 |
|
|
| |
Opinion: Where Do Fighting Games Go From Here?
by Nayan Ramachandran
|
|
| |
|
February 23, 2009
|
| |
[In this personal opinion piece, Japan-based journalist Nayan Ramachandran considers Capcom's challenges with making Street Fighter IV more approachable for casual gamers, and why fighting game enthusiasts often reject those accessibility efforts.]
My head hurts, and my stomach is empty. It’s nine o’ clock in the morning and everyone seems a lot more awake than me. I finally get to the front of the line for the play I wanted to see, only to find out it has been sold out for almost two months.
My friend and I walk to Denny’s for a pick-me-up breakfast, both of us despondent and still feeling the effects of the party the night before.
When I finally finish my grilled cheese sandwich and scrambled eggs, I mutter to myself "Well, at least Street Fighter IV comes out tomorrow." My friend says nothing, and we continue eating. It was not a great start to the day.
On the way to the train station, my friend peels off down another street for a separate engagement, and I take the train one stop back to my neighborhood, my belly full but my head still throbbing.
Instead of taking the usual walking route from the station back to my apartment, I decided to swing by a tiny game and DVD store in the open air mall close by to have a see what they had in stock.
To my surprise, they had Street Fighter IV in stock, but it was selling for ¥1000 more than the store I had the game reserved at nearly five blocks away. I walk to the other store, past my apartment, in hopes they might be holding my copy, ready to buy a day early.
When I realized they were going to stick strictly to the street date for the game, I walked back another five blocks to the first store and snapped Street Fighter IV up, aware that plenty of people in the neighborhood would want a copy just as badly if they knew it was already available.
This was the real start of the day: my re-introduction to the world of Street Fighter, and my re-activated status in the secret club of fighting game players.
The Velvet Rope
That’s what it is, after all. Fighting games are hugely exclusive. Since Street Fighter IV was announced, I and many other people have been inundated with questions, all with a similar theme: accessibility.
From "How easy is it to pick up and play?" to "What game should I practice with to get ready?", questions and worries have been pouring down.
Street Fighter IV might seem too accessible to avid series fans, and may even feel like a step back to those who lived off Street Fighter III over its various incarnations, but Capcom and other fighting game developers might have no choice. Alienation is a very real problem.
Fighting games are inherently competitive, and while they may seem pick-up-and-play friendly at first sight, the amount of dexterity required to perform regularly used actions is almost completely out of grasp for the average gamer not used to fighting games as a genre. On top of that, the fighting game community has become far more insular than others.
Online first-person shooters are also a fairly competitive and difficult arena to enter, but their popularity has spawned a large community of varying ability, forcing developers to form viable matchmaking systems.
Even without these systems, first-person shooters have become largely team based, allowing new players to play with veterans on their team who can protect and teach them as they play the game.
As the mainstream popularity of fighting games has waned over the years, communities have become far more entrenched, developing and using lingo and strategy that the average player would never be able to decipher on their own.
The Smash Bros Effect
Many gamers that played fighting games as kids only played Street Fighter II, and after the series took a huge departure with Street Fighter III, many decided to stay away.
Increasingly technical fighting games like Virtua Fighter often led to incorrect generalizations about the entire fighting game catalog, most people considering them to be inaccessible for newbies and impossible to enjoy.
When Nintendo’s Super Smash Bros. series started to gain a large following after the release of its Gamecube incarnation, many within its ranks considered it a fresh new look at fighters, and a fresh take on the genre. It’s departure was grand, and its gameplay was vastly different.
Super Smash Bros. Melee seemed to skew more towards the idea of a party game than a traditional fighting game because of its gameplay types and its concentration on four-player matches. Much of its resemblance was to Power Stone, rather than Street Fighter.
The problem, though, was that many did not even consider it to be a fresh fighter that could bring new gamers into the community. In fact, many today still do not think it is a fighting game at all.
Arguments on semantics seem to flare up on message boards even now, its very existence seemingly an insult to the sensibilities of the hardcore fighting fan.
Increasing Accessibility
But then, what needs to be done to make fighting games more accessible to new gamers, and still appease the hardcore? I love Street Fighter and have played it for years, but as long as new 2D fighters follow the conventions of special attack joystick movements and conventional 1-on-1 play, new players will not come in droves.
