. There's a reason why Rock Paper Scissors isn't a tournament thing. The problem is that people like to win because they were better than their opponent, but there is a significant amount of people for whom it just hurts too much to lose to an opponent. Only probably 10% would apply this philosophy to video games, but I also feel like saying that plenty of people put in effort to get good at other things. Best examples are things like music and sports.
Violent_crimes23 same I used to get my ass kicked in smash bros melee and then I was like, you know what ima learn this game then I win a bunch of games now. Way more rewarding than rolling a dice
@darklordster here is a simple way to see it. Imagine they make the basketball rim as wide as a hula hoop and only 5 feet off the ground. All the skills that current professionals have would almost be meaningless(dunks, precision, 3 pointers etc). Then say they had 2,3,5,10 point shots as well. So now it is a completely different game. Anyone could compete with anyone. Say they went further and change traveling rules, blocks, dribbling etc to favor the masses. That is essentially what they do. The combos require far less skill, distances don't matter as much, damage is off the charts. With far less effort and practice you can become "skilled". As opposed to master jumpers, free throws, 3 pointers, dunking etc. Having to practice day in and day out getting better and better. In that process you would have to grow, fall, get up, repeat. Crawl, walk, run, jump, fly...very few people want yo do that in reality.
Brian Barnes I agree, losing because my opponent is better than me feels better than winning because I just got lucky. Luck should not be a factor in competitive games because it doesn’t reward skill. If you spend a lot of time learning a game, you should be rewarded and therefore win a lot. If you don’t spend a lot of time, you’ll lose a lot. If you don’t have fun losing, you should invest more time or just play party games (Mario Party lol). As Core-A said, party games are fun since the losers can blame their loss on luck, so everyone’s happy
This. The spectacle aspect of any highly competitive competition is that "anyone" can NOT do what those at the top of their field do--without putting in the grind required to reach the top of that mountain. We watch the best of the best be the best because it inspires us. If the "best" doesn't require all that much work to get there, then it's not that inspirational. And if it's not inspirational, then it's not usually that entertaining, either.
Nick28T what if EA and all other companies created their game with multiple skill level "modes". For example, make FUT how it in its current AI state as a "casual mode" and then also have the option for competitive or "hardcore mode" that is AI limited or minimized with non existent button delay? Where competitive game modes like FUT champs is auto defaulted to "hardcore mode". So If I want to play online seasons, I can choose "casual mode" or "hardcore mode" before entering a match? Essentially game companies can code "two modes" within the same game, catering to all communities, casual and competitive. This concept can be applied to all "competitive" esports games and hopefully increase skill gaps. Just my thoughts.
i think there is a certain skill to reducing the skill gap. though it may work for some it might not work for others. considering that though the issue i find with most is not the reduced skill gap but the reduced skill ceiling. when you compare McV3 to SFV, both had a reduced skill gap. the difference is that MvC3 has an insane skill ceiling that has people till date finding new combos while SFV pretty much had them all discovered in its first week. on top of that they tend to patch out certain tech
lol not much of an E-sports fan but Floe's statement at the end about fans being finicky has rang so true in traditional sports. People just wanna talk shit and they don't care about the nuances surrounding it. That's why people still debate Lebron vs Jordan but ignore the rules and eras they played in, people debate Anderson Silva or Jon Jones while ignoring the landscape of the sport at the time. It's such a common theme amongst anything that's competitive. Fans just want a spectacle.
Same with comparing eras or transplating any basketball player from the era they played in to the modern era and vice versa. People don't actually argue about which era was the best or if any particular player from any era will fit in another. They just want to talk shit about the 80s, the 90s, the 2000s, or the modern era. They just want to talk shit about any player from any era. Like you said, in GOAT conversations they don't actually discuss who is the GOAT, they just really want to talk shit about Jordan, Kobe, or Lebron.
It is toxic, charismatic personalities driving all of the toxicity in that community. Shame their behavior instead of enabling with: silence, indifference, apathy, or joining in by getting swept up in the emotion. At the end of the day it’s still a video game. A form of digital entertainment. I’ve never found their nonsense entertaining. Boo their behavior out of existence.
Doesn't that mean that lower skill levels has a better chance to beat Tokido? And yet we haven't seen anyone besides Punk and MenaRD who gave Tokido a challenge. Do you not mean that the skill gap reduction helped Punk and MenaRD? Or are you just on a hate hence your favorite player isn't getting the spotlight like they used to in SF4?
It's not that. There can only be so many plays depends if the player has the skill level to execute it. The best is the best because he can make the play work because he has the speed, the read, the knowledge level to do so. Someone can think of a play but won't be able to do so because you're fighting another person, someone who can also adapt to the situation as you do. So it's up to the player to find a counter and execute it before the other does also.
I suck at most fighting games, which is why I play Smash, cause you can either have a serious match to see who's better or just turn items on and bask in the glorious chaos
@@ShinkuGouki I think they're crying about their years of experience on pressing right buttons in right order has become irrelevant. Now that sfv became easier to approach, people can actually win games by outsmarting their opponent.
@@berkecgl2823 I agree that they made SFV easier to learn for starters. I disagree that it's the first game in which you need to outsmart your opponent to win. Every SF game since the beginning has been that way. The pros simply hate that the game is more lenient with inputs and the skill gap has been reduced.
The thing that devs don't understand,.is that anybody can have fun with a high skill gap. All you need is two people of the same skill level. Competitive and casual are not mutually exclusive. Look at Melee. Two extreme ends of the spectrum are possible.
To be honest, in smash competitive and casual game play is very different, with one having items and resembling more like a party game, and the other actually being a competitive fighting game experience.
funny enough Gerald loves modern controls due to how well designed it is while still ensuring classic players feel valued due to being given more options and damage for their proficiency
Interesting note by Sakurai. He actually had the intention the entire time to make a game that was fun and less on the competitive side when making Smash. It’s the reason Brawl was so different. It was his choice. Nowadays Ultimate can be both, and it’s very great. I think games nowadays are actually starting to slowly find methods of appeasing both contestants and casuals.
The game obviously has flaws but the fact that they are trying is great. And some people love the game also, and good for them. If Smash 6 is ever released, I hope they can learn from some of their mistakes, and the better hardware should allow them to make better netcode.
Yeah it’s both easy to play, but really hard to go in depth and learn all the mechanics and basic fighting game knowledge, even though i watched core a gaming before i got smash, i played the newest 3 mortal kombat, mk9, mkx, and mk11... in mk9 i spammed the square button while playing. In mkx i think i tried to play a bunch of characters all the time, and in mk11 i olayed scorpion and maybe *a lot* more charachters, but my pattern was like this: ROUND 1: FIGHT start of round, i do a teleport Then use the offense meter to launch them in the air I back up, start to do some combo strings and repeat until i win all rounds
Let me continue Anyway when i got ultimate i watched a bunch of tutorials and watched who to “main” which i knew what it meant but didn’t pick one for mk11... I first picked marth but that didn’t work for me, then i chose cloud since i heard he was pretty easy and had a decently big hitbox and really good moves, not the best but pretty good. Then i was like “hmmm i like sword characters, i wanna go for a fire emblem character” and after playing lucina and robin and roy, i picked roy. Had a pretty fun time with him. But now i main mario too, but i want to just main two characters at maximum, so i’m still deciding but i’m not playing anymore since i’m playing tekken 7. *i play lee if anyone’s asking*
The pros are just crying because the thing they spent time learning has changed. There's more input leniency, yes but the skill has moved to reads and frame data.
Satsui Nohado thats not true. frame data is what the pros used for a long time. the pros and og players have mostly a problem with having to guess, 50\50s, input lag, easier combos, more forgiving input windows. its a fact that fighting games closed the skill gap. its not as much different skills, as less skill required. thats not an opinion of pros but literally how the design of the games have changed. best example is sf4 to sf5. combos and cancels that were insanely hard to pull off can be done by anyone who plays the game for a few months. reads and frame data were always a thing
@@yopeepthestyle8308 Reads and frame data have always been on the minds on pros,only now they have to rely more heavily on those,is what I meant. You can do a merengue beat to parry any combo and it works. The game has become too lenient with input to attract the biggest player-base possible.
Terrible example: Most people who climb Everest at this point use Sherpas and pay a shit ton of money. Routes are mapped and it’s generally safe. It’s exclusionary because of cost not because of difficulty. In fact your analogy advocates the opposite of what you intended. People literally have basically chopped the difficulty of climbing Everest. Since it’s basically pay to climb. I think there are lots of folks who have free climbed Yosemite who would disagree with your analogy.
Weirdly Smash 4, which is probably the most upset prone Smash game with Rage, 2 Stocks, and janky ass kills had one of the most dominant players in large competitive games.
4:20 this is actually a double-edged sword. Yes players might feel more skilled than they actually are by blaming their losses on RNG, but they might also feel frustrated for being 'robbed' of their victory by the same RNG
@@skyrichardson5737 no one is playing dnd to roll dice. the way you play dnd is by bringing characters together to play out a story. the rulebooks exist for disputes, and are by no means the essence of the game.
@@skyrichardson5737 agree with the above, dnd is at its best when used for open-ended storytelling with creative out-of-the-box funny roleplaying decisions. That way, weird dice rolls simply become prompts for equally unexpected story directions. Meanwhile, playing it as a "standard" combat game is kinda meh since it's overly complicated in that regard
Mike, what if EA and all other companies created their game with multiple skill level "modes". For example, make FUT how it in its current AI state as a "casual mode" and then also have the option for competitive or "hardcore mode" that is AI limited or minimized with non existent button delay? Where competitive game modes like FUT champs is auto defaulted to "hardcore mode". So If I want to play online seasons, I can choose "casual mode" or "hardcore mode" before entering a match? Essentially game companies can code "two modes" within the same game, catering to all communities, casual and competitive. This concept can be applied to all "competitive" esports games and hopefully increase skill gaps. Just my thoughts.
Me:man SFV is kinda hard to land combos Video: SFV lowered the skill gap Me : DAMNIT EDIT: I understand what you mean. After almost a year I was on and off sfv and now I find it incredibly easy compared to older games. But I see it as a way to bring in newer players to the scene.
This is why I find it hard to sympathize. These pro players are on a level most consider untouchable, lowering the skill gap (by lets be honest, not a significant amount, noobs suck at SFV as much as any other 2d fighter) is kind of necessary if they want any form of longevity. People have so many options today, that if a game is too much of a brick wall to get into, they'll play something else, so I find it completely reasonable to make combos more forgiving and easily performed, because skilled players know how to answer those things, noobs don't. At the end of the day, I see this as pros being whiny bitches that they have to worry about more competition that could unseat them at any time.
@@fuzzythoughts8020 they are angry because they train for months on and on, just to loose to someone who will stop playing the game after a month. so you calling them whiners realy shows what type of player you are.
@@paulovinasrocha6166 I just picked the game up and i'm pretty sure its gonna take more than a month or even a year for me to get even half decent at the game let alone stand a chance against a pro player. I've also been playing Quake since Quake 1 and even with the new character abilities in Quake Champions, i can easily beat a new/intermediate/advanced player who is using an S tier champion by muscle memory , better map knowledge and fundamentals while using an F tier champion. If they are really pro's then none of these should matter, they shouldn't be beaten by someone new or less experienced. SF V isn't a luck based game. So yes it does sound like whining or more specifically it sounds like gatekeeping. Is SF V dumbed down? I honestly don't know as this is my first fighting game and i am loving it. Even if they made the next one harder like the older iterations , i'd still pick it up because now i understand why fighting games are awesome.
@@Hwa-Jai sf5 is not a bad game. The problem people had with it in the early seaons is that the skill difference between starters and expert was almost non existance
I was about do comment on this league's preseason. pure dogshit I don't even know if they are following the rules explained on this video or they're just reta
riot has an absolutely retarded balancing ideology. Every character must have exactly 50% winrate, or they are not balanced. They have been making teh most random-ass idiotic changes from season 1
@ana I mean they do really care, even if i dont like this pre season.. League always changes after a year, to be honest i do like that. Oh and also dont forget that every year the viewer count jumps up insanly high
What fighting games really need are lower entry floors for the game. Add extremely informative tutorials and give the players combos so that they can understand the nuances. Then have a high skill ceiling alongside an extremely well-balanced game system. That way, nobody is left out. UNIST has to be one of the best examples of a game like this, I just can't stop playing it, and I'm not even great at fighting games. Same system of rewarding aggression while still having good defensive options, versatile characters, and comebacks are still a sight to see
Newer players don't like that. They don't want to learn, they wouldn't follow a tutorial. They want instant gratification. They want to feel badass, like they're master of the game as soon as they start playing. If they feel like they're not doing good from the beginning, they'll proceed to talk shit about the game, and will leave to the next thing that treats them as if they were a superior being. The problem isn't exactly on the developer side of the things, it's the consumer base. The devs only feel Inclined to se their souls and appeal to this crowd. And that's why the industry has a lot of problems nowadays: games are more expensive to make, people demand more realistic graphics, but they'll drip the game in a month or less, and sell them. Feeding this crowd is dangerous to the industry, but these companies apparently can't see it or they just don't care.
This is why I like smash. I can pick the game up as a new player, and learn the basic mechanics and get a feel for a lot of the characters in the single player modes and not feel like I'm putting an axe to a grinder, which is how most fighting games make me feel while playing the single player. But with smash, there are so many wacky, fun things to experience outside of competitive matches, which further excites me to play competitive, because I already cultivated interest and fun in the game. Fighting game developers really just need to get more creative with how they present challenges to players in single player. Its more fun and rewarding to go up against a giant, metal bowser, wielding a baseball bat on a moving stage than it is to fight a level 10 ai shao kahn that reads your inputs
What if you remove the need for a tutorial and combos? (mostly) well, you may still need tutorials, but then you get games like Smash, Fantasy Strike, Pocket Rumble, and Yomi. I think so many players don't realise how deep the skill well goes without complex execution, since they spend so much time grappling with and mastering execution that they don't have time to master greater things, like using intuition (for things like yomi--reading your opponent--and valuation) and time-slowing down ability (one of perhaps more phenomenon high level players report). Too bad people are sitting in training mode mastering a FADC combo, rather than reading life-enhancing material on psychology, mastery, intuition, and consciousness. Yes, all those subjects can make you a better player. Not without practice and game knowledge, but research shows deliberate application of research-based techniques can lead to faster learning, with better outcomes, than those who do things in a longer, harder, haphazard way. Want to learn a game 5x faster? I know I do! You won't read about this in many guides, or hear about it TH-cam essays, but it's what we _should_ be talking about. I'm really keen for games that facilitate that. Rather than hours in training mode, lest we wiff a special attack at a crucial moment and have our correct strategic thinking nullified by our inability to execute it. (Though we can still have execution heavy games, for those who want that.)
Skullgirls have one of the best tutorial i've ever seen in fighting games. It teaches basics along with more advanced techniques like Cancelling and Chaining
@@retrorami This sounds more self-reflective than anything else. A lot of guys with a couple decades of technical, competitive fighting game experience want to continue to curbstomp with each new generation of game. A big reason why I never got into arcade fighters, the guys who hung around never let you break in. Mechanical simpicity and technical depth make compelling gameplay, it's a good formula.
Don't feel bad Third Strike is probably the closest capcom ever got to creating the game that the competitive scene wanted and it almost killed the fighting game scene because the Skill Ceiling was too high. SFV was the right idea just in excess.
well other things were going on at the time. Came out of nowhere with little advirtising in a climate that was almost done with it. Honestly alpha was more of an anamoly.
George Oliver I couldn't agree more, George. I hated 3S at first because of the skill ceiling, but kept at it because my 2 best friends were so good and loved the game. Unfortunately, it kind of ruined other fighting games for me. When someone who has played Fighting games for years, and the current one since launch can be rocked by a brand new player just copying easymode combos the saw on YT, something is wrong. It's less of a fighting game, and more of just guessing. I hate to say it, because I love fighting games, and really want SFV to be great, but they just went WAY too far in the direction of friendliness to new players.
I've never been a big fighting game fan, but your videos are incredibly interesting. It's awesome to get a glimpse into the fighting game esports world and a little heart breaking that some devs are treating there community this way. Great video!
Jarory de Jesus no. Casuals give the most money. How do you think they gain esports partners? From having made money in the past. So you have to cater to your audience as a whole, which SFV got wrong anyway being so bare bones. If SFV:AE was the launch it would’ve had more acclaim. No matter what more skilled players say they can’t be beaten by a scrub like myself, not on their worst day and my best. They’re just being selfish, in terms of gameplay. Casuals don’t have the time or will or skill to improve and so making combos easier is a benefit. The combos aren’t as easy as skilled players make it seem. I can barely pull them off consistently and I’m the best out of my pool of friends. I’ll take the time out to learn some combos and I can come back to a game that I’m good at but most people can’t. Skilled players complain about SFV being too easy but for most it’s too hard. For me it’s perfect especially with the patch from a few months ago that adjust frame rates.
