|
How do you decide when it's too much stuff on the screen? There are lots of gauges and so forth that must be demonstrated, but it could easily become too visually complicated.
TI: There are times when there are limits to what the programmers can do with the art team's requests, but most times they work around it, coming up with special shaders for the gauges and so on. People praised the UI parts of the first game, as well, and implementing all of that was really a major challenge for the program side, but it's something we provide for in the schedule. We try to do whatever we can do, and even if it takes a little more time, we like to see the artists' wishes take physical form without making compromises.
I think one of the things that may intimidate new players is the fact you have so much onscreen to pay attention to besides the actual characters fighting. A newbie could look at that and have no idea what it all means.
TI: I think it's true that you run the risk of making things too complex on the programming level, but on the other hand, if you cut out too much of that, you may wind up making the game less fun as a result. It's true that our game is definitely noted for having a lot of gauges, but I think the prevailing attitude here is that we'd like light users to try their best here. (laughs)
If we got rid of them, then we would get comments from series veterans about how much less data is at their disposal. I do think we're at about the upper limit with the current system, though, so if we add anything else, then something will have to be cut out.
My favorite fighting game ever only has two gauges, Asuka 120%. The life and power gauges.
TI: (laughs) That is a simpler fighter, that's for sure.
Out of all the fighter developers, you seem to be the most interested in creating a story. Why do you put so much story in the games?
TI: Well, one thing we try to aim for in our games is to make the characters as interesting and engaging for players to control as possible, and one way we try to achieve that is by providing a solid background for them. We start with a world setting, create interesting characters to populate that world with, and then we get to designing how they will work in battle. We try to make story mode seem like a sort of adventure game-within-the-game, so that's what led to having so much volume in it and introducing voice acting and so on.
I notice not many people complain about your netcode, unlike with other fighters. How much attention do you pay to this? Is it a plug-and-play system, or does it get coded separately?
TI: With regards to the netcode, we really haven't touched it very much since it was originally developed for Calamity Trigger. We've been able to use that code pretty much verbatim in CS; Arcana Heart uses the same system as well. We spent the time way back then to create a really solid system, and it was our aim from the start for it to be as flexible with different types of fighters as we could make it.
 Nurarihyon no Mago
Do you think you'd ever try another four-player simultaneous title?
HM: Like with Nurarihyon no Mago, which we put out on the 360?
TI: Indeed; that's a fighting game that runs on the same basic code as our others. As a result, there's no technical reason why we can't make a 2-on-2 game like that, even though BlazBlue hasn't gone that way yet...
HM: "Coming Soon". (laughs)
[Ed. note: Nurarihyon no Mago is a licensed game published by Konami, and is based on a manga franchise known as Nura: Rise of the Yokai Clan in the U.S.]
When a character changes position in a four-player game, will you do auto-facing, or do you have to do it manually?
TI: Well, with Guilty Gear Isuka, which we released a while ago, there was a button you had to press to manually change your facing. That approach was not particularly well-received (laughs), which shows how important an issue this becomes in a four-player fighting game -- it's much less intuitive than if you only have one opponent.
How has publishing been going for you guys? Do you want to do more of it?
HM: In terms of Nintendo systems, or digital downloads, that's something we try to manage entirely from the Japan office. For Sony systems, there needs to be a local company branch for whichever region you want to sell a game in, which is something we can't do directly. XBLA games can be published directly by us, but the retail software situation is a lot more complex than that.
If it were possible we'd like to be able to directly handle all forms of publishing from the Japan office, but the worldwide console scene is still built out of individual regions, so that's why publishing is instead divided between three companies.
Do you foresee a lot fewer packaged games and much more download stuff in the future?
HM: Yes. I think that's what we'll see, and I think... Well, my fighting game skill has been at the "mid-punch/mid-kick" level for about 20 years or so now (laughs), but I think especially when it comes to the simpler fighters or music games we've been making, the shift is already very prevalent, and that's only going to proceed further.
|
Combos arent just a matter of execution barrier but of allowing new set ups for risk-reward, allowing new mixups mid combo, allowing different setups for knockdown, allowing different rewards based on positioning and how much super you have, etc. Different games do this differently- skullgirls has a lot more mid-combo mixups and guilty gear/persona/blazblue has more options for combos leading to different setups, especially with certain characters.