The likes of Smash Bros. attracted a whole new generation of fighting game fans, but the very same lack of adherence that made the series so popular with its community was the same element that drove purists halfway to their grave.
Street Fighter IV is a surprisingly accessible fighting game, and seems designed to bring back those who fell off the bandwagon years ago, but throwing a simple hadouken or shoryuken -- both of which must be mastered to be of any use when playing -- takes more practice than most new gamers are honestly willing to put in.
It’s a dichotomy that unfortunately may be its undoing. Fighting game specific forums are confusing to read, even for me, a gamer that has been playing fighting games casually for over 10 years.
The amount of acronyms and colloquialisms that litter their conversations makes for smoother communication between veterans, no doubt, but it makes it overwhelming and impenetrable to outsiders.
At the same time, the approachable fighting games are either lacking in the depth required to attract the enthusiast audience, such as Dead or Alive, or so far removed from the norm that their existence does not register, and enthusiast skills cannot be transposed without a steep learning curve.
With the growing cost of game development and the higher technical expectations with each future iteration, it is no surprise that Capcom took the safe route with Street Fighter IV, mirroring Street Fighter II’s roster and shedding a lot of the systems from Street Fighter III that made the game unpopular with casual players.
Street Fighter IV seems to be successfully straddling that bridge between casual and enthusiast for now, but it is hard to tell if it will have the staying power that past titles had.
Hopefully, companies like Capcom, SNK, and even Rare can see that there’s some room for more casual titles. Releases like Tatsunoko vs. Capcom (released for Arcade and Wii only in Japan) show that Capcom knows how to make a more casual fighter and is willing to, but there needs to be bigger strides. Hopefully, the fans won’t sneer when that happens.
|
| |
|
|
As for where fighting game should go from here on? Personally I believe games like Tekken, VF, even Soul Calibur should just stay in the arcades because at the end of the day console-centric gamers really don't have the attension span for these game, secondly console joypads really aren't designed for fighting games and finally you won't find many hardcore fighting game fans(like myself) playing on a console but more likely at an arcade.
Now should games like Tekken, VF, etc, take the Smash Bros. route? I hope not especially since Smash Bros. games are essentially watered-down fighting games.
Fighting games are an interesting beast. There may not be many overly popular ones (about half a dozen major series existing in the history of video games, I believe), but there are countless other smaller series' with their own potential, like Arcana Heart series. One thing that they commonly share is what the article has implied: a great lack of accessability to casual players.
That said, the reason I wanted to call out Andre is that his generalization of "console-centric gamers really don't have the attension [sic] span for these game [sic]" is flat out wrong. Most of my friends actually love Soulcalibur, but they're all effectively casual players, especially if one's method of determining dedication involves skill, or time spent playing.
At the end of the day, accessibility is a strong design force that the industry is hearing cries for, and I hope we can improve it. A fighter game will never truly suffer with it's inclusion (unless you count whiny abandoning hardcore players with their illogical gameplay desires), because fighters thrive off of other mechanics that don't need complex inputs to utilize (such as spacing, counters, etc). I hope that Street Fighter IV helps improve that.
http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2009/2/22/a-few-things-about-street-fighter-4.html
Perhaps we can hope for patches to improve the matter?... Or maybe Capcom will wait a year or so and release an updated version of the game with "classic" and "updated" balance, including more options for configuring inputs to get around weird things like kara-throws (something I remember annoying me in Smash Bros Melee). I don't think anything short of a major readjustment of the game will change stuff like linking, though. Mechanics like that are probably there to stay in SFIV.