@@Kenyaschannel Or maybe they dont find it fun when they know they have more potential then they can use in the game. Its like being a soccerplayer waking up and then you can only dribble at your 12yo capacity. Because everyone should get a chance to win :D
want to genuinely thank you for this video, it's been incredibly useful in explaining this issue across genre boundaries. really impossible to say how much mileage i've gotten out of it since it came out
This video made me realize something. It's not that suddenly nowadays audiences want cheap spectacles. It's that a (relatively) large group do want that, enough people to make a profit off of, and it's WAY WAY EASIER for developers and movie makers and animators, you-name-it, to produce things for that group. And that's how you end up with this society where "nothing's as good as it used to be" and "the masses just mindlessly consume" are treated like laws of physics and it'd be stupid to expect anything different.
That's the problem. Everything is about profits now, there is no longer a loyalty to any of the previous consumers who brought these companies to where they're at. I used to be a die hard Street Fighter fan.......used to.
I disagree, it's way more complex than that. It's consumer driven culture which craves a spectacle, it's not "human nature" to "crave spectacles. Humans aren't driven to consumption either, since Native American culture exists, Environmentalists, etc. and their principle ideals don't/didn't focus on consumption. Many cultures and societies adopt environmental attitudes, and they in turn, don't care for spectacles. The spectacle is specifically a product of consumerism. That is because a consumption based culture can't have all consumers and no producers. There must be both. And since producers are often the ones rewarded in a consumerist based culture, they in turn receive the most wealth/status/power. And since consumers aren't producers, they in turn seek to look like a producer, they "fake it til they make it." This has happened here in gaming culture, as well as in music, business, politics, and many other areas of society, the spectacle is not isolated to video games. What is genius about this video is that it addresses the spectacle and the problem it creates in games, without going off topic like I did.
Spot on. The formula for a lot of entertainment appears to be (dumb plus pretty) equates to profit. Seeing as there's probably no other goal for developers to aim for, say "let's make games for gamers" because most probably their benefactors/investors/stakeholders will come down hard on them, fire them or whatever. Yes it's a dark future we live in, now.. Hopefully some new breed of developers (crowd funded devs?) will evolve that will then force a revolution from the lazy, yet pretty *.*, media we get.
I'm crap at street fighter but when I won sometimes it felt good, learning how to combo etc and then doing it so winning was more rewarding when it happened. Lowering better players to my crappy level punishes everyone because I'm not going to get better, it's just lowering the bar and that's not rewarding for anyone.
Dauragon Yae Galvus EXACTLY. I had some Asian friends that were hella good at SF and it helped me be a better player. Yeah I got my ass handed to me ssoooooooo many times but by the time I was done my combos and timing were surgical. I remember a few years after that I was playing at an arcade and this Asian dude put his quarters in (Marvel VS Capcom, the first one) and I beat him. My first time beating an Asian kid. He was good too, don't ask me why Asians are so good. Maybe just in my area? But it sure feels good to win against someone trying their best.
So once the meta rewraps itself around the new game design aim to get good in the new form of the meta playing against the new better players? Nani?...
Except people like you still aren't winning tournaments. Combos are easier. So what? There are a lot of nuances of the game that determine the winner. There's so much more to it than successfully executing combos.
WHY THE FUCK ISNT: MARVEL SUPER HEROES MARVEL SUPER HEROES VS STREET FIGHTER XMEN VS STREET FIGHTE MARVEL VS CAPCOM MARVEL VS CAPCOM 2 MARVEP VS CAPCOM 3 ON THE PS STORE?!?!?!?! WITH ONLINE CAPABILITY?!?!?!?!
I actually found it difficult to do combos in SFV because of how easy it was. I was coming from doing 1 frame combos and plinking from sf4. I was doing inputs too quickly in V. xD
@@alfredopasta3784 it feels like old cent from for honor interms of waiting time once you got hit you could go for a quick sip of a drink bc it took so long for the combo to finish
It'd be wonderful if Sakurai could patch in some technical depth to Ultimate... Wavedashing/landing would be easy since it's already there and it really isn't difficult to execute... Not saying it needs to be Melee 2.0, because trust me we don't need things like L-canceling and wobbling, but some technical depth would be nice.
Wombo Combo is definitely an example of one of these events in fighting games. "I think we're all a little hard right now" is probably the best quote to explain that feeling. Everyone who knows the game is having a stroke from what they just witnessed, and everyone that doesn't know will just get sucked into it. I used to play a fan made smash with other people at lunchtime in the library. I'm not going to sugar coat it, I absolutely sucked. I spent time learning it and I still sucked, but I loved it and played it everyday. Even with my very basic knowledge, I was still in the group screaming our hearts out when someone managed to predict twice perfectly and then land a five hit air combo. There weren't any stakes, we were just playing. There was still the genuine hype, and that's what you lose when you water down these games. I'm more of a fps player myself, but I've basically fallen out of the game because all the new stuff just gets worse and worse. I'm currently sitting here playing single player survival games most of the time.
@@jalene150 If I'm being honest, the new stuff isn't that bad. Brigg was a monster that, single-handed, brought the most cancerous meta into existence, but everything else has been fine. I quit playing because they won't increase the content pipe even though they've stated multiple times they KNOW more heroes will "fix" many of the balancing issues they face... And also because of those balance issues existing for months at a time. It was not fun playing dive for nearly 3 months. It was not fun being forced to have specific supports or lose. It was not fun to lose just because I like to play Hog. The game has been extremely unbalanced. And that drove me away from the game. Oh, and Lunar *fucking* Colony.
I agree, I used to be bad at SF but it did not stop me from playing and enjoying it and when I improved my game, it felt much more rewarding being able to pull harder combos because of my perseverance and not because the game was holding my hand.
Idk why they add input lag, it only favors the most casual , who will drop the game after a week and never touch it again. It pissss off everyone else, no matter the skill level
Input lag is the result of rendering and graphics. Essentially other parts of the game have to buffer before reading your input. It's the result of either poor hardware or poor optimization. It's something that can definitely be fixed with patches but not without sacrifices on many different aspects of the game.
Wait..they ADDED the input lag? I thought it was shitty programming or something along those lines. Holy fluck, Crapcom like sucking casuals dicks, don't they?
i like how for Granblue Fantasy Versus, they made it more noob friendly by having simple & complex inputs for the same move.... the only thing is using the simplified input does significantly less damage than using the complex version
I really want a follow-up of this video, “the advantages of reducing the skill floor” and maybe even “the consequences of heightening the skill ceiling”
It's been done. I forget the name of the video. But it's much harder to make a game too difficult was the conclusion I gathered. For the most part games that were made to be intentionally too difficult or even "impossible" have been systematically broken while games that are too easy are just forgotten
A consequence of increasing the difficulty too much, would be something like a technique that's completely neccesary, and if you don't do it or you can't, you are at automatic disadvantage, for example, L-canceling in melee, the problem is that L-canceling also hinders the players becoise there were cases in wich the player got his hand hurt becouse of L-cancel. Another example would be 1 frame links, combos, etc, they are nice to have if they are your optimal route, but only if it's not completely neccesary in order to play your character.
Dude, your videos are some of the best I've seen on youtube period. LIke honestly if I could point someone to videos that are always consistently out-of-the park amazing I'd point them to the core-a analysis playlist. I know that the time between these videos is somewhat a part of why they're amazing, and that maybe forcing yourself to come up with a topic to analyze on a schedule might decrease the overall quality of the videos, and that you have a day job, but holy shit a more frequent upload schedule would be amazing. edit: I'd like to add that I don't even play street fighter, I play Melee. But the concepts are explained in such a way that I can apply them to my game of preference, and that the way you explain them makes them understandable to any person that plays a fighting game (I can't speak to people who know less than me, but I think they'd get it too). If I ever start taking the analyses I make for melee and put them in video form, I hope the stuff I make is at least half as good as yours.
Yeah such skills more like its just chore to understand few things that it feels hard when you start. Its damn fighter game, most casual of casuals genre.
I'm all for games being more accessible in the sense that they have a breadth of tutorial options and lots of content to keep players occupied. I also like all frame data and hitboxes being available in the game. The game could have a variety of features to track progress and grow their base in that manner. I think the emphasis on single player is especially important and we see that with Netherrealm fighters. Their games are huge on casual appeal. The problem I have is with the dumbing down of the mechanics. I like the idea of "easy to play and hard to master" but not to the extent where you can simply beat a vastly more skilled opponent with dumb luck. Why do people need to play others way out of their league and win easily? Isn't that what ranks are for? Just play your own skill level. I think adding in low risk, high reward, an low execution nonsense just worsens the game in the long run. Stuff like fishing for crush coutners in SFV with the dumbed down defensive options and the 50/50 play-style really just hurt the competitive nature in the long run. It leads to a repetitive and dull game. Furthermore the cast just feels very homogenized and too similar. Now the top tier characters this season are just "party time" characters with even more randomness being rewarded. I see more and more games going down this route and it's disturbing to me. I've talked about this thoroughly on my own channel. Take away the convoluted stuff and balance the game, but please don't just dumb down mechanics randomly and then say it's more "accessible". It's awful.
That reminds me.. When I first played SF4 last year I felt like there was even less explanation than in Tekken on my PS2 8 years prior.. That's the real problem I think! I met a girl in Japan and we went to play SF4 on an arcade and she ripped me apart at first, then I saw the combo lists and tiers printed on the damn machine and I could at least stand my ground, when I later played it on console the information was extremely limited I WANTED to learn to play the game rather than mashing buttons but the game is missing the instructions to get the basics down (Tekken on PS2 did that right and even had videos to show you how it's supposed to look like) We need hard, unforgiving games that require a high skill to be consistently good in But we also need to respect player intelligence and plant the seed of achievement by educating them rather than give them a skill boost!
I can't believe they had tier lists on the machines as well! That's pretty crazy. The whole scene in Japan just seems so much more fun. I mean after a while the games get so dull because there's nothing more to see. I wonder what Capcom will do with S3 of SFV. Hopefully they fix a lot of the "derp".
Yeah but the trend BEFORE this one was to make fighting games as convoluted as possible. Which is kind of why things ended up this way, because when a player is expected to input 16 directional inputs then clearly the game subsists more on keeping players down then it does trying to harbor skilled players.
Which games do you feel were convoluted? I always felt that fighting games were challenging and rewarded you for putting in effort. This is a good thing as long as there is a balance in risk/reward. Dumbing things down doesn't make the game better. Even in earlier games you could pick easier characters as well that didn't have so many inputs. You had a few exceptions like Geese's raising storm and such but you didn't have to pick those characters or just practice. The games were dumbed down to appeal to a larger and more casual audience. It's not just in this genre either. Many games have regenerating health and infinite lives and a rewind feature. I can't blame gaming companies for wanting to make money but I just wish every game wasn't this way.
I recently have a large problem with Nioh, a souls-like game. I LOVE the game and its mechanics, I love playing through levels, getting killed by not paying attention or walking into traps I spend HOURS playing through levels and it's really great. But the bosses are absolutely no fun for me AT ALL!! They are so ridiculously hard, it took me 20h to beat the first boss and even then I only won because I summoned an online player to help me while I was hiding from onehit-combos. The next bosses were reasonably hard but it's like as soon as a boss battle begins I stop having fun because I know I will die and drop my stuff in the battle area anyways So it's a weird case for me.. I love the game levels and have a balanced risk/reward while progressing but the bosses are when I lose immersion and wonder why I'm wasting my time with this game. So for me there's three types of progression types: Type 1 is based on levels and grinding with minimal skill = e.g. Final Fantasy, Borderlands Type 2 is striking the middle ground of using skill/adaptation and levels as a slight push to speed things up IF you know what you're doing = e.g. all Piranha Bytes games (Gothic, Risen, ELEX) Type 3 is based on skill with tiny involvement of levels = e.g. Dark Souls, Nioh I love Type 2 the most because it gets increasingly harder as in Final Fantasy but if you're skilled then you won't even notice the opposing level advantage (e.g. in Gothic 1+2 you can beat any enemy (flat damage and health throughout the game) without taking damage if you're skilled) I'd place Fighting games in between Type 2 and Type 3 The beauty of them are that the skill factor is broken up into multiple parts like ( myChar vs xChar ) and there's no 100% skilled player with and against every character in any VS game (except there's only one character obviously) But the developers/publishers have to realize that this 'breaking skill into multiple VS scenarios' is all they need to introduce new players Give players the counter character to a given opponent to show them the game, not by RNG or skill boosts, counters are natural, boosts are not That also applies to my Nioh problem. In my opinion they didn't need the bosses in the game to make it more interesting, the level designs and mission are all I would've needed (Of course there are people who play it for the bosses but that's the equivalent to pro's switching from one competitive game to another)
But, I think that you're in the minority these days. I can't speak for Street fighter these days, but I enjoy the Monster Hunter series and the games prior to monster hunter world were frickin tough! You had to have skill. With World... really no skill required. Capcom streamlined it enough to cater to a larger audience, which meant more revenue for Capcom. I hear what you and those competitive players are complaining about, but at the end of the day, Capcom isn't in the business to make video games...they're in the business to make money. Period. If a change to the formula gets more people buying their product, they'll do it. Like with Monster Hunter world selling out... Capcom made a crap ton of money on the game. That's good for them and that's what they're looking out for. It does you no good to build something that only a small portion of the population will want, you're likely to go out of business much sooner than later. That said, I agree with you on it in theory...but, I was never really good at street fighter 2, which is where I started in the video arcades, and I don't really play them much cause of that. They can be hard as all get out. But, my preferred game is Monster Hunter, if that wasn't obvious, and I lament the shift to heavily monetizing the franchise. It sucks, but it happens...maybe they'll make a version calked SF6: pro or something. Meant for the big kids that want a challenge and then the party game version for the spectators. 🤷🏻♂️ Unlikely, though...
@@xavibun Agreed. I, too, would rather have a match be decided by whatever skill I might possess rather than some random roll of the dice. Then we're gambling and not gaming. On a side note, based on this video it appears that Super Smash Bros Ultimate and its ilk are all "party games" and have that as the basis for their play. That makes sense when I think about it: there are far too many random things that can crop up to either kill you or the other player/AI. Kind of disappointing really, but I kind of fall in the middle of the spectrum: I like the casual aspect to the game, but there's a part of me that definitely enjoys the competitive aspect. In the case of SFV, it would be nice if they had an option for both groups. It would make both parties happy without completely alienating one or the other. But, that may just be wishful thinking...
@@citeltheof the first Marvel vs Capcom had exactly that, when you choose your character you had to choose "easy" or "normal" playing, the "easy" had some automatic combos and was really easier to use a special attack, while the "normal" don't had the automatic combos, I don't remember if that put this on other games to be honest.
Inb4: “why do you hate that the game is more accessible?” “I love that I don’t have to learn how this game has worked for literally decades to play it.” “You’re just mad because you’re bad at the game.”
About SF5, I'm an oldschool SF player, that is I played SF2 Championship Edition, Street Fighter Alpha, Alpha 2 and Alpha 3, but missed the later games.. I tried out SF5 in the online beta a few months back, this explains a lot of what I saw, essentially it felt super easy to pull off moves but I didn't really look more into it, or think anything of it. In Street Fighter on the Mega Drive/Saturn/Dreamcast (which is where I've played, up to this year) I always got my ass handed to me, I'm not good at the game, all my buddies usually kick my ass... But in SF5 online beta I was crushing souls quite handedly and actually I beat almost everyone I played for like 3 hours straight, I guess it wasn't just my imagination that the game was easier. From a casual point of view I actually had a blast (who doesn't enjoy feeling like you just became a pro), but I am also not someone who bought the game, It's terrible of them to make a game to feed my ego by removing the difficulty, at the expense of the guys who are super invested and who are going to spend the most time with the game. I prefer Street Fighter Alpha 1/2/3 anyway, they're what I tend to go back to when I want a blast of SF.
Yeah, where are the days where it took 16 directional inputs to pull off a move? Or where you actually had to use the pause button? It is kind of the fact that Fighting games have been incredibly antagonistic towards the player that caused this trend.
100% agree. I've never been 'great' at SF2 (I always played as Blanka on SF:SCE, so that should give you an idea how 'not-great' I am) but jumping on to a friend's SF5 made me feel like a god with Ryu. I knew they'd made it easier but I was genuinely shocked how forgiving inputs were. It just wasn't satisfying. I went home and played the MD version again and actually felt like each special move was earned and as a result, when I pulled off a well timed counter attack, it was very satisfying even against the computer. Still ultimately got my ass kicked though. XD
I can imagine like 1000 years ago two chess players were playing and they were in a like medival bar, and one was like “play for a beer?” And the other guy was like “sure. But we have to get rid of the dice” and they sat for a moment and figured it out and then played. And as they were playing people gathered around and this new way became super successful. And when asked by someone their answer is “we were playing for a beer. Getting a beer should not rely on dice rolls, only skill” Edit: spelling
@@epekka en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess Basically you roll two dice and those are the valid piece types you can move. Rol a knight and a rook, and your move MUST be one of those two. If you can't then you must pass the turn. Doubles are wild, letting you play any piece. It was a legit variant 6-900 years ago.