It is really a shame that even in games with decent tutorials like Blazblue or Skullgirls, one has to go to the internet to start to understand a lot of stuff like this. Most fighting games dont explain themselves at all,which means new players have a hard time understanding why they lose(or even call the games button mashers), an understanding which is pivotal to the growth and fun that makes the genre so addictive.
I don't think the complexity of fighters is really the problem, but fighters dont give people the tools to process the games. It is like if chess didnt tell you what the hell a knight does, or if rpgs didnt let you easily compare old equipment's stats to new equipment's stats. People aren't shown how to distinguish what a move is for or what is beneficial about certain options, but once they start understanding how to interpret things in fighting games then suddenly an amazing wealth of depth is opened up.
As to tutorials: At least from my experience when I was diving head-first into the genre (about five years ago), I found that the (fan-made Internet) strategy guides for fighting games that were available in Japanese were fairly comprehensive compared to what materials (of a similar nature) were usually available in English for any given game. In addition, some games even had small (official) strategy guides aimed at beginners in addition to more in-depth ones. I think some things have certainly changed for the better on that front, though I am not prepared to fully evaluate the current state of the genre since I haven’t been able to play new releases, and have consequently not seen the current discourse.
I agree that more of these techniques ought to be discoverable within fighting games themselves, but I would surmise that part of that is the quality of what materials often don’t escape Japan along with the game. It’s not a great reason, and it’s not the only reason, but I think it is a reason.
Had a big long whinge about it here (and in the comments field):
Part 1
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanielBoutros/20091021/85759/Fighting_The_Good_Fi
ght_Why_Fighting_Games_Need_Their_Arses_Kicked_Part_1.php#comments
Part 2
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanielBoutros/20091023/85762/Fighting_The_Good_Fi
ght_Why_Fighting_Games_Need_Their_Arses_Kicked_Part_2.php#comments
Part 3
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanielBoutros/20100420/85788/Fighting_The_Good_Fi
ght_Why_Fighting_Games_Need_Their_Arses_Kicked_Part_3.php#comments
Also Brandon; a shame you are not writing things anymore. Your interviews were always among my favourites.
Gameplay improvements, making a game more enjoyable and deep like chess than like checkers, is clearly not something favored by the current market of gamers and gaming journalism. People focus more on things like abstract, loose and ultimately rather nonsensical senses of "content"(ie valueing the mediocre single player content of soul calibur 4 over the actual content and mastery presented by the greater gameplay system in sc5) This is not the field where fighting games need improvement - the field where they need improvement is the image of gameplay- how gameplay is perceived. Ability to understand the games, smaller emphasis on things like combos in many games(combos bring depth and are rather inevitable in any game with a sense of hitstun, but is there really a need for a 1f link instead of a late gatling on hit to make it easy?) so that people can get to the meat of these games more(the mindgames involved, the techniques and strategies which have incredible nuance, etc) as well as things like single player content like SC4's or decent story modes so that people are more interested in trying them in the first place.
Most people dont actively want depth. They merely want things that seem desirable to them in some loose sense of what will or wont be fun. When someone says "Minute changes aren't real innovations to me," that is not because those things arent innovations but because that person is not in the position to appreciate them and would rather have something that, instead of actually innovating, changes the game to something else. Difference is not necessarily new depth.
Clearer demonstration of the games as games like chess and less execution barriers are good things that would help the genre. But trying to change it to something else because of people (who dont see the depth in the first place cant appreciate the differences between Street Fighter 4's Ryu and Guilty Gear's Venom) isn't innovation - it is pandering to someone's mental image of what they want rather than the actuality of something's depth.
What is the goal of such "Innovations" that seek to "break the mold" of fighting games? It is not to make fighting games better(see how real improvements are ignored), it is not to give them more depth(they have tons), it is not to make them have a greater possibility field because they supposedly lack such - it is a matter of people's mental images. People with a light understanding of something want to see something that even they understand is new, regardless of whether or not it makes the game better because they are not even in a position to understand that focusing on making FGs better in depth instead of other genres is like giving a rich man a food stamp.
Its like complaining that heavy metal shouldn't be so heavy and angry :P
There's missing the point, and then there's not even being in the vicinity of the point.