1. 2 button throws: This is a good thing. It isn't a matter of accidentally throwing and "being sad about it", it is more of a matter for the defense than the offense. People getting off accidental throws on you frequently and throws usually have good priority as well so it leads to people pulling off moves that they never intended. I saw it in past SF games where someone would rush in to combo I'd block it, but since I blocked I would be punished for it when the certain part of their combo overlapped the throw input. Use combos that overlap with throw inputs and it is a lose lose situation for the defense where their only option is to counter-throw whereby they still take damage albeit smaller amount. Now say by chance the offense is out of range for the throw then the move comes out and the defense still has to block it or be hit. The offense gets a free chance to throw (and damage) the defense no matter what the defense does with no reprecutions of leaving themselves open with a wiff. I know there's ways to out prioritize a throw with pokes, but again that is a hardcore mechanic while all the other casual players are all throwing each other on accident the entire match. So no, a 2 button system is needed. It helps the casual and isn't hard for a hardcore to readjust to. To answer the kara throw question I would have to think they wouldn't want long range throws in the game and they should have fixed that bug, but it not being fixed isn't a big problem because it does require intentional inputs to pull it off. If I'm thrown by a throw whether it is kara or not if I know it was intentional on the part of my opponent I'm fine with that. It is when the 1 button accidental throws come into play that I can get frustrated because I know it wasn't something my opponent planned for.
2. I agree with your link assessment to a point. It is true that high level play will turn into a different game, but the strategy is all still there. At the casual level the strategy is still there as well just with easier to execute combos. So I don't really see the problem. Also it takes damage to Sakura herself for her to be able to add an ultra in there for the bulk of the damage because of the revenge meter. Even the EX hit eats up some meter that she has to earn, and each time she tries to earn it she puts herself at risk. Finally, you mentioned that in past SF games people could win tournaments with zero or very few link combos and I believe that to be the case with SF4 as well.
No matter the level of execution the underlying strategy game is there. There are also character differences and Sakura and Ryu might be more heavily link based than other characters, I don't see a problem with that. Dhalsim for instance isn't very link oriented, Zangief isn't very link oriented, and Sagat doesn't need to be link oriented at all he does fine damage by controlling the match and punishing. Just at a glance I know any of these 3 can win without links, and I'm sure there are others as well. I know there are countless unavoidable ultra combos in the game that don't rely on links, and ultimately what we're talking about here is 2 or so extra hits for 5% extra damage. The bulk of the damage comes from that shoryuken and ultra, and that is entirely possible without links. Again, the underlying strategy doesn't change just because there are more links it just makes mistakes cost a tiny bit more. I don't see a problem with that, you make a mistake and you get punished for it. So no matter what the strategy is still there link or no link, and I believe it is just as possible to win tournaments with no links as it is with them. The only time links will really come into play is in a very close game, and in that case the more dexterous one deserves to win because being dexterous is part of being a better player, the better player wins.
3. Casual friendly. "...Qcf x 2 +PPP all the time, extra button presses to throw, extra button presses to roman cancel, and many, many extremely difficult link combos..."
The only thing I see in this sentence that isn't user friendly is the Qcf x 2 because it produces something that is very casual friendly looking, an ultra combo. The other things are not required to get enjoyment out of the game for a casual player. Think a casual fan really cares about 1/60th frame links? They don't, and there is an alternative, there are target combos made for the casual player that are very easy to pull off. Chun-Li FP,FP, Rufus LK,FK, umm, and like 1 or 2 per character that I don't know. Casuals care about roman canceling? I doubt it. Throws? Pressing 2 buttons is pretty casual friendly, it is easy, and with the popularity of 3D fighters I wouldn't be surprised if casuals could wrap their mind around a 2 button throw more than a 1 button throw.
People who enjoy a pickup-and-play button masher like Soul Calibur 4 are the exact type of low attention span casual gamers that Andre was talking about. Get your friends to try out Street Fighter 4 and you will quickly see they lack the interest to put in the time needed to learn it.
I fail to see how wanting competitive fighting games that require an advanced level of skill and dedication is an illogical desire. Street Fighter 4 is such a game, and it's selling pretty damn well. If you want fighting games to eventually consist of a big red button labeled "WIN", I want no part of it.
That review did seem to have a couple of good points ( input delay in online play) but seemed to be unecessarily nit picky in others ( one button vs two button throws, slow getting up vs fast getting up). The consensus I would draw from the both article the one posted here and he linked one is that it the game probably doesn't go far enough for the true hardcore fighting game fan.
The industry is obsessed with it because they don't want to choose which market to go after: The low-number high-spending hardcore, or the high-number low-spending casual. Yes, I know I'm generalizing (severely), however I've always looked at it as a 'have your cake and eat it too' situation.
The difference this time around is the level of Capcom's engagement to the the fighting game community, fabulous graphics, overall good [more] marketing, and good timing with the advent of online playability.