@Igor Miranda uh i feel like that’s for strategy-specific things, and psychological torment on the black player because *they’re playing black “oh god sHut iT dOwn gG yOu wiN I dOn’T wAn’T tO pLay bLaCk bYe”* (this is coming from a casual chess player so i’m not very cultured in chess”
Most underrated joke in this video is "I would never want one-button shoryukens in Street Fighter," followed by Ed popping up and saying "how bout 2 buttons?"
I think Tekken 7 tried to do this with the stupid Rage Arts. About to lose the round? No problem! Just push R1 and hope your opponent isn't blocking or going for a low hit at the same time!!
Because then people will complain that the other guy was able to hit it faster than they did...so then that'll need to be nerf'ed too. The nerf will be...they both win.
NOT TRUE! Competative interests while often are at odds with casual experiences, the notion that casual experience getting more money has been dissproven. there have been thousands of examples of this being wrong. The first and foremost would be Dark SOuls who's entire demograph, money, and fame HAS been it's difficulty and high level of competition. While casual games are far more likely to become popular, it's not because they're casual. The core isn't 'casual or competative' but more... 'what is our game'. When someone tries to change the game, that's when people get upset.
Aickavon the Techpriest case and point destiny 2, destiny fans were bumbed out when it had fixed rolls, 4v4, and easier ways to get to max power level and a few other changes is why destiny 2 is slowly losing its playerbase.
Honestly your argument falls very short when you have to realize the main key missing factor. Marketting. First I'll explain to you that comparing Dark Souls to Skyrim is rather dumb, as Skyrim was an insanely popular game that hit the mainstream audience while keeping (most of it's fanbase) appeased, it was an ESTABLISHED title where as Dark Souls only had one predecessor to it's name. Demon Souls. Which did not sell well in America at all. A lot of people who casually play dark souls (quite an oxymoron, I know) had not even heard of Demon Souls. Demon Souls sold around 1.7 million copies where as Dark Souls sold around 2.3 Million copies. Where as Dark Souls 3 sold 3 million copies within the first two months. As you can see, while their formula hasn't changed much, their sales have drastically increased as it became more and more popular. And you know why? Marketting.With each and more successful game, the company's funds for creating a new one as well as marketting begins to expand. We see that in Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. In fact, the trend begins before even those games, with Arena and Daggerfall. Arena being a fresh game that's jerky, wonky, but fun. Daggerfall expanding on that, and then we move to Morrowind where as their previous successes begins to manifest in some actual marketting. I don't believe they had any commercials but you bet they were wracking in game of the years from every journalist they could find (back when journalists were listened to in video games). It attracted people's attention and they began to play the game. When oblivion came out, the new graphics, facial animations, and of course rpg style had everyone intrigued, and while many now-a-days complain about the simplification if the combat style, it was far more reactive than in Morrowind. But Marketting was STILL the key factor. With Voice talent like Sean Bean and Patrick Stewart as well as it's previous success with actual commercials now (yes, real commercials). Those casual console players finally gained mainstream wind of the game. And what about Skyrim? Well, with fans already established in Morrowind and Oblivion, unless it collossully sucked, it could physically not fail. And it didn't suck, it was amazing. While many people cried about the simplification of the game as well, the marketting was badass and it was just complex enough to not throw people away, where as Bethesda did the greatest thing they could. Make SKyrim Mod Friendly. THat's why Bethesda was so eager for playstation to allow modding, it grabs MORE interested parties. It lets people shape the game to their design whether it's more difficult or more easy. And add their own content. Skyrim's success can NOT be attributed to 'it's more casual', where as thousands of hundreds of other factors are in play to the point where casualization just can't be considered a serious factor. While Casualization can help achieve great initial sales, it can also KILL game sales as well. Call of Duty finally hit that 'critical peak' where the sales of Infinite warfare were abyssmal to their expectations. Which is such a shame because they tried something different with their campaign for once.
I will add to my initial point. IF Dark souls was a MORE Casual game, like Skyrim. It would A) Be competeing with skyrim's ALREADY established success, and B) No one would care to buy it outside of a niche population. A PRIME example of this was Dragon's Dogma, which was considered to be Skyrim's competitor at the time (despite them being VASTLY different, they were both still rpg experiences on the casual side). Dragon's Dogma, with no initial releases backing up it's reputation and marketting, basically became a cult classic but not gaining any real popularity in americas, so much that Japan basically has Dragon's Dogma Online while America gets fuck all. Because why would they even bother trying to compete with ESO, or any of their other competition.
If you'd like to see what happens when you create a balanced, competitive fighting game, look at Virtua Fighter, IMO, the best fighter of all time, and I've been playing since SF2 first showed up at my local movie theatre and I had to stand on a crate. I would also like to point out that at it's core, SF is a zoning game. That's why in Season 1, many of the dominate characters were zoners; Ryu, Chun, Charlie.... But the dichotomy of zoning vs rushdown is what makes it exciting. I can hit you with 6 fireballs and make you block 15 more, but if you get in once, I might die unless I make a good read or take a risk. That's how it should be. It isn't boring, it is building tension, like Hitchcock. Or like soccer or hockey; low scoring, high defense, but the every scoring chance, sometimes every shot, becomes super exciting. On the other hand, basketball is only exciting to most people near the end of a close game, or if there is an amazing display of skill, talent or style. And in both basketball and football, they have changed the rules to be geared toward offense, and we see the same thing there. Comebacks are normal. John Elway became a legend for his "2:00 drill". Now everyone does it.
Rewatching the video, to me, the last part about communication between developers and players really resonates with strive's developer blogs and surveys, I hope this becomes a trend and healthy communication between boths sides helps in the development of better games
I see it as merely a balance that needs to be struck, as far as execution goes. I totally get the idea of making the game more "convenient" to play, which is absolutely NOT that same thing as making it "easier" to win. It comes down to the question, "What is the appeal of this game, or what is this game testing?" Giving the inputs a wider window is great on paper, because it makes the game more convenient to play, and potentially makes the REAL meat of the game (the appeal, the test) even greater, because more players can discover it, and it can be experienced and even evolved via metagame, more easily. However, there reaches a point when it's too much. The example shown in this video was perfect. The parry in SFV was nowhere near as impressive as the Diego - er, Daigo Parry. But, just because something is impressive, doesn't mean it's necessarily good, or entertaining, or even intentional, in abstract. (Of course the Daigo Parry WAS all of those.) Which brings us back to the question of WHAT exactly is this game's appeal, or test? WHAT are we trying to glean entertainment from, exactly? This is why some games lower the execution requirement; many fighting games are made with mindgames and strategic elements, reaction times and out-predicting your opponent, in mind. The execution requirements are partially a mere by-product of the control scheme, and perhaps even a relic of an archaic system, depending on the point of view. Look at RPGs; it can be maddening to play RPGs made before the 2000s or even 2010s, because the UI and control setups have recently become much more user-friendly and refined. Increasing the input window in SFV is an attempt at this. That's not to say it is a flawless attempt; as this video shows, there are people who DO enjoy the stricter execution requirements of games like 3rd Strike. This could simply be a matter of taste, or simply because they are the "legacy players" this video talks about, who have already built legacy skill in these execution requirements, and lowering that barrier feels like wasted time and effort. Either way, it is risky to do so, because of these very players. Here is the clincher though: if lowering this barrier actually INCREASES the appeal or test of the game in other aspects (reaction times, predictions, strategy), then this could very much be seen as a good thing. If it doesn't contribute to that, then what does it contribute? More accessibility, which can be great, but does it work AGAINST the competitive depth? Does it make a less deep game? See, the Daigo Parry tested character knowledge, reaction times, and timing. Those are all GREAT things for a fighting game to test. With a wide window as in SFV, however, that test is gone... but is there something to replace that depth? Does Ryu's parry require a resource? Does it leave him potentially vulnerable in other ways? Or does it flat out reduce depth? If so, then that design is a little pointless. As this video explains, accessibility can reach a point where eventually, it means nothing. There must be some element that the game can draw its appeal from. In fighting games, this is generally a test of skill between two people at a time. The test is, in particular, reflexes, system/character knowledge, and mental games to guide strategic choices. This is awesome. There is also often dexterity requirements, which in abstract, do NOT contribute to those other factors. Of course devs, and players who have a hard time adjusting, may want the dexterity requirements reduced. There will always be the old guard who doesn't like that, either out of tradition, pride, or simply individual taste, but many players may welcome this change, as it allows less work to get to the "good stuff". But what about the Daigo Parry? As the video mentions, the Daigo Parry would not be interesting with a much wider input window. There is a balance to be struck. Perhaps the window could still be slightly wider, and still be jaw-dropping. But not AS jaw-dropping. But the Parry was balanced around the fact that it left you vulnerable, AND required timing. A parry on it's own is actually super simple to EXECUTE, but not necessarily UTILIZE, due to the timing. All you have to do is press forward. See, it was a raw display of SKILL, not COMPLEXITY. It required practice in game knowledge and timing in order to UTILIZE the parry as Daigo did, but it wasn't work to simply UNDERSTAND or EXECUTE the parry. That is the key difference that puts a spotlight on the types of appeal these games can have. It comes down to "fun", which of course is partially subjective, but we all know you can't please everybody anyway (especially when comparing new players to preexisting fans). The high execution requirements may create amazing moments, but a lower barrier to entry could potentially create EVEN MORE because of the increased accessibility (thus, ideally, increasing the player base, and thus more games played), and because the game more efficiently tests the more interesting aspects of the game besides mere physical dexterity, which is often seen as just a by-product of the game's design. Case in point, accessibility is good, depth is good, design your game to have the best possible balance between the two. Recognize what makes your game actually fun, and make use of it without adding unnecessary un-fun stuff. Sometimes execution requirements increase the depth and appeal of a game, because it increases the required strategy. Sometimes it goes overboard, and adds unnecessary barriers without adding extra strategy (diminishing returns). Sometimes the requirement is too loose, resulting in a game with no depth because it doesn't incentivize strategy. This balance is harder to strike when dealing with multiple target audiences (new players, spectators, preexisting fans, competitive players). That only took a half hour. XD XD
You hit upon a lot of the points I think and talk about whenever people discuss barriers of entries and depth vs. complexity. The example I like to use is to take Tic Tac Toe and add the rule that in order to make a move you also have to memorize and recite some X digits of pi or else you lose your move. Is this game more skill testing? Yes. Will we see a greater divide in the skilled and unskilled? Yes. But will this make Tic Tac Toe a deeper game? I'd say its a pretty definitive no, and I use this example when talking about making conscious design decisions on what skills you want to test in your game and lowering the barrier of entry for everything else.
About the 9th paragraph... a DP motion -or any other motion for that matter- isn't necessarily hard to understand (unless it's *the pretzel*)... to execute... maybe; depends on the game and situation. I also disagree with the notion that lowering the execution requirements would create more hype moments; they'd become common and you'd see them every other day... so you'd get more moments in terms of quantity but they wouldn't be hype. As for hype moments created by the nuance of say, a 5 second staredown or some very good movement used to whiff punish or awareness to bait a reversal, etc., those will still be lost to casual players regardless of if the execution in the game is easy or hard. I personally am a fan of "only 236, 214 and 22 inputs" design, but I feel moves have to be balanced in a different way. DPs in DBFZ feel kind of unfair for only some characters to have because they aren't hard to pull off and have full invincibility just like a regular 623 motion but don't even leave you as open if you're blocking, which means a lot of players will take issue with not having an invulnerable move themselves. As for what you asked about Ryu's parry in SFV: no, V-skills don't require any kind of resource, but I'm also not familiar enough with the game yet to know if he gets as big of a reward afterwards... which you could see as a problem itself in more of an "I can do this now that it's easier but it isn't worth doing" kind of way. I like picturing the issue with FG execution in basketball terms: Imagine making the basket 2 meters in diameter; sure, even noobs would be able to get theoretical 5-point "other side of the court" shots in even against a pro since just by the rules' nature they will get their hands on the ball, but winning against a pro wouldn't mean much if anything in that situation, would make the pro feel bad and anyone with more context about the game than "this is a pro vs a noob and the noob is doing well" would find it boring to watch too. People don't seem to have much issue with the concept of a headshot being an instant kill but also hard to pull off in a shooter game so I find it kind of a double standard to say fighting games need to be more "accessible" than they are; if anyone said "the head hurtbox should be 3 times as big as it is now" they'd be laughed at, but "I should be able to do my fully invulnerable reversal move with the press of a button and no drawbacks" for some reason is seen as reasonable, common sense and something to be catered to. I'm not saying we should make it so that every move has to be input frame-perfectly but the way modern fighters handle inputs should already be considered "accessible" enough. Just my 2 cents.
@TheGOAT-hj6slYeah dude they're "shilling" by willingly paying money to sign up for a tournament. You've cracked the code and definitely don't sound like an insane retard
@@sepg5084 most pros have very rigid strategies in StarCraft2 (time practiced) and there are multiple examples of pros being patched out. But to the videos point starcraft1 has little to no commercial viability, but then again maybe it would if devs just stopped and players couldn't expect COD44: Modern Warfair 2036.
Arena FPS didn't become casual. They just... stopped making games. UT4 getting cancelled because of Fortnite's success was the final nail in the coffin for the genre.
Suigintou101 I second this. Especially with Injustice 2. No zoning in SFV. I've played games of melee with friends and I have a style based more on traditional fighters where I weave on to be honest sometimes run away to make space and poke people out. And friends have a joke about me playing "lame" or "campy." TL DR- That sounds like a very interesting video topic
Smash Ultimate is my example of a game that tried to be developed for *both* types of players at the same time. Sakurai and his team have never cared as much for what the competitive community thinks, to the point that they invited a selection of top level players from all past smash games to E3 and gave them the game to test it, give feedback and play it as a tournament on E3, even before the organizers of the event themselves knew about the reveal. Now we have an online ranked mode, hazardless stages, precise and new mechanics, offensive and defensive ones, and a really balanced cast with only further patches to ensure that it stays that way - for the competitive community. But we still have gimmicky characters, easy to understand movement, a fun and huge pool of stages, items, spirits, a story mode and many bonus modes - for the casual community. The thing about smash is that you can perform the same movement options as a casual and competitive player, but depending on how good you are at executing them they can be incredibly advanced. Not to forget the invisible, theoretical stuff the Casuals don't know about, like DI or move staling. Given, some options, like the ranked mode or the limited possibilities for online tournaments (because you can only play Tourney Mode locally) are not perfect [yet]. But the general direction the game is taking and things Sakurai explained in interviews give me great hope that Smash Ultimate will only go uphill from here.
Yeah they listened alright, online is complete ass, the buffer combined with the input lag is horrendous at times, you can't switch characters in a set any more without having to completely leave, gsp is a joke, some stages that are TOURNAMENT LEGAL are jank as fuck. They really listened to their input.
yeah but tbf nintendo has always had shitty online servers and the game plays a million times better offline which is where local matches and tourneys are held
Its kind of funny how many parallels smash ultimate has to street fighter v. Both have extremely leniant buffering, both have weakened defensive options in order to encourage offensive play.
As long as the competitive community is unable to financially sustain a game with their sole purchases, the devs will keep catering the games to casual audiences, simple as that.
HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. ohohoh, the capitalism sucks card has been played, no dude actually don’t, I mean you can blame the capitalism but that’s like get angry about the rain, i mean you can, but that doesn’t mean you will get something from there, and yeah if you wish fighting games being like chess why you don’t just play the ones from the 90s, they haven’t changed, like the chess in more than 100 years, and basketball has actually changed just you’re too ignorant to know it, (also the chess too but just a little)
HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. also if were like want, the fighting game would look like in the 90s and like the chess they just would be enjoyable to a niche group, you just want to feel special like a damn teenager
HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. and I told you more things than your criticizes on the capitalism, also dude that the mechanics get simpler doesn’t mean it’s the competitive is easier just that the competition get though, you and all the special snowflakes in this community are crying because you can’t adapt
SFV was financially unsuccessful, what you're saying is nonsense. Casuals don't care how high the skill ceiling is and are not going to compete, if casuals are just mashing buttons there's already purely luck implemented in their game, they didn't need to choose, that's dumbest part of capcom's decision to make the game like it is.
jesot He was doing it on purpose to show that higherups have no idea who Daigo is and likely would pronounce it wrong. He pronounces his name correctly at the start of the video.
They removed L-cancelling (cancelling landing lag frames from aerial moves when they are used while falling on the ground; it is a technique that has existed since the very first iteration of Smash, Smash 64), and they added random tripping elements to character dashes, along with removal of other movement options. If this does not sound like a disaster to a platform fighting game, you might wanna get your brain checked out. Oh btw, Sm4sh is also veeeeery guilty of this sin.
Meta Knight being top tier wasn't the reason why brawl was a turn off for melee players. Fox is much more "broken" than Meta Knight but it is safe to say that many people love the character. In fact, Meta Knight was the only character that actually felt like a melee character. Furthermore, Core-A-Gaming himself even discusses in his video: "Why We Should Buff More Than Nerf", a broken game doesn't equate to a less competitive game, in fact the most balanced, "honest" fighting games are the ones that ultimately lack competitive depth and enjoyment. Everything else you said about Brawl is correct.
Yeah and lets not forget about the DUMBASS tripping mechanic that punishes you for moving quicker than intended like the fuck?! How much time did they waste writing up a trip mechanic for each character then animating every character tripping in multiple directions.
It's crazy how you covered the topic about "Sameness" in a older video. An also covered about how a game should be "fair", using Harrison Bergeron as a example. Then you make this video talking about how a game is closing the Gap, and making it really even almost for everyone. Its crazy how it starts to be a problem for no one can be special in their own way, and literally summaries about how "fairness" can be a problem, if everyone's mostly the "same". Great video, even though this comments on a 3 yr old video I still love it
They made a game for the casual fans, but didn't include the bells and whistles casual players want, thus alienating both the casual and competitive crowds. "Is it that not worth it to make a game enjoyable for its most dedicated players?" Gerald 4 Pres
If I could upvote you twice :( Looking at Injustice 2 and MKXL, wtf is Capcom thinking? Still no Arcade mode, bad netcode. Taking more than a year to punish rage quitters...Like wtf???
Not so much the "bells and whistles" but the actual content in the game. From what I heard, Street Fighter 5 still screams "DLC" and "microtransaction". From what I hear, fighting games like KOF 14 has successfully avoided that trap and delivered a great game for all fans.
Fatlord27 many games that are designed to be an esport from the ground up have this problem where competitve fans and players arent happy but you really didnt make the game good for casuals either. If i want to play a casual fighting im gona play injustice if i want a competitive one im going to play guilty gear. Street fighter 5 tries to apeal to all but misses most instead.
4:43 interestingly, one of the chess world champions proposed to add random setup to _increase_ the skill factor, by forcing players to improvise rather than rely on memorized openings
Well, I feel like that's a bit different in something like high level chess where memorization is the primary skill at work. You don't need reflexes, or instant reactivity in chess, even with turn timers you're given time to think, and so if something you aren't prepared for happens you always have time to react and adapt, and generally speaking who wins often comes down to a question of "who's memorized more counters." In a fighting game it doesn't matter how much you know theoretically, I could spend hundreds of hours reading guides, watching play and so on, memorizing all the ideal moves to make in any given moment, and it wouldn't matter in the slightest if I didn't also have the reflexes to pull those moves off, the practice needed to consistently hit unforgiving, possibly frame perfect combos, and enough muscle memory to pull off those ideal moves on instinct rather than have to remember them first. Even in high level chess you have the luxury of taking a moment to remember the move you need to make, but that's not the case in fighting games, which means something random happening is much more likely to be the single deciding factor of a match. Honestly, I'd go so far as to say that without randomization of any kind chess isn't even a game of skill in the first place: its a game of knowledge.
@@Gir558 if that was the case, chess would have been "solved", like checkers have been. that's why professional checkers matches are played today in 10x10 or even 12x12 boards instead of the 8x8, because there is a sequence that guarantees a draw or win if the player memorizes it. and so far, no engine could even come close to solve chess, wich proves you wrong. yes, memorization is VERY important in chess, but to an extent. if you are competing, memory will only get you so far. eventually, even if you have the most prodigious memory ever known to humanity, you'll still have to face the elite of the elite, with similar memorization skills and inhuman intelligence to back it. if that wasn't the case, players would stick to the same openings always, there would be no benefit in learning other ways to play as memorization is the only skill required.
@@gustavogoesgomes1863 and the only reason memorization became so important in chess was because engines could accurately calculate correct answers add infinitum, before that you had opening theory yes but nowadays there is more knowledge available than ever before because of chess engines but still it requires players to be able to find their own solutions since you cant possibly memorize every possible board state in chess
@@healerman45 they added flash moves like rage art which a cinematic super that can be blocked and countered and punished but it can amazing when it lands on the opponent and rage drive that are fast moves which can extend or start a combo or pressure the opponent but can be avoided anyways look for rage arts and rage drives and you would find a lot of cool stuff and actually the pro players like this as well as it made new gameplans possible while maintaining the core of tekken
Tekken (and most 3d fighters) always had a lower entry level but stupid high skill ceiling. Characters can do a lot more with mashing compared to 2D fighters, im not bashing 3D fighters (3D fighters was my gateway drug into the FGC)
There are a few flaws in this video. One big example is near the end, when the video suggests companies should listen to players during development. On paper that idea sounds great, but it offers no plan on implementation, which is where this approach tends to fall apart. Design by committee, much more design by popular opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Opinions, desires, skills, and the rest all vary so greatly that feedback will be a mess of contradictions. Following majority rule will likely result in a less than stellar game that nearly everyone will find some spot of frustration within. Not following majority rule means that the devs are picking and choosing which people to listen to, and... Picking and choosing which people to listen to begs the question of which people should be listened to. How do you determine which players have advice worth taking? Remember that all players are going to have their own biases and interests, which might not align with what is best for the game as a whole. And while design by committee results in a mess of contradictions, restricting input to increasingly smaller groups also increases the risk of a potentially detrimental narrowly held opinion making it through. Do you put high priority on the advice of tournament winners? They are going to be just as biased as other gamers (with opinions that favor their preferred styles and characters, and go against the styles and characters that they don't like), and their advice will likely not factor in the impact on lower level and non-tournament play. (One of the strikes held against SF5 is that it was too focused on tournament play, ignoring single-player content, which played a part in its poor sales reception.) Let's say you do take the advice specifically of tournament players. What does it mean when six months or a year later, one of your top contributors is now losing tournaments? Is all his advice now retroactively rendered "worthless", or do you accept that "tournament winner" wasn't a good restriction in the first place?
you don't listen to a single pool of players tho, and while you do listen to players during development, you don't listen to them blindly. Sponsors and shareholders on the other hand, understand ABSOLUTELY nothing about the gameplay, the casual experience, nor the competitive experience. So who would you rather listen to? Look at SF5 right now. For almost 20 years they had been the staple of almost all FGC tourneys. Now in 2019 LITERALLY every other fighting game is doing better than ever, except Capcom's games. And no other companies went Capcom's routes. So who would you rather listen to?
For me, the problem is dealing with the skill ceiling AND the skill base. There has to be a good amount of distance between the two for there to be a good competitive scene. I think that companies are both lowering the skill base and reducing the skill ceiling, when they shouldn't be doing that, they should instead lower the skill base BUT keep the same or increase the skill ceiling. An example of this would be what I'm familiar with, smash. Melee has a high skill ceiling, with wave dashing, shield drops, etc., but has a pretty high skill base; getting use to 1-frame inputs for every single input, including just basic movement, is very jarring when most fighting game have input buffers. Then brawl came out, which lowered the skill base, but severely reduced the skill ceiling, adding rng in tripping, very little combo potential, and divided the competitive scene in two. While brawl did have a strong competitive base, I feel like it was a wrong turn, competitively at least.
GG Rev 2 is the epitome of adding accessibility without removing the core competitiveness of the game. I've been playing since the original Guilty Gear on PS and Rev 2 is the best installation thus far.even without my main character being in the game.
Yujiro Smith melee is a pretty damn good example of a skill ceiling so high nobody has touched it and a skill floor so low a toddler can play it, but that ain't a fighin gaehym
This reminds me of a line from the incredibles “when everyone’s super, no one will be.”
That is literally a summary to all of this in one sentence. Sir, you and Disney are *incredible* .
Dota 2 is an exception to this that I know of.
And it's still not applicable as there are a few top elite players and many players who really just suck. Compare Tokido to say... DSP. "I didn't DO THAT" "It dropped my input!" "I'm blahking that!"
👏
Actually no, the original Dota or Dota 1 was way harder. There are multiple shop, no guide (Item draf), no ability range ring either, you have to calculate the range itself...etc
“If we make it easy, anyone can be the next Diego.” XD
Sounds like Street Fighter V is commenting this video.
Of course. The legendary Diego Umejuarez!
Diego can be you, Diego can be me, he could even b-
@@shapshapshapshap2829 right behind tu
@@undeniablySomeGuy *tf2 theme plays*
I love everything regarding #37. The skill required, the ball crushing guts needed to perform it, the 1HP pixel, the crowd fucking loosing it, Justin Wong trying to shake the table to annoy Daigo's performance, the game giving it a B score.
You mean *Diego* right?
@@misterblank7795, Diego, of course! Damned auto correct 😆
@@ruipedro4337 I see. Happens to all of us.
I tried doing this and I was wondering why I wasn’t getting it. Then I realized you have to do it as soon as Chun Li moves
@@cottony4dr Yeah it's incredibly hard. You have to do it BEFORE it even lands. With it being a on frame thing as well, you had to be perfect in not only landing it, but predicting it as well since you you couldn't see it.
"No! You-you're cheating!!"
*"YOU'RE GONNA LEARN!!"*
I don't like Justin Wong's fighting style but he makes sense lol
do u know the video that clip is from in any chance?
I found it th-cam.com/video/0RkapfBYIfc/w-d-xo.html
@@lotgc thanks
😆😆😆 Dat joint was hilarious
"If we make it easy, anyone can be the next Diego!" I loled till i cried. Very good delivery of this line.
Silvio Porto when he said Diego I lost it!
It was a great line for sure. It showed my frustration with sfv in it's general scrubbiness and ease of play. Players have nothing to strive for, since sfv gives them everything: damage, no defense, no execution, no footsies...you know things that made sf actually sf?
MisterJonesification execution in sf series 🤔 not sure if this guy has ever played sf before sf4.
Silvio Porto thats how he pronounces it every time too
Centrioless, not sure if you're implying that SF4 was the most mechanically demanding SF, of if you're implying that SF2/3 were much harder.
Diego Umejuarez
Hah!
PaeroPwns I actually ran into a guy named exactly that on Soul Calibur 5.
PaeroPwns *claps hands* 👏
Why does this comment have 441 likes?
It should have at least 500!
Defeating his archrival, Justino Juan
02:06
"No! You're you're cheating!"
"You're gonna learn!"
Teaching the next generation.
I have been on both sides of that clip 😂
@@dropkickpherby6994 hahaha me too
@@dropkickpherby6994 lol same
What people dont seem to understand/confuse too often is the difference between lowering the skill gap and lowering the skill floor.
Cause lowering the skill floor, while keeping a high skill ceiling, is good. It lowers barriers for entry. Lowering the skill gap just reduces the incentive to get good, because its easy for people who dont care to keep up.
True
@King of The Zinger The problem with this is that no matter how focused you are, if a poke ball or some other powerful item spawns right next to another player, there's very little you can do about it.
@King of The Zinger If our realities changed to reflect the size of our egos then you would probably be the god emperor of mankind
@@renookami4651 Thats an example of lowering the skill floor not raising it.
@King of The Zinger have you ever seen competitive smash. There are no items.
"I would never want 1 button shoryukens..."
*Sweats in smash*
It takes *2* buttons ok...
But one of the "buttons" is a stick, so your still only pressing 1 button...
@@equinox-XVI You can increase its power by realizing it as in its original Games
@@seiryuumizukamiya3566 Yeah I know, I secondary Ken, but play him much more often.
Too bad they nerfed medium shoryu in the air
You gotta command for the actually usable version
There is already 1 button shoryukens...
I rather get my ass kicked in a game with skill because I can say ok time to train and get better over time than rolling a dice.
Yes but your attitude is probably 1% of the population. Most ppl would rather have very little skill and guess(rock, paper, scissors) to win. They would rather win without skill than have the pain of losing, learning, mastery.
@@jacobr4558 Well, it's probably more than 1%.
Most people do like their skill and investment to be rewarded. There's a reason why Rock Paper Scissors isn't a tournament thing.
The problem is that people like to win because they were better than their opponent, but there is a significant amount of people for whom it just hurts too much to lose to an opponent.
Only probably 10% would apply this philosophy to video games, but I also feel like saying that plenty of people put in effort to get good at other things. Best examples are things like music and sports.
Violent_crimes23 same I used to get my ass kicked in smash bros melee and then I was like, you know what ima learn this game then I win a bunch of games now. Way more rewarding than rolling a dice
@darklordster here is a simple way to see it. Imagine they make the basketball rim as wide as a hula hoop and only 5 feet off the ground. All the skills that current professionals have would almost be meaningless(dunks, precision, 3 pointers etc). Then say they had 2,3,5,10 point shots as well. So now it is a completely different game. Anyone could compete with anyone. Say they went further and change traveling rules, blocks, dribbling etc to favor the masses. That is essentially what they do. The combos require far less skill, distances don't matter as much, damage is off the charts. With far less effort and practice you can become "skilled". As opposed to master jumpers, free throws, 3 pointers, dunking etc. Having to practice day in and day out getting better and better. In that process you would have to grow, fall, get up, repeat. Crawl, walk, run, jump, fly...very few people want yo do that in reality.
Brian Barnes I agree, losing because my opponent is better than me feels better than winning because I just got lucky. Luck should not be a factor in competitive games because it doesn’t reward skill. If you spend a lot of time learning a game, you should be rewarded and therefore win a lot. If you don’t spend a lot of time, you’ll lose a lot. If you don’t have fun losing, you should invest more time or just play party games (Mario Party lol). As Core-A said, party games are fun since the losers can blame their loss on luck, so everyone’s happy
2:06 "No, no your cheating" "You gonna LEARN" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
can I get the video from that please? lol
@nøc the real MVP
That shit had me dead
#FamilyBonding.
Not gonna lie shit was scummy but oh so entertaining
It shouldn't be "Anyone can be a champion."
It should be "A champion can come from anywhere."
This.
The spectacle aspect of any highly competitive competition is that "anyone" can NOT do what those at the top of their field do--without putting in the grind required to reach the top of that mountain.
We watch the best of the best be the best because it inspires us. If the "best" doesn't require all that much work to get there, then it's not that inspirational.
And if it's not inspirational, then it's not usually that entertaining, either.
Okay
Nice reference.
But a reference that never ages badly
This might be the most well put together video I have seen in a long time, thank you for putting this out there for us. Amazing points.
Nick28T why'd you post this
Nick28T what if EA and all other companies created their game with multiple skill level "modes". For example, make FUT how it in its current AI state as a "casual mode" and then also have the option for competitive or "hardcore mode" that is AI limited or minimized with non existent button delay? Where competitive game modes like FUT champs is auto defaulted to "hardcore mode". So If I want to play online seasons, I can choose "casual mode" or "hardcore mode" before entering a match? Essentially game companies can code "two modes" within the same game, catering to all communities, casual and competitive. This concept can be applied to all "competitive" esports games and hopefully increase skill gaps. Just my thoughts.
i think there is a certain skill to reducing the skill gap. though it may work for some it might not work for others.
considering that though the issue i find with most is not the reduced skill gap but the reduced skill ceiling. when you compare McV3 to SFV, both had a reduced skill gap. the difference is that MvC3 has an insane skill ceiling that has people till date finding new combos while SFV pretty much had them all discovered in its first week.
on top of that they tend to patch out certain tech
great video
NakeyJakey yooo
NakeyJakey keep up the good vids hot boy. Dog bless.
OMG HOT BOYS IS HERE
Dog bless
Hot boye
This will get buried but thanks for making this video Gerald.
It's so important.
BornFree Fighting!!!^^;;
BornFree couldna don it without you, the only footage of bonchan calling capcom retarded is yours lmao
BornFree Your Bonchan interview is like the thesis for this whole video, lol.
Bonchan didn't say "retarded" in that interview
sharpgg it was really more the translator but Bonchan was saying how stupid the designers were
lol not much of an E-sports fan but Floe's statement at the end about fans being finicky has rang so true in traditional sports. People just wanna talk shit and they don't care about the nuances surrounding it. That's why people still debate Lebron vs Jordan but ignore the rules and eras they played in, people debate Anderson Silva or Jon Jones while ignoring the landscape of the sport at the time. It's such a common theme amongst anything that's competitive. Fans just want a spectacle.
Same with comparing eras or transplating any basketball player from the era they played in to the modern era and vice versa.
People don't actually argue about which era was the best or if any particular player from any era will fit in another. They just want to talk shit about the 80s, the 90s, the 2000s, or the modern era. They just want to talk shit about any player from any era.
Like you said, in GOAT conversations they don't actually discuss who is the GOAT, they just really want to talk shit about Jordan, Kobe, or Lebron.
Silva vs Jones isn't as far fetched as that, they were champs at the same time for like 2 years.
It is toxic, charismatic personalities driving all of the toxicity in that community. Shame their behavior instead of enabling with: silence, indifference, apathy, or joining in by getting swept up in the emotion. At the end of the day it’s still a video game. A form of digital entertainment. I’ve never found their nonsense entertaining. Boo their behavior out of existence.
@@DonkThikkness Or, you could just ignore it. Indifference. It works.
@@TheSultan1470 If it still persists, clearly it doesn't work.
"If we make it easy then anyone can be the next Diego" hahaha always cracks me up
Who is diego 🤔
azim2k10 A person among legend who travels everywhere in a red coat. I think that person's first name was Carmen-san.
Doesn't that mean that lower skill levels has a better chance to beat Tokido? And yet we haven't seen anyone besides Punk and MenaRD who gave Tokido a challenge. Do you not mean that the skill gap reduction helped Punk and MenaRD? Or are you just on a hate hence your favorite player isn't getting the spotlight like they used to in SF4?
So if someone is the best, it's just because he has the best execution then? We want to see "smart plays", not "people playing instruments".
It's not that. There can only be so many plays depends if the player has the skill level to execute it. The best is the best because he can make the play work because he has the speed, the read, the knowledge level to do so. Someone can think of a play but won't be able to do so because you're fighting another person, someone who can also adapt to the situation as you do. So it's up to the player to find a counter and execute it before the other does also.
I dunno about most people, but even as someone who sucks at fighting games, I want to see who is the best.
I suck at most fighting games, which is why I play Smash, cause you can either have a serious match to see who's better or just turn items on and bask in the glorious chaos
Same but I’m trying to get better at MK but I agree with the video
Street Fighter 5 is a great game of skill. These pros are just crying because more people are learning the new strategies.
@@ShinkuGouki I think they're crying about their years of experience on pressing right buttons in right order has become irrelevant. Now that sfv became easier to approach, people can actually win games by outsmarting their opponent.
@@berkecgl2823
I agree that they made SFV easier to learn for starters. I disagree that it's the first game in which you need to outsmart your opponent to win. Every SF game since the beginning has been that way.
The pros simply hate that the game is more lenient with inputs and the skill gap has been reduced.
The thing that devs don't understand,.is that anybody can have fun with a high skill gap. All you need is two people of the same skill level. Competitive and casual are not mutually exclusive. Look at Melee. Two extreme ends of the spectrum are possible.
naive
@@antiwufei553 dont start with this arguement
@@antiwufei553 ok troll
To be honest, in smash competitive and casual game play is very different, with one having items and resembling more like a party game, and the other actually being a competitive fighting game experience.
@@supremeastro5300 I agree. Casual and comp Smash feel and look like two completely different games
"but i would never want 1 button shoryukens in street fighter"
SF6 Modern Controls has entered the chat 😂
I've been playing fighting games since 1992 and this hits hard.
Modern shoryus are just Classic 2HPs lol
funny enough Gerald loves modern controls due to how well designed it is while still ensuring classic players feel valued due to being given more options and damage for their proficiency
Too bad I can't like a video twice. This is probably one of the most important videos you've ever done.
Good job.
andresgv10 Thanks, man.
andresgv10 I couldn't agree more. Fantastic video! Thank You for shedding light on this harrowing issue
Great comment bud, I subscribed as soon as the vid finished playing
andresgv10 Capcom is doing pretty much the same for Marvel vs Capcom with use of infinity stones
andresgv10 d
Interesting note by Sakurai. He actually had the intention the entire time to make a game that was fun and less on the competitive side when making Smash. It’s the reason Brawl was so different. It was his choice. Nowadays Ultimate can be both, and it’s very great. I think games nowadays are actually starting to slowly find methods of appeasing both contestants and casuals.
The game obviously has flaws but the fact that they are trying is great. And some people love the game also, and good for them. If Smash 6 is ever released, I hope they can learn from some of their mistakes, and the better hardware should allow them to make better netcode.
My "Level 9" Jigglypuff thinks otherwise
Yeah, I definitely see that ultimate is trying to spread into both casual and competitive sections. and honestly, it's doing quite well
Yeah it’s both easy to play, but really hard to go in depth and learn all the mechanics and basic fighting game knowledge, even though i watched core a gaming before i got smash, i played the newest 3 mortal kombat, mk9, mkx, and mk11... in mk9 i spammed the square button while playing. In mkx i think i tried to play a bunch of characters all the time, and in mk11 i olayed scorpion and maybe *a lot* more charachters, but my pattern was like this:
ROUND 1: FIGHT
start of round, i do a teleport
Then use the offense meter to launch them in the air
I back up, start to do some combo strings and repeat until i win all rounds
Let me continue
Anyway when i got ultimate i watched a bunch of tutorials and watched who to “main” which i knew what it meant but didn’t pick one for
mk11... I first picked marth but that didn’t work for me, then i chose cloud since i heard he was pretty easy and had a decently big hitbox and really good moves, not the best but pretty good. Then i was like “hmmm i like sword characters, i wanna go for a fire emblem character” and after playing lucina and robin and roy, i picked roy. Had a pretty fun time with him. But now i main mario too, but i want to just main two characters at maximum, so i’m still deciding but i’m not playing anymore since i’m playing tekken 7.
*i play lee if anyone’s asking*
I’ve seen the daigo parry so many times and it never gets old
It’s crazy how much SFV has changed since this vid dropped. I’d love to see Gerald do a followup “Sidenote” video just on SFV’s changes.
11:16
Aged like fine wine
What changed from the second season to the last season?
@@Sorrelhasyup
Changed for better or worse?
It's like chipping the peak of Everest off so people can use it as a paving slab and claim they stood on the peak
Hello human brethren.
The pros are just crying because the thing they spent time learning has changed. There's more input leniency, yes but the skill has moved to reads and frame data.
Satsui Nohado thats not true. frame data is what the pros used for a long time. the pros and og players have mostly a problem with having to guess, 50\50s, input lag, easier combos, more forgiving input windows. its a fact that fighting games closed the skill gap. its not as much different skills, as less skill required. thats not an opinion of pros but literally how the design of the games have changed. best example is sf4 to sf5. combos and cancels that were insanely hard to pull off can be done by anyone who plays the game for a few months. reads and frame data were always a thing
@@yopeepthestyle8308
Reads and frame data have always been on the minds on pros,only now they have to rely more heavily on those,is what I meant.
You can do a merengue beat to parry any combo and it works. The game has become too lenient with input to attract the biggest player-base possible.
Terrible example: Most people who climb Everest at this point use Sherpas and pay a shit ton of money. Routes are mapped and it’s generally safe. It’s exclusionary because of cost not because of difficulty. In fact your analogy advocates the opposite of what you intended. People literally have basically chopped the difficulty of climbing Everest. Since it’s basically pay to climb.
I think there are lots of folks who have free climbed Yosemite who would disagree with your analogy.
Dude your stuff is so rewatchable.
I've watched all your videos at least 3 times.
I was very surprised by this as well, they ve become my default videos to watch when i'm bored and want to watch something interesting.
each only 3 times? Let time be the judge of how often you're gonna come back to these banger vids :D
“Anyone can become a champion”
This roughly translates to “no one is a champion”
Weirdly Smash 4, which is probably the most upset prone Smash game with Rage, 2 Stocks, and janky ass kills had one of the most dominant players in large competitive games.
"if everyone is super, then no one is"
-Syndrome
@@UC3rm0aNC4ysyZipDZotXnZA beat me to it
@@harpot678 the cheese master.
communism in games: everybody gets their dose of dopamine through purples and yellows
4:20 this is actually a double-edged sword. Yes players might feel more skilled than they actually are by blaming their losses on RNG, but they might also feel frustrated for being 'robbed' of their victory by the same RNG
why i dont play dnd
@@skyrichardson5737 the goal of dnd isn't to "win". Maybe play the game properly instead of being a murderhobo every time.
I see this all the time in magic the gathering, lots of people saying "land draws ruin the game" when I see them make obvious mistakes.
@@skyrichardson5737 no one is playing dnd to roll dice. the way you play dnd is by bringing characters together to play out a story. the rulebooks exist for disputes, and are by no means the essence of the game.
@@skyrichardson5737 agree with the above, dnd is at its best when used for open-ended storytelling with creative out-of-the-box funny roleplaying decisions. That way, weird dice rolls simply become prompts for equally unexpected story directions. Meanwhile, playing it as a "standard" combat game is kinda meh since it's overly complicated in that regard
This was NEEDED!!!!
Dirty Mike apply this logic to FIFA!
No it wasn't
Needed for people who suck lol
Tyler Romero he did
Mike, what if EA and all other companies created their game with multiple skill level "modes". For example, make FUT how it in its current AI state as a "casual mode" and then also have the option for competitive or "hardcore mode" that is AI limited or minimized with non existent button delay? Where competitive game modes like FUT champs is auto defaulted to "hardcore mode". So If I want to play online seasons, I can choose "casual mode" or "hardcore mode" before entering a match? Essentially game companies can code "two modes" within the same game, catering to all communities, casual and competitive. This concept can be applied to all "competitive" esports games and hopefully increase skill gaps. Just my thoughts.
2:07 " YOU'RE GUNNA LEARN" LMFAOOOOO
CJay yOu'Re ChEaTiNg
THIS IS THE REAL WROLD
Me:man SFV is kinda hard to land combos
Video: SFV lowered the skill gap
Me : DAMNIT
EDIT: I understand what you mean. After almost a year I was on and off sfv and now I find it incredibly easy compared to older games. But I see it as a way to bring in newer players to the scene.
This is why I find it hard to sympathize. These pro players are on a level most consider untouchable, lowering the skill gap (by lets be honest, not a significant amount, noobs suck at SFV as much as any other 2d fighter) is kind of necessary if they want any form of longevity. People have so many options today, that if a game is too much of a brick wall to get into, they'll play something else, so I find it completely reasonable to make combos more forgiving and easily performed, because skilled players know how to answer those things, noobs don't.
At the end of the day, I see this as pros being whiny bitches that they have to worry about more competition that could unseat them at any time.
@@fuzzythoughts8020 they are angry because they train for months on and on, just to loose to someone who will stop playing the game after a month. so you calling them whiners realy shows what type of player you are.
@@paulovinasrocha6166 I just picked the game up and i'm pretty sure its gonna take more than a month or even a year for me to get even half decent at the game let alone stand a chance against a pro player.
I've also been playing Quake since Quake 1 and even with the new character abilities in Quake Champions, i can easily beat a new/intermediate/advanced player who is using an S tier champion by muscle memory , better map knowledge and fundamentals while using an F tier champion. If they are really pro's then none of these should matter, they shouldn't be beaten by someone new or less experienced. SF V isn't a luck based game. So yes it does sound like whining or more specifically it sounds like gatekeeping.
Is SF V dumbed down? I honestly don't know as this is my first fighting game and i am loving it.
Even if they made the next one harder like the older iterations , i'd still pick it up because now i understand why fighting games are awesome.
@@Hwa-Jai sf5 is not a bad game.
The problem people had with it in the early seaons is that the skill difference between starters and expert was almost non existance
Damm but combos are really easy to pull off in sfv
“I dont think they want to balance the game, i think they just want to shuffle who you see on screen to make it exciting”
*Riot games enters the chat*
I was about do comment on this league's preseason. pure dogshit I don't even know if they are following the rules explained on this video or they're just reta
riot has an absolutely retarded balancing ideology. Every character must have exactly 50% winrate, or they are not balanced.
They have been making teh most random-ass idiotic changes from season 1
@ana they are making a league fighting game, if that ever comes out.
@ana I mean they do really care, even if i dont like this pre season.. League always changes after a year, to be honest i do like that. Oh and also dont forget that every year the viewer count jumps up insanly high
@ana ah, so THIS is the year league is dying? Not any of the previous years where people said it was dying? But this year? How are you so smart!?!?!?
What fighting games really need are lower entry floors for the game. Add extremely informative tutorials and give the players combos so that they can understand the nuances. Then have a high skill ceiling alongside an extremely well-balanced game system. That way, nobody is left out. UNIST has to be one of the best examples of a game like this, I just can't stop playing it, and I'm not even great at fighting games. Same system of rewarding aggression while still having good defensive options, versatile characters, and comebacks are still a sight to see
Newer players don't like that. They don't want to learn, they wouldn't follow a tutorial. They want instant gratification. They want to feel badass, like they're master of the game as soon as they start playing. If they feel like they're not doing good from the beginning, they'll proceed to talk shit about the game, and will leave to the next thing that treats them as if they were a superior being.
The problem isn't exactly on the developer side of the things, it's the consumer base. The devs only feel Inclined to se their souls and appeal to this crowd.
And that's why the industry has a lot of problems nowadays: games are more expensive to make, people demand more realistic graphics, but they'll drip the game in a month or less, and sell them.
Feeding this crowd is dangerous to the industry, but these companies apparently can't see it or they just don't care.
This is why I like smash. I can pick the game up as a new player, and learn the basic mechanics and get a feel for a lot of the characters in the single player modes and not feel like I'm putting an axe to a grinder, which is how most fighting games make me feel while playing the single player. But with smash, there are so many wacky, fun things to experience outside of competitive matches, which further excites me to play competitive, because I already cultivated interest and fun in the game. Fighting game developers really just need to get more creative with how they present challenges to players in single player. Its more fun and rewarding to go up against a giant, metal bowser, wielding a baseball bat on a moving stage than it is to fight a level 10 ai shao kahn that reads your inputs
What if you remove the need for a tutorial and combos? (mostly) well, you may still need tutorials, but then you get games like Smash, Fantasy Strike, Pocket Rumble, and Yomi.
I think so many players don't realise how deep the skill well goes without complex execution, since they spend so much time grappling with and mastering execution that they don't have time to master greater things, like using intuition (for things like yomi--reading your opponent--and valuation) and time-slowing down ability (one of perhaps more phenomenon high level players report).
Too bad people are sitting in training mode mastering a FADC combo, rather than reading life-enhancing material on psychology, mastery, intuition, and consciousness. Yes, all those subjects can make you a better player. Not without practice and game knowledge, but research shows deliberate application of research-based techniques can lead to faster learning, with better outcomes, than those who do things in a longer, harder, haphazard way. Want to learn a game 5x faster? I know I do!
You won't read about this in many guides, or hear about it TH-cam essays, but it's what we _should_ be talking about.
I'm really keen for games that facilitate that. Rather than hours in training mode, lest we wiff a special attack at a crucial moment and have our correct strategic thinking nullified by our inability to execute it. (Though we can still have execution heavy games, for those who want that.)
Skullgirls have one of the best tutorial i've ever seen in fighting games. It teaches basics along with more advanced techniques like Cancelling and Chaining
@@retrorami This sounds more self-reflective than anything else. A lot of guys with a couple decades of technical, competitive fighting game experience want to continue to curbstomp with each new generation of game. A big reason why I never got into arcade fighters, the guys who hung around never let you break in.
Mechanical simpicity and technical depth make compelling gameplay, it's a good formula.
Man. I dont even play street fighter and I feel bad for you guys
I got really into fighting games because of SFV and I love playing the game and it sucks now knowing that it could have been better competitively.
Don't feel bad Third Strike is probably the closest capcom ever got to creating the game that the competitive scene wanted and it almost killed the fighting game scene because the Skill Ceiling was too high. SFV was the right idea just in excess.
well other things were going on at the time. Came out of nowhere with little advirtising in a climate that was almost done with it. Honestly alpha was more of an anamoly.
George Oliver I couldn't agree more, George. I hated 3S at first because of the skill ceiling, but kept at it because my 2 best friends were so good and loved the game. Unfortunately, it kind of ruined other fighting games for me. When someone who has played Fighting games for years, and the current one since launch can be rocked by a brand new player just copying easymode combos the saw on YT, something is wrong. It's less of a fighting game, and more of just guessing. I hate to say it, because I love fighting games, and really want SFV to be great, but they just went WAY too far in the direction of friendliness to new players.
yet there is a buch of people playin tekken. third strike is hard but can be learn in a week of dedication.
"I would never want to see one-button Shoryuken in Street Fighter": Super Street Fighter IV 3DS would like to have a word with you
Guile's walking forward flash kicks intensifies
@@humbertocastro9663 Thank you for the PTSD and good memories of the game haha
"you're cheeating"
"YOU'RE GONNA LEARN"
Nice speedwagon profile picture
SPEEDWAGON
You bit za dusto
Him in 10 years when he teaches his daughter how to play street fighter lol
U gone learn today im a spammer ya lil shit 😆
4:03 looks familiar.... :) amazing video like always btw
What are you doing here
o just realized it was ur video
btw papa johns cheated cant hit trainers
★★★★
huh, just rewatched this just cause and you're here only two weeks ago, interesting
LUDVIX PLEASE GRACE US WITH MORE SSB CONTENT!!!!!!!
Dropped a hype combo for this
No regrets
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!
PK NEIN when have you ever got a combo in your life
Ben Shaul boi I get more combos than you ever will
Justin zoning out that kid will never not be funny.
I've never been a big fighting game fan, but your videos are incredibly interesting. It's awesome to get a glimpse into the fighting game esports world and a little heart breaking that some devs are treating there community this way. Great video!
go with 3rd strike if youre new and try out denjin ryu, its fucking broken.
I'll tell you why they don't ask the community before making a game or making changes:
Because casual players, give more money than competitive ones.
And e-sports partners give more than either of those two groups.
Jarory de Jesus no. Casuals give the most money. How do you think they gain esports partners? From having made money in the past. So you have to cater to your audience as a whole, which SFV got wrong anyway being so bare bones. If SFV:AE was the launch it would’ve had more acclaim. No matter what more skilled players say they can’t be beaten by a scrub like myself, not on their worst day and my best. They’re just being selfish, in terms of gameplay. Casuals don’t have the time or will or skill to improve and so making combos easier is a benefit. The combos aren’t as easy as skilled players make it seem. I can barely pull them off consistently and I’m the best out of my pool of friends. I’ll take the time out to learn some combos and I can come back to a game that I’m good at but most people can’t. Skilled players complain about SFV being too easy but for most it’s too hard. For me it’s perfect especially with the patch from a few months ago that adjust frame rates.
@@Kenyaschannel Or maybe they dont find it fun when they know they have more potential then they can use in the game. Its like being a soccerplayer waking up and then you can only dribble at your 12yo capacity. Because everyone should get a chance to win :D
And yet, SFV sold less than SFIV.
No they don't lol
Bonchan "Elementary school students creating a patch".... Savage
want to genuinely thank you for this video, it's been incredibly useful in explaining this issue across genre boundaries. really impossible to say how much mileage i've gotten out of it since it came out
This video made me realize something. It's not that suddenly nowadays audiences want cheap spectacles. It's that a (relatively) large group do want that, enough people to make a profit off of, and it's WAY WAY EASIER for developers and movie makers and animators, you-name-it, to produce things for that group. And that's how you end up with this society where "nothing's as good as it used to be" and "the masses just mindlessly consume" are treated like laws of physics and it'd be stupid to expect anything different.
That's the problem. Everything is about profits now, there is no longer a loyalty to any of the previous consumers who brought these companies to where they're at. I used to be a die hard Street Fighter fan.......used to.
I disagree, it's way more complex than that.
It's consumer driven culture which craves a spectacle, it's not "human nature" to "crave spectacles. Humans aren't driven to consumption either, since Native American culture exists, Environmentalists, etc. and their principle ideals don't/didn't focus on consumption. Many cultures and societies adopt environmental attitudes, and they in turn, don't care for spectacles. The spectacle is specifically a product of consumerism.
That is because a consumption based culture can't have all consumers and no producers. There must be both. And since producers are often the ones rewarded in a consumerist based culture, they in turn receive the most wealth/status/power. And since consumers aren't producers, they in turn seek to look like a producer, they "fake it til they make it." This has happened here in gaming culture, as well as in music, business, politics, and many other areas of society, the spectacle is not isolated to video games. What is genius about this video is that it addresses the spectacle and the problem it creates in games, without going off topic like I did.
Take a look into the movie Idiocracy...
th-cam.com/video/YwZ0ZUy7P3E/w-d-xo.html
"We need more games with soul, less DLC and less crap"
Spot on. The formula for a lot of entertainment appears to be (dumb plus pretty) equates to profit. Seeing as there's probably no other goal for developers to aim for, say "let's make games for gamers" because most probably their benefactors/investors/stakeholders will come down hard on them, fire them or whatever. Yes it's a dark future we live in, now.. Hopefully some new breed of developers (crowd funded devs?) will evolve that will then force a revolution from the lazy, yet pretty *.*, media we get.
Shotout to Bornfree for doing the greatest interviews in the FGC
I'm crap at street fighter but when I won sometimes it felt good, learning how to combo etc and then doing it so winning was more rewarding when it happened. Lowering better players to my crappy level punishes everyone because I'm not going to get better, it's just lowering the bar and that's not rewarding for anyone.
Kevin Edward same. I’d always get wrecked in Soul Calibur 4 but I’d purposely fight better players to increase my own skill level and reaction times.
Dauragon Yae Galvus EXACTLY. I had some Asian friends that were hella good at SF and it helped me be a better player. Yeah I got my ass handed to me ssoooooooo many times but by the time I was done my combos and timing were surgical.
I remember a few years after that I was playing at an arcade and this Asian dude put his quarters in (Marvel VS Capcom, the first one) and I beat him. My first time beating an Asian kid. He was good too, don't ask me why Asians are so good. Maybe just in my area? But it sure feels good to win against someone trying their best.
So once the meta rewraps itself around the new game design aim to get good in the new form of the meta playing against the new better players? Nani?...
Except people like you still aren't winning tournaments. Combos are easier. So what? There are a lot of nuances of the game that determine the winner. There's so much more to it than successfully executing combos.
WHY THE FUCK ISNT:
MARVEL SUPER HEROES
MARVEL SUPER HEROES VS STREET FIGHTER
XMEN VS STREET FIGHTE MARVEL VS CAPCOM
MARVEL VS CAPCOM 2
MARVEP VS CAPCOM 3
ON THE PS STORE?!?!?!?! WITH ONLINE CAPABILITY?!?!?!?!
Every time he calls Daigo Diego my brain does something weird
I think it's called cognitive dissonance.
Mine makes things break
"They could be the next Diego" is the Daigo Parry of sick burns.
I actually found it difficult to do combos in SFV because of how easy it was. I was coming from doing 1 frame combos and plinking from sf4. I was doing inputs too quickly in V.
xD
Ayo same, especially the shinten (lp,mp,hp) now you have to wait for mp to go a lot longer than usual if that makes sense
@Dylan Paulette yea, in sf4 you had to to combos really quickly compared to sfv
@@alfredopasta3784 it feels like old cent from for honor interms of waiting time once you got hit you could go for a quick sip of a drink bc it took so long for the combo to finish
“The problem with being faster than light, is that you can only live in darkness”
@@rleften5788 you are the only sane person in this thread.
"On things that the players dont even want."
*Shows FOR GLORY on smash 4*
Truer words have have never been spoken.
Omega mode was a good addition.
Makron5 But then that was banned in comp. play. lol
Makron5 Yeah but competitive players don't like to play on final destination every match
Sakurai is at least trying with ultimate
It'd be wonderful if Sakurai could patch in some technical depth to Ultimate... Wavedashing/landing would be easy since it's already there and it really isn't difficult to execute... Not saying it needs to be Melee 2.0, because trust me we don't need things like L-canceling and wobbling, but some technical depth would be nice.
"I would never want 1 button shoryukens in street fighter"
BRO WHY DID YOU GIVE THEM IDEAA 😂😁😄😐😔🥺😢😭☠️
yoo i came loookin for this comment 😂😂
luckily he loves how SF6 handled 1 button shoryus
Wombo Combo is definitely an example of one of these events in fighting games. "I think we're all a little hard right now" is probably the best quote to explain that feeling. Everyone who knows the game is having a stroke from what they just witnessed, and everyone that doesn't know will just get sucked into it.
I used to play a fan made smash with other people at lunchtime in the library. I'm not going to sugar coat it, I absolutely sucked. I spent time learning it and I still sucked, but I loved it and played it everyday. Even with my very basic knowledge, I was still in the group screaming our hearts out when someone managed to predict twice perfectly and then land a five hit air combo. There weren't any stakes, we were just playing. There was still the genuine hype, and that's what you lose when you water down these games.
I'm more of a fps player myself, but I've basically fallen out of the game because all the new stuff just gets worse and worse. I'm currently sitting here playing single player survival games most of the time.
party game
I really hope the FPS game you was into was overwatch. It describes exactly why I stopped playing as much.
Was the fan made game smash flash
@@jalene150 If I'm being honest, the new stuff isn't that bad. Brigg was a monster that, single-handed, brought the most cancerous meta into existence, but everything else has been fine. I quit playing because they won't increase the content pipe even though they've stated multiple times they KNOW more heroes will "fix" many of the balancing issues they face... And also because of those balance issues existing for months at a time. It was not fun playing dive for nearly 3 months. It was not fun being forced to have specific supports or lose. It was not fun to lose just because I like to play Hog. The game has been extremely unbalanced. And that drove me away from the game.
Oh, and Lunar *fucking* Colony.
I agree, I used to be bad at SF but it did not stop me from playing and enjoying it and when I improved my game, it felt much more rewarding being able to pull harder combos because of my perseverance and not because the game was holding my hand.
Idk why they add input lag, it only favors the most casual , who will drop the game after a week and never touch it again. It pissss off everyone else, no matter the skill level
If you buy the game, they don't care if you drop it in a week or a decade
Input lag is the result of rendering and graphics. Essentially other parts of the game have to buffer before reading your input. It's the result of either poor hardware or poor optimization. It's something that can definitely be fixed with patches but not without sacrifices on many different aspects of the game.
@@MsDestroyer900 or a deliberate decision as in ultimate and ss5 to some extent
@@MsDestroyer900 you don't have any idea of what input lag is
Wait..they ADDED the input lag? I thought it was shitty programming or something along those lines. Holy fluck, Crapcom like sucking casuals dicks, don't they?
i like how for Granblue Fantasy Versus, they made it more noob friendly by having simple & complex inputs for the same move.... the only thing is using the simplified input does significantly less damage than using the complex version
It also increases the move cooldown right?
I really want a follow-up of this video, “the advantages of reducing the skill floor” and maybe even “the consequences of heightening the skill ceiling”
Same. this is a really interesting video and I want to see how it holds up today.
God I wish
If Guilty Gear Strive delivers on a “simplified” GG, I can see the former as a topical video for later in the year
It's been done. I forget the name of the video. But it's much harder to make a game too difficult was the conclusion I gathered. For the most part games that were made to be intentionally too difficult or even "impossible" have been systematically broken while games that are too easy are just forgotten
A consequence of increasing the difficulty too much, would be something like a technique that's completely neccesary, and if you don't do it or you can't, you are at automatic disadvantage, for example, L-canceling in melee, the problem is that L-canceling also hinders the players becoise there were cases in wich the player got his hand hurt becouse of L-cancel. Another example would be 1 frame links, combos, etc, they are nice to have if they are your optimal route, but only if it's not completely neccesary in order to play your character.
Dude, your videos are some of the best I've seen on youtube period. LIke honestly if I could point someone to videos that are always consistently out-of-the park amazing I'd point them to the core-a analysis playlist. I know that the time between these videos is somewhat a part of why they're amazing, and that maybe forcing yourself to come up with a topic to analyze on a schedule might decrease the overall quality of the videos, and that you have a day job, but holy shit a more frequent upload schedule would be amazing.
edit: I'd like to add that I don't even play street fighter, I play Melee. But the concepts are explained in such a way that I can apply them to my game of preference, and that the way you explain them makes them understandable to any person that plays a fighting game (I can't speak to people who know less than me, but I think they'd get it too). If I ever start taking the analyses I make for melee and put them in video form, I hope the stuff I make is at least half as good as yours.
jazaniac you should do it though, I'd love to see Melee talked about in this style.
Street fighter 3rd strike is the most entertainment tournaments i ever watch, It's all about skills and timing
Street Fighter 3: Third Strike is still the king of fighting games to me. The skill required to play and master that game are real!
Totally agreed with you pal.
Long Live to SF 3erd strike ( since 1999 )
Yeah such skills more like its just chore to understand few things that it feels hard when you start. Its damn fighter game, most casual of casuals genre.
@@Alen725 you okay buddy?
0:23
"[crowd explodes into cheers]
[crowd goes fucking nuts]
[crowd fucking loses it]"
lmao
"i would never want one-button shoryukens in street fighter"
prophetic.
and crazy enough he loves Modern controls
@@joedatius i think he loves them because of the accessibility and because it's got a drawback that isn't just slapping a cooldown on the special
I'm all for games being more accessible in the sense that they have a breadth of tutorial options and lots of content to keep players occupied. I also like all frame data and hitboxes being available in the game. The game could have a variety of features to track progress and grow their base in that manner. I think the emphasis on single player is especially important and we see that with Netherrealm fighters. Their games are huge on casual appeal.
The problem I have is with the dumbing down of the mechanics. I like the idea of "easy to play and hard to master" but not to the extent where you can simply beat a vastly more skilled opponent with dumb luck. Why do people need to play others way out of their league and win easily? Isn't that what ranks are for? Just play your own skill level.
I think adding in low risk, high reward, an low execution nonsense just worsens the game in the long run. Stuff like fishing for crush coutners in SFV with the dumbed down defensive options and the 50/50 play-style really just hurt the competitive nature in the long run. It leads to a repetitive and dull game. Furthermore the cast just feels very homogenized and too similar. Now the top tier characters this season are just "party time" characters with even more randomness being rewarded.
I see more and more games going down this route and it's disturbing to me. I've talked about this thoroughly on my own channel. Take away the convoluted stuff and balance the game, but please don't just dumb down mechanics randomly and then say it's more "accessible". It's awful.
That reminds me.. When I first played SF4 last year I felt like there was even less explanation than in Tekken on my PS2 8 years prior.. That's the real problem I think!
I met a girl in Japan and we went to play SF4 on an arcade and she ripped me apart at first, then I saw the combo lists and tiers printed on the damn machine and I could at least stand my ground, when I later played it on console the information was extremely limited
I WANTED to learn to play the game rather than mashing buttons but the game is missing the instructions to get the basics down (Tekken on PS2 did that right and even had videos to show you how it's supposed to look like)
We need hard, unforgiving games that require a high skill to be consistently good in
But we also need to respect player intelligence and plant the seed of achievement by educating them rather than give them a skill boost!
I can't believe they had tier lists on the machines as well! That's pretty crazy. The whole scene in Japan just seems so much more fun.
I mean after a while the games get so dull because there's nothing more to see. I wonder what Capcom will do with S3 of SFV. Hopefully they fix a lot of the "derp".
Yeah but the trend BEFORE this one was to make fighting games as convoluted as possible. Which is kind of why things ended up this way, because when a player is expected to input 16 directional inputs then clearly the game subsists more on keeping players down then it does trying to harbor skilled players.
Which games do you feel were convoluted? I always felt that fighting games were challenging and rewarded you for putting in effort. This is a good thing as long as there is a balance in risk/reward. Dumbing things down doesn't make the game better. Even in earlier games you could pick easier characters as well that didn't have so many inputs. You had a few exceptions like Geese's raising storm and such but you didn't have to pick those characters or just practice.
The games were dumbed down to appeal to a larger and more casual audience. It's not just in this genre either. Many games have regenerating health and infinite lives and a rewind feature. I can't blame gaming companies for wanting to make money but I just wish every game wasn't this way.
I recently have a large problem with Nioh, a souls-like game.
I LOVE the game and its mechanics, I love playing through levels, getting killed by not paying attention or walking into traps
I spend HOURS playing through levels and it's really great.
But the bosses are absolutely no fun for me AT ALL!!
They are so ridiculously hard, it took me 20h to beat the first boss and even then I only won because I summoned an online player to help me while I was hiding from onehit-combos.
The next bosses were reasonably hard but it's like as soon as a boss battle begins I stop having fun because I know I will die and drop my stuff in the battle area anyways
So it's a weird case for me.. I love the game levels and have a balanced risk/reward while progressing but the bosses are when I lose immersion and wonder why I'm wasting my time with this game.
So for me there's three types of progression types:
Type 1 is based on levels and grinding with minimal skill = e.g. Final Fantasy, Borderlands
Type 2 is striking the middle ground of using skill/adaptation and levels as a slight push to speed things up IF you know what you're doing = e.g. all Piranha Bytes games (Gothic, Risen, ELEX)
Type 3 is based on skill with tiny involvement of levels = e.g. Dark Souls, Nioh
I love Type 2 the most because it gets increasingly harder as in Final Fantasy but if you're skilled then you won't even notice the opposing level advantage (e.g. in Gothic 1+2 you can beat any enemy (flat damage and health throughout the game) without taking damage if you're skilled)
I'd place Fighting games in between Type 2 and Type 3
The beauty of them are that the skill factor is broken up into multiple parts like ( myChar vs xChar ) and there's no 100% skilled player with and against every character in any VS game (except there's only one character obviously)
But the developers/publishers have to realize that this 'breaking skill into multiple VS scenarios' is all they need to introduce new players
Give players the counter character to a given opponent to show them the game, not by RNG or skill boosts, counters are natural, boosts are not
That also applies to my Nioh problem. In my opinion they didn't need the bosses in the game to make it more interesting, the level designs and mission are all I would've needed
(Of course there are people who play it for the bosses but that's the equivalent to pro's switching from one competitive game to another)
I'd rather get my ass beat at a tournament than make it to finals with a roll of the dice
But, I think that you're in the minority these days. I can't speak for Street fighter these days, but I enjoy the Monster Hunter series and the games prior to monster hunter world were frickin tough! You had to have skill. With World... really no skill required. Capcom streamlined it enough to cater to a larger audience, which meant more revenue for Capcom. I hear what you and those competitive players are complaining about, but at the end of the day, Capcom isn't in the business to make video games...they're in the business to make money. Period. If a change to the formula gets more people buying their product, they'll do it. Like with Monster Hunter world selling out... Capcom made a crap ton of money on the game. That's good for them and that's what they're looking out for. It does you no good to build something that only a small portion of the population will want, you're likely to go out of business much sooner than later.
That said, I agree with you on it in theory...but, I was never really good at street fighter 2, which is where I started in the video arcades, and I don't really play them much cause of that. They can be hard as all get out. But, my preferred game is Monster Hunter, if that wasn't obvious, and I lament the shift to heavily monetizing the franchise. It sucks, but it happens...maybe they'll make a version calked SF6: pro or something. Meant for the big kids that want a challenge and then the party game version for the spectators. 🤷🏻♂️ Unlikely, though...
@@citeltheof I'm a competitive player at heart, competitive play isn't for everyone and that's okay.
@@xavibun Agreed. I, too, would rather have a match be decided by whatever skill I might possess rather than some random roll of the dice. Then we're gambling and not gaming.
On a side note, based on this video it appears that Super Smash Bros Ultimate and its ilk are all "party games" and have that as the basis for their play. That makes sense when I think about it: there are far too many random things that can crop up to either kill you or the other player/AI. Kind of disappointing really, but I kind of fall in the middle of the spectrum: I like the casual aspect to the game, but there's a part of me that definitely enjoys the competitive aspect. In the case of SFV, it would be nice if they had an option for both groups. It would make both parties happy without completely alienating one or the other. But, that may just be wishful thinking...
@@citeltheof the first Marvel vs Capcom had exactly that, when you choose your character you had to choose "easy" or "normal" playing, the "easy" had some automatic combos and was really easier to use a special attack, while the "normal" don't had the automatic combos, I don't remember if that put this on other games to be honest.
'i would never want 1 button shoryukens' well ig that is a thing now with modern controls in sf6
Inb4:
“why do you hate that the game is more accessible?”
“I love that I don’t have to learn how this game has worked for literally decades to play it.”
“You’re just mad because you’re bad at the game.”
Yeah and its somehow fine. SF6 is amazing.
@@GinkgoPete true
The thing I love the most about core-a is that every time I watch a video feels like it’s the first time I’m watching it
"you gon' learn!" lmfao
About SF5, I'm an oldschool SF player, that is I played SF2 Championship Edition, Street Fighter Alpha, Alpha 2 and Alpha 3, but missed the later games.. I tried out SF5 in the online beta a few months back, this explains a lot of what I saw, essentially it felt super easy to pull off moves but I didn't really look more into it, or think anything of it. In Street Fighter on the Mega Drive/Saturn/Dreamcast (which is where I've played, up to this year) I always got my ass handed to me, I'm not good at the game, all my buddies usually kick my ass... But in SF5 online beta I was crushing souls quite handedly and actually I beat almost everyone I played for like 3 hours straight, I guess it wasn't just my imagination that the game was easier.
From a casual point of view I actually had a blast (who doesn't enjoy feeling like you just became a pro), but I am also not someone who bought the game, It's terrible of them to make a game to feed my ego by removing the difficulty, at the expense of the guys who are super invested and who are going to spend the most time with the game. I prefer Street Fighter Alpha 1/2/3 anyway, they're what I tend to go back to when I want a blast of SF.
Yeah, where are the days where it took 16 directional inputs to pull off a move? Or where you actually had to use the pause button? It is kind of the fact that Fighting games have been incredibly antagonistic towards the player that caused this trend.
100% agree. I've never been 'great' at SF2 (I always played as Blanka on SF:SCE, so that should give you an idea how 'not-great' I am) but jumping on to a friend's SF5 made me feel like a god with Ryu. I knew they'd made it easier but I was genuinely shocked how forgiving inputs were. It just wasn't satisfying. I went home and played the MD version again and actually felt like each special move was earned and as a result, when I pulled off a well timed counter attack, it was very satisfying even against the computer. Still ultimately got my ass kicked though. XD
I'm sorry you missed out on Third Strike then had to come back to this. It's like you skipped the pinnacle of the game and came back to a farce.
I can imagine like 1000 years ago two chess players were playing and they were in a like medival bar, and one was like “play for a beer?” And the other guy was like “sure. But we have to get rid of the dice” and they sat for a moment and figured it out and then played. And as they were playing people gathered around and this new way became super successful. And when asked by someone their answer is “we were playing for a beer. Getting a beer should not rely on dice rolls, only skill”
Edit: spelling
how would chess involve dice in the first place
@@epekka en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess
Basically you roll two dice and those are the valid piece types you can move. Rol a knight and a rook, and your move MUST be one of those two. If you can't then you must pass the turn.
Doubles are wild, letting you play any piece.
It was a legit variant 6-900 years ago.
@Igor Miranda uh i feel like that’s for strategy-specific things, and psychological torment on the black player because
*they’re playing black “oh god sHut iT dOwn gG yOu wiN I dOn’T wAn’T tO pLay bLaCk bYe”* (this is coming from a casual chess player so i’m not very cultured in chess”
@Igor Miranda huh
Most underrated joke in this video is "I would never want one-button shoryukens in Street Fighter," followed by Ed popping up and saying "how bout 2 buttons?"
why not have a 'win' button while we're at it?
I think Tekken 7 tried to do this with the stupid Rage Arts. About to lose the round? No problem! Just push R1 and hope your opponent isn't blocking or going for a low hit at the same time!!
Wrong. It is a "Might Win" but " Definitely Lose" Button.
Because then people will complain that the other guy was able to hit it faster than they did...so then that'll need to be nerf'ed too. The nerf will be...they both win.
The "Beat a game button" was invented by AVGN
for only 6.99 :)
Competitive interests are often at odds with the casual experience. The casual experience gets the company more $$$. That's all there is to it.
NOT TRUE!
Competative interests while often are at odds with casual experiences, the notion that casual experience getting more money has been dissproven. there have been thousands of examples of this being wrong. The first and foremost would be Dark SOuls who's entire demograph, money, and fame HAS been it's difficulty and high level of competition. While casual games are far more likely to become popular, it's not because they're casual.
The core isn't 'casual or competative' but more... 'what is our game'. When someone tries to change the game, that's when people get upset.
Aickavon the Techpriest case and point destiny 2, destiny fans were bumbed out when it had fixed rolls, 4v4, and easier ways to get to max power level and a few other changes is why destiny 2 is slowly losing its playerbase.
Honestly your argument falls very short when you have to realize the main key missing factor. Marketting. First I'll explain to you that comparing Dark Souls to Skyrim is rather dumb, as Skyrim was an insanely popular game that hit the mainstream audience while keeping (most of it's fanbase) appeased, it was an ESTABLISHED title where as Dark Souls only had one predecessor to it's name. Demon Souls. Which did not sell well in America at all. A lot of people who casually play dark souls (quite an oxymoron, I know) had not even heard of Demon Souls.
Demon Souls sold around 1.7 million copies where as Dark Souls sold around 2.3 Million copies. Where as Dark Souls 3 sold 3 million copies within the first two months. As you can see, while their formula hasn't changed much, their sales have drastically increased as it became more and more popular. And you know why?
Marketting.With each and more successful game, the company's funds for creating a new one as well as marketting begins to expand. We see that in Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. In fact, the trend begins before even those games, with Arena and Daggerfall. Arena being a fresh game that's jerky, wonky, but fun. Daggerfall expanding on that, and then we move to Morrowind where as their previous successes begins to manifest in some actual marketting. I don't believe they had any commercials but you bet they were wracking in game of the years from every journalist they could find (back when journalists were listened to in video games). It attracted people's attention and they began to play the game. When oblivion came out, the new graphics, facial animations, and of course rpg style had everyone intrigued, and while many now-a-days complain about the simplification if the combat style, it was far more reactive than in Morrowind. But Marketting was STILL the key factor. With Voice talent like Sean Bean and Patrick Stewart as well as it's previous success with actual commercials now (yes, real commercials). Those casual console players finally gained mainstream wind of the game.
And what about Skyrim? Well, with fans already established in Morrowind and Oblivion, unless it collossully sucked, it could physically not fail. And it didn't suck, it was amazing. While many people cried about the simplification of the game as well, the marketting was badass and it was just complex enough to not throw people away, where as Bethesda did the greatest thing they could. Make SKyrim Mod Friendly. THat's why Bethesda was so eager for playstation to allow modding, it grabs MORE interested parties. It lets people shape the game to their design whether it's more difficult or more easy. And add their own content. Skyrim's success can NOT be attributed to 'it's more casual', where as thousands of hundreds of other factors are in play to the point where casualization just can't be considered a serious factor.
While Casualization can help achieve great initial sales, it can also KILL game sales as well. Call of Duty finally hit that 'critical peak' where the sales of Infinite warfare were abyssmal to their expectations. Which is such a shame because they tried something different with their campaign for once.
I will add to my initial point. IF Dark souls was a MORE Casual game, like Skyrim. It would A) Be competeing with skyrim's ALREADY established success, and B) No one would care to buy it outside of a niche population. A PRIME example of this was Dragon's Dogma, which was considered to be Skyrim's competitor at the time (despite them being VASTLY different, they were both still rpg experiences on the casual side). Dragon's Dogma, with no initial releases backing up it's reputation and marketting, basically became a cult classic but not gaining any real popularity in americas, so much that Japan basically has Dragon's Dogma Online while America gets fuck all. Because why would they even bother trying to compete with ESO, or any of their other competition.
Aickavon the Techpriest The souls games are not competitive or even that difficult though. Punishing, yes. Not really that difficult though.
" a game for everyone, is a game for no one"
"I'd never wanted one button shuriyuken in a SF game" 11:01
Oh god.. if he's knew...
I think DBFZ balances easy to pick up, competitive depth, and fun to watch really well.
I've been playing dbfz for a long time now. I am trash but I love to watch high level gameplay.
In DBFZ, you match against someone better than you and you don't get to even play the game
@@arielmatiauda5110 who?
@@tucker2138 cares
I like fighterz but god I'm terrible at it
funny how tekken managed to successfully import a character and made him more entertaining than it's original game LULW
Not really
@@bryanc7094 yes really.
No because akuma's original game is not sfv, it is street fighter II. And akuma in SFIV is his best game, and extremely hard to use
And street fighter III, and IV are both better than tekken
XxBlueiceDasanixX you keep telling yourself that
If you'd like to see what happens when you create a balanced, competitive fighting game, look at Virtua Fighter, IMO, the best fighter of all time, and I've been playing since SF2 first showed up at my local movie theatre and I had to stand on a crate.
I would also like to point out that at it's core, SF is a zoning game. That's why in Season 1, many of the dominate characters were zoners; Ryu, Chun, Charlie.... But the dichotomy of zoning vs rushdown is what makes it exciting. I can hit you with 6 fireballs and make you block 15 more, but if you get in once, I might die unless I make a good read or take a risk. That's how it should be. It isn't boring, it is building tension, like Hitchcock. Or like soccer or hockey; low scoring, high defense, but the every scoring chance, sometimes every shot, becomes super exciting. On the other hand, basketball is only exciting to most people near the end of a close game, or if there is an amazing display of skill, talent or style. And in both basketball and football, they have changed the rules to be geared toward offense, and we see the same thing there. Comebacks are normal. John Elway became a legend for his "2:00 drill". Now everyone does it.
No lie, probably the best music on any channel. Thank you for the playlist. Makes my day much easier to get through
Rewatching the video, to me, the last part about communication between developers and players really resonates with strive's developer blogs and surveys, I hope this becomes a trend and healthy communication between boths sides helps in the development of better games
I see it as merely a balance that needs to be struck, as far as execution goes. I totally get the idea of making the game more "convenient" to play, which is absolutely NOT that same thing as making it "easier" to win. It comes down to the question, "What is the appeal of this game, or what is this game testing?"
Giving the inputs a wider window is great on paper, because it makes the game more convenient to play, and potentially makes the REAL meat of the game (the appeal, the test) even greater, because more players can discover it, and it can be experienced and even evolved via metagame, more easily.
However, there reaches a point when it's too much. The example shown in this video was perfect. The parry in SFV was nowhere near as impressive as the Diego - er, Daigo Parry. But, just because something is impressive, doesn't mean it's necessarily good, or entertaining, or even intentional, in abstract. (Of course the Daigo Parry WAS all of those.)
Which brings us back to the question of WHAT exactly is this game's appeal, or test? WHAT are we trying to glean entertainment from, exactly? This is why some games lower the execution requirement; many fighting games are made with mindgames and strategic elements, reaction times and out-predicting your opponent, in mind. The execution requirements are partially a mere by-product of the control scheme, and perhaps even a relic of an archaic system, depending on the point of view. Look at RPGs; it can be maddening to play RPGs made before the 2000s or even 2010s, because the UI and control setups have recently become much more user-friendly and refined. Increasing the input window in SFV is an attempt at this.
That's not to say it is a flawless attempt; as this video shows, there are people who DO enjoy the stricter execution requirements of games like 3rd Strike. This could simply be a matter of taste, or simply because they are the "legacy players" this video talks about, who have already built legacy skill in these execution requirements, and lowering that barrier feels like wasted time and effort. Either way, it is risky to do so, because of these very players.
Here is the clincher though: if lowering this barrier actually INCREASES the appeal or test of the game in other aspects (reaction times, predictions, strategy), then this could very much be seen as a good thing. If it doesn't contribute to that, then what does it contribute? More accessibility, which can be great, but does it work AGAINST the competitive depth? Does it make a less deep game?
See, the Daigo Parry tested character knowledge, reaction times, and timing. Those are all GREAT things for a fighting game to test. With a wide window as in SFV, however, that test is gone... but is there something to replace that depth? Does Ryu's parry require a resource? Does it leave him potentially vulnerable in other ways? Or does it flat out reduce depth? If so, then that design is a little pointless. As this video explains, accessibility can reach a point where eventually, it means nothing.
There must be some element that the game can draw its appeal from. In fighting games, this is generally a test of skill between two people at a time. The test is, in particular, reflexes, system/character knowledge, and mental games to guide strategic choices. This is awesome. There is also often dexterity requirements, which in abstract, do NOT contribute to those other factors. Of course devs, and players who have a hard time adjusting, may want the dexterity requirements reduced. There will always be the old guard who doesn't like that, either out of tradition, pride, or simply individual taste, but many players may welcome this change, as it allows less work to get to the "good stuff".
But what about the Daigo Parry? As the video mentions, the Daigo Parry would not be interesting with a much wider input window. There is a balance to be struck. Perhaps the window could still be slightly wider, and still be jaw-dropping. But not AS jaw-dropping. But the Parry was balanced around the fact that it left you vulnerable, AND required timing. A parry on it's own is actually super simple to EXECUTE, but not necessarily UTILIZE, due to the timing. All you have to do is press forward. See, it was a raw display of SKILL, not COMPLEXITY. It required practice in game knowledge and timing in order to UTILIZE the parry as Daigo did, but it wasn't work to simply UNDERSTAND or EXECUTE the parry. That is the key difference that puts a spotlight on the types of appeal these games can have. It comes down to "fun", which of course is partially subjective, but we all know you can't please everybody anyway (especially when comparing new players to preexisting fans).
The high execution requirements may create amazing moments, but a lower barrier to entry could potentially create EVEN MORE because of the increased accessibility (thus, ideally, increasing the player base, and thus more games played), and because the game more efficiently tests the more interesting aspects of the game besides mere physical dexterity, which is often seen as just a by-product of the game's design.
Case in point, accessibility is good, depth is good, design your game to have the best possible balance between the two. Recognize what makes your game actually fun, and make use of it without adding unnecessary un-fun stuff. Sometimes execution requirements increase the depth and appeal of a game, because it increases the required strategy. Sometimes it goes overboard, and adds unnecessary barriers without adding extra strategy (diminishing returns). Sometimes the requirement is too loose, resulting in a game with no depth because it doesn't incentivize strategy. This balance is harder to strike when dealing with multiple target audiences (new players, spectators, preexisting fans, competitive players).
That only took a half hour. XD XD
very underated comment! Agreed with all your points!
My God, even what I wrote for my university assignment's essay isn't as detailed and well-written as this. I wasn't prepared at all.
This comment needs many more likes and much more attention. Well said!
You hit upon a lot of the points I think and talk about whenever people discuss barriers of entries and depth vs. complexity. The example I like to use is to take Tic Tac Toe and add the rule that in order to make a move you also have to memorize and recite some X digits of pi or else you lose your move. Is this game more skill testing? Yes. Will we see a greater divide in the skilled and unskilled? Yes. But will this make Tic Tac Toe a deeper game? I'd say its a pretty definitive no, and I use this example when talking about making conscious design decisions on what skills you want to test in your game and lowering the barrier of entry for everything else.
About the 9th paragraph... a DP motion -or any other motion for that matter- isn't necessarily hard to understand (unless it's *the pretzel*)... to execute... maybe; depends on the game and situation.
I also disagree with the notion that lowering the execution requirements would create more hype moments; they'd become common and you'd see them every other day... so you'd get more moments in terms of quantity but they wouldn't be hype.
As for hype moments created by the nuance of say, a 5 second staredown or some very good movement used to whiff punish or awareness to bait a reversal, etc., those will still be lost to casual players regardless of if the execution in the game is easy or hard.
I personally am a fan of "only 236, 214 and 22 inputs" design, but I feel moves have to be balanced in a different way. DPs in DBFZ feel kind of unfair for only some characters to have because they aren't hard to pull off and have full invincibility just like a regular 623 motion but don't even leave you as open if you're blocking, which means a lot of players will take issue with not having an invulnerable move themselves.
As for what you asked about Ryu's parry in SFV: no, V-skills don't require any kind of resource, but I'm also not familiar enough with the game yet to know if he gets as big of a reward afterwards... which you could see as a problem itself in more of an "I can do this now that it's easier but it isn't worth doing" kind of way.
I like picturing the issue with FG execution in basketball terms: Imagine making the basket 2 meters in diameter; sure, even noobs would be able to get theoretical 5-point "other side of the court" shots in even against a pro since just by the rules' nature they will get their hands on the ball, but winning against a pro wouldn't mean much if anything in that situation, would make the pro feel bad and anyone with more context about the game than "this is a pro vs a noob and the noob is doing well" would find it boring to watch too.
People don't seem to have much issue with the concept of a headshot being an instant kill but also hard to pull off in a shooter game so I find it kind of a double standard to say fighting games need to be more "accessible" than they are; if anyone said "the head hurtbox should be 3 times as big as it is now" they'd be laughed at, but "I should be able to do my fully invulnerable reversal move with the press of a button and no drawbacks" for some reason is seen as reasonable, common sense and something to be catered to. I'm not saying we should make it so that every move has to be input frame-perfectly but the way modern fighters handle inputs should already be considered "accessible" enough.
Just my 2 cents.
“I would never want 1 button shoryukens in street fighter.” Aged very well thank you street fighter six.
@TheGOAT-hj6slSF6 has like four times as many entrants at this year's Evo as Tekken lmfao. What are you talking about
@TheGOAT-hj6slYeah dude they're "shilling" by willingly paying money to sign up for a tournament. You've cracked the code and definitely don't sound like an insane retard
Evo Moment 37 is like doing a perfect run of Through the Fire and Flames - both take mad skill to even approach them.
This happened in Arena FPS, Fighting, and in RTS. And it sucks.
try playing Starcraft 2 RTS at the highest level
@@sepg5084 most pros have very rigid strategies in StarCraft2 (time practiced) and there are multiple examples of pros being patched out. But to the videos point starcraft1 has little to no commercial viability, but then again maybe it would if devs just stopped and players couldn't expect COD44: Modern Warfair 2036.
Arena FPS didn't become casual. They just... stopped making games. UT4 getting cancelled because of Fortnite's success was the final nail in the coffin for the genre.
@@user-rx2ur5el9p Keep an eye out for Diabotical.
@@Maver1ck101 ooh, will do
we need a video talking about zoning and keepaway and the hate towards it. also love your stick art. who is that?
Suigintou101 juri's new sfv costume
otaku man oh thank maybe I should get back into sf 5 cause I stopped playing 2 weeks after Juris release. i want that skin
Very apt considering the hate towards Deadshot's zoning in Injustice 2 at the moment.
Suigintou101 I second this. Especially with Injustice 2. No zoning in SFV.
I've played games of melee with friends and I have a style based more on traditional fighters where I weave on to be honest sometimes run away to make space and poke people out. And friends have a joke about me playing "lame" or "campy."
TL DR- That sounds like a very interesting video topic
Suigintou101 ya maybe but the tiers have been flipped and tossed everywhere. check out SRK its a whole new ball game
"I would never want 1 button shoryukens in Street Fighter"
Street Fighter 6: 😳
"But I would never want one button shoryukens in street fighter.". Corea aka nostradamus
6 years later and... enter "modern" controls with 1 button shorukens and assisted combos.
That Richard Garfield talk is legendary
Smash Ultimate is my example of a game that tried to be developed for *both* types of players at the same time. Sakurai and his team have never cared as much for what the competitive community thinks, to the point that they invited a selection of top level players from all past smash games to E3 and gave them the game to test it, give feedback and play it as a tournament on E3, even before the organizers of the event themselves knew about the reveal.
Now we have an online ranked mode, hazardless stages, precise and new mechanics, offensive and defensive ones, and a really balanced cast with only further patches to ensure that it stays that way - for the competitive community.
But we still have gimmicky characters, easy to understand movement, a fun and huge pool of stages, items, spirits, a story mode and many bonus modes - for the casual community.
The thing about smash is that you can perform the same movement options as a casual and competitive player, but depending on how good you are at executing them they can be incredibly advanced. Not to forget the invisible, theoretical stuff the Casuals don't know about, like DI or move staling.
Given, some options, like the ranked mode or the limited possibilities for online tournaments (because you can only play Tourney Mode locally) are not perfect [yet]. But the general direction the game is taking and things Sakurai explained in interviews give me great hope that Smash Ultimate will only go uphill from here.
Yeah they listened alright, online is complete ass, the buffer combined with the input lag is horrendous at times, you can't switch characters in a set any more without having to completely leave, gsp is a joke, some stages that are TOURNAMENT LEGAL are jank as fuck. They really listened to their input.
yeah but tbf nintendo has always had shitty online servers and the game plays a million times better offline which is where local matches and tourneys are held
Its kind of funny how many parallels smash ultimate has to street fighter v. Both have extremely leniant buffering, both have weakened defensive options in order to encourage offensive play.
@Rice Worker most of the points you made only address online and not if the game is competitive or not
Two words
Lylat cruise
damn that jazz cover over the daigo parry really made it into something else
As long as the competitive community is unable to financially sustain a game with their sole purchases, the devs will keep catering the games to casual audiences, simple as that.
@HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. theyre businesses in the end, so theyre gonna go where the money is at, thats the most basic of explanations buts its true
HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. ohohoh, the capitalism sucks card has been played, no dude actually don’t, I mean you can blame the capitalism but that’s like get angry about the rain, i mean you can, but that doesn’t mean you will get something from there, and yeah if you wish fighting games being like chess why you don’t just play the ones from the 90s, they haven’t changed, like the chess in more than 100 years, and basketball has actually changed just you’re too ignorant to know it, (also the chess too but just a little)
HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. also if were like want, the fighting game would look like in the 90s and like the chess they just would be enjoyable to a niche group, you just want to feel special like a damn teenager
HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. and I told you more things than your criticizes on the capitalism, also dude that the mechanics get simpler doesn’t mean it’s the competitive is easier just that the competition get though, you and all the special snowflakes in this community are crying because you can’t adapt
SFV was financially unsuccessful, what you're saying is nonsense. Casuals don't care how high the skill ceiling is and are not going to compete, if casuals are just mashing buttons there's already purely luck implemented in their game, they didn't need to choose, that's dumbest part of capcom's decision to make the game like it is.
"Anyone can be the next Diego"
I cringed. "diego" LOL
Anyone can be the next Dora the Explora like Diego.
He KEPT SAYING IT. Drove me nuts.
jesot He was doing it on purpose to show that higherups have no idea who Daigo is and likely would pronounce it wrong. He pronounces his name correctly at the start of the video.
Super Smash bros. Brawl had forced input lag before it was popular
How do you know it was forced?
They removed L-cancelling (cancelling landing lag frames from aerial moves when they are used while falling on the ground; it is a technique that has existed since the very first iteration of Smash, Smash 64), and they added random tripping elements to character dashes, along with removal of other movement options. If this does not sound like a disaster to a platform fighting game, you might wanna get your brain checked out. Oh btw, Sm4sh is also veeeeery guilty of this sin.
Meta Knight being top tier wasn't the reason why brawl was a turn off for melee players. Fox is much more "broken" than Meta Knight but it is safe to say that many people love the character. In fact, Meta Knight was the only character that actually felt like a melee character. Furthermore, Core-A-Gaming himself even discusses in his video: "Why We Should Buff More Than Nerf", a broken game doesn't equate to a less competitive game, in fact the most balanced, "honest" fighting games are the ones that ultimately lack competitive depth and enjoyment. Everything else you said about Brawl is correct.
Project M. Nuff said. If you don't like it, just crack it.
Yeah and lets not forget about the DUMBASS tripping mechanic that punishes you for moving quicker than intended like the fuck?! How much time did they waste writing up a trip mechanic for each character then animating every character tripping in multiple directions.
It's crazy how you covered the topic about "Sameness" in a older video. An also covered about how a game should be "fair", using Harrison Bergeron as a example. Then you make this video talking about how a game is closing the Gap, and making it really even almost for everyone. Its crazy how it starts to be a problem for no one can be special in their own way, and literally summaries about how "fairness" can be a problem, if everyone's mostly the "same".
Great video, even though this comments on a 3 yr old video I still love it
Moment 37 is in the bibble of any competitive gamer (sc2 player here)
StarCraft 2 or Soulcalibur 2?
*bibbble
@@deniskreynin
Super Casino 2
The input lag destroyed SF.
And dumbed down combos, crush system, and no defense.
They made a game for the casual fans, but didn't include the bells and whistles casual players want, thus alienating both the casual and competitive crowds.
"Is it that not worth it to make a game enjoyable for its most dedicated players?" Gerald 4 Pres
Lets just say that whoever was responsible for not giving the casuals all those bell and whistles is a complete moron.
If I could upvote you twice :( Looking at Injustice 2 and MKXL, wtf is Capcom thinking? Still no Arcade mode, bad netcode. Taking more than a year to punish rage quitters...Like wtf???
They're also touting how CFN is now an actual thing, some 15 months or so after release. Should we all chip in to get them a huge trophy?
Not so much the "bells and whistles" but the actual content in the game. From what I heard, Street Fighter 5 still screams "DLC" and "microtransaction". From what I hear, fighting games like KOF 14 has successfully avoided that trap and delivered a great game for all fans.
Fatlord27 many games that are designed to be an esport from the ground up have this problem where competitve fans and players arent happy but you really didnt make the game good for casuals either. If i want to play a casual fighting im gona play injustice if i want a competitive one im going to play guilty gear. Street fighter 5 tries to apeal to all but misses most instead.
4:43 interestingly, one of the chess world champions proposed to add random setup to _increase_ the skill factor, by forcing players to improvise rather than rely on memorized openings
They made a video about that called hiners and innovators
@@tempusername-l5d Tbf it didn't separate between lowering skill gap vs skill floor(while keeping a high skill ceiling)
Well, I feel like that's a bit different in something like high level chess where memorization is the primary skill at work. You don't need reflexes, or instant reactivity in chess, even with turn timers you're given time to think, and so if something you aren't prepared for happens you always have time to react and adapt, and generally speaking who wins often comes down to a question of "who's memorized more counters."
In a fighting game it doesn't matter how much you know theoretically, I could spend hundreds of hours reading guides, watching play and so on, memorizing all the ideal moves to make in any given moment, and it wouldn't matter in the slightest if I didn't also have the reflexes to pull those moves off, the practice needed to consistently hit unforgiving, possibly frame perfect combos, and enough muscle memory to pull off those ideal moves on instinct rather than have to remember them first. Even in high level chess you have the luxury of taking a moment to remember the move you need to make, but that's not the case in fighting games, which means something random happening is much more likely to be the single deciding factor of a match.
Honestly, I'd go so far as to say that without randomization of any kind chess isn't even a game of skill in the first place: its a game of knowledge.
@@Gir558 if that was the case, chess would have been "solved", like checkers have been. that's why professional checkers matches are played today in 10x10 or even 12x12 boards instead of the 8x8, because there is a sequence that guarantees a draw or win if the player memorizes it. and so far, no engine could even come close to solve chess, wich proves you wrong. yes, memorization is VERY important in chess, but to an extent. if you are competing, memory will only get you so far. eventually, even if you have the most prodigious memory ever known to humanity, you'll still have to face the elite of the elite, with similar memorization skills and inhuman intelligence to back it. if that wasn't the case, players would stick to the same openings always, there would be no benefit in learning other ways to play as memorization is the only skill required.
@@gustavogoesgomes1863 and the only reason memorization became so important in chess was because engines could accurately calculate correct answers add infinitum, before that you had opening theory yes but nowadays there is more knowledge available than ever before because of chess engines
but still it requires players to be able to find their own solutions since you cant possibly memorize every possible board state in chess
0:32 Thanks, I actually didn't know how to do this and was wondering.
Tekken 7 fr made this issue look like it didnt existed. Goodjob harada
How idk a lot about tekken
@@healerman45 they added flash moves like rage art which a cinematic super that can be blocked and countered and punished but it can amazing when it lands on the opponent and rage drive that are fast moves which can extend or start a combo or pressure the opponent but can be avoided anyways look for rage arts and rage drives and you would find a lot of cool stuff and actually the pro players like this as well as it made new gameplans possible while maintaining the core of tekken
Tekken suffered from this too and I'm not even talking about the new rage mechanics they added
@@funkopapa8223 laughs in Leroy
Tekken (and most 3d fighters) always had a lower entry level but stupid high skill ceiling. Characters can do a lot more with mashing compared to 2D fighters, im not bashing 3D fighters (3D fighters was my gateway drug into the FGC)
There are a few flaws in this video. One big example is near the end, when the video suggests companies should listen to players during development. On paper that idea sounds great, but it offers no plan on implementation, which is where this approach tends to fall apart.
Design by committee, much more design by popular opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Opinions, desires, skills, and the rest all vary so greatly that feedback will be a mess of contradictions. Following majority rule will likely result in a less than stellar game that nearly everyone will find some spot of frustration within. Not following majority rule means that the devs are picking and choosing which people to listen to, and...
Picking and choosing which people to listen to begs the question of which people should be listened to. How do you determine which players have advice worth taking? Remember that all players are going to have their own biases and interests, which might not align with what is best for the game as a whole. And while design by committee results in a mess of contradictions, restricting input to increasingly smaller groups also increases the risk of a potentially detrimental narrowly held opinion making it through.
Do you put high priority on the advice of tournament winners? They are going to be just as biased as other gamers (with opinions that favor their preferred styles and characters, and go against the styles and characters that they don't like), and their advice will likely not factor in the impact on lower level and non-tournament play. (One of the strikes held against SF5 is that it was too focused on tournament play, ignoring single-player content, which played a part in its poor sales reception.) Let's say you do take the advice specifically of tournament players. What does it mean when six months or a year later, one of your top contributors is now losing tournaments? Is all his advice now retroactively rendered "worthless", or do you accept that "tournament winner" wasn't a good restriction in the first place?
you don't listen to a single pool of players tho, and while you do listen to players during development, you don't listen to them blindly.
Sponsors and shareholders on the other hand, understand ABSOLUTELY nothing about the gameplay, the casual experience, nor the competitive experience. So who would you rather listen to?
Look at SF5 right now. For almost 20 years they had been the staple of almost all FGC tourneys. Now in 2019 LITERALLY every other fighting game is doing better than ever, except Capcom's games. And no other companies went Capcom's routes. So who would you rather listen to?
For me, the problem is dealing with the skill ceiling AND the skill base. There has to be a good amount of distance between the two for there to be a good competitive scene. I think that companies are both lowering the skill base and reducing the skill ceiling, when they shouldn't be doing that, they should instead lower the skill base BUT keep the same or increase the skill ceiling. An example of this would be what I'm familiar with, smash. Melee has a high skill ceiling, with wave dashing, shield drops, etc., but has a pretty high skill base; getting use to 1-frame inputs for every single input, including just basic movement, is very jarring when most fighting game have input buffers.
Then brawl came out, which lowered the skill base, but severely reduced the skill ceiling, adding rng in tripping, very little combo potential, and divided the competitive scene in two. While brawl did have a strong competitive base, I feel like it was a wrong turn, competitively at least.
GG Rev 2 is the epitome of adding accessibility without removing the core competitiveness of the game. I've been playing since the original Guilty Gear on PS and Rev 2 is the best installation thus far.even without my main character being in the game.
Yujiro Smith melee is a pretty damn good example of a skill ceiling so high nobody has touched it and a skill floor so low a toddler can play it, but that ain't a fighin gaehym