 |
|
|
| |
Q&A: Producer Talks Updating Marvel vs. Capcom For Modern Audiences
by Brandon Sheffield [PC, Console/PC, Exclusive]
|
|
| |
|
August 25, 2010
|
| |
After nearly 10 years since the debut of Marvel vs. Capcom 2, the next entry in the popular cross-company fighting franchise will soon find its way to audiences worldwide, following the recent resurgence of fighting games.
Marvel vs. Capcom 3, which'll debut for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 early next year, combines modern and classic characters from both titular companies, and takes a more user-friendly approach to its fighting system to help initiate newcomers to the genre.
New characters to the franchise include Capcom's Chris Redfield, and Viewtiful Joe, as well as Marvel's Deadpool and Super-Skrull. The game will once again feature an exaggerated, comic book style, and allows players to accomplish flashy maneuvers with relative ease.
Gamsutra spoke with Ryota Niitsuma, producer of Marvel vs. Capcom 3 at Capcom Japan, to discuss the game's darker visual style, slower pace, and its efforts to invite new players to the fighting game genre.
The previous two Marvel vs. Capcom games were extremely bright and vibrant, but Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is a lot darker. What is the reason for this?
RN: Certainly, part of it is a stylistic choice. When you go with a more realistic graphical style, a side effect of that is that colors have a tendency to become more muted.
The art style in this game emphasizes shading a great deal, something that naturally requires dark colors, so I suppose there are a larger quantity of darker stages or areas than before. We made the decision in order to emphasize the art style we were going for.
Why go for that additional realism? Is it because of evolution of comic book tastes, or is it something else?
RN: Well, since the game is based off American comics, we had to think about what players would expect out of a comic-book game. We came to the conclusion that gamers want to see the art style they're used to seeing animated on the screen, and that's the design style we went for.
Since current comic art is closer to reality than it used to be, the game feels less like a comic book and feels like something that is slightly more realistic. It's closer to Street Fighter IV than it is to Marvel vs. Capcom 2.
RN: Making the game in 3D contributes to that as well; when you make a game like this using 3D graphics, that in and of itself helps make it look a little more realistic. It's not a case of us aiming for reality, though, but a byproduct of us aiming for the sort of shading techniques you see in comics today.
How much did you have to work with Marvel with the look of each character? Did Marvel have any influence over how the Capcom characters looked as well?
RN: First off, Marvel didn't give us any direction or suggestions for how Capcom characters should be depicted in the game. As for the Marvel characters, the idea is to make these fighters as fun as possible to play in the game, so along those lines, it's not like we're dealing with tons of red tape over character design. There are certain aspects to the Marvel in-house style that they insist on sticking to with their characters, though, so Capcom does get guidance along those lines from them.
This version doesn't seem to quite match the maniac speed of MvC2. Was that a conscious choice? If so, what was the thinking behind that decision?
RN: The pace hasn't changed that much, but it is indeed just a bit slower-paced than MvC2. It's a totally different game, of course, but in terms of pace it is a bit more leisurely; I think we've struck a good balance. The pace of MvC2 is something that long term fans are used to by now, of course, but for newbies to the fighting-game genre, we saw it as just a bit too quick.
On the other hand, if we slowed MvC3 down too much, it would have the effect of annoying MvC2 veterans. So we aimed for a play speed that would satisfy both those veterans and people just entering the series now. I should also note that the balance will probably be further tuned and adjusted as development continues on the game, so this isn't necessarily the final version.
Speaking of attracting new players -- this series has traditionally been the most button-mash friendly among Capcom's fighting series. You can just spam on the buttons and a lot of "stuff" happens, regardless of whether the player knows what it does. How do you balance that against the demand for technical skill, which is also very high in a MvC game, since people can juggle you for a very, very long time, and skill eventually wins out?
RN: Definitely, like you say, one of the trademarks of Capcom's vs. games is being able to launch a variety of moves with relatively simple controls, and that's something we want to retain for this game. Generally speaking, there are no "turn the stick this way, then this way, then that way" Street Fighter-style precise commands to deal with.
The idea here is to keep the control scheme easy to learn for beginners, but deep and challenging to master as you get better at the game. We want the game to be challenging and require practice to get better at, but we want to keep the entry threshold low for beginners.
How do you determine what portions of the game are essential for beginners to understand, versus the elements of the game that are understood by the more hardcore players?
RN: That's a pretty tough question to answer, but one goal we have -- since this is a 3-on-3 game -- is to have it so even a total beginner can defeat at least one of the characters his opponent is using, no matter how outclassed he might be. If a player loses two matches in a row, we want it so that he feels compelled to try a new strategy the next time so he doesn't wind up going 0-3.
We don't want people losing ten matches in a row and getting discouraged; instead, we'd like beginning players to feel motivated, like their efforts are gradually getting rewarded. "I almost had it there -- let's try this one more time!", that sort of thing. That's what encourages players to get better and eventually hold his own against any opposition.
This series perhaps has the most guns I've seen in a fighting game. How do you implement guns in a fighting game where you have magic powers and things like that? Guns often shoot instantly across the screen; was implementing guns difficult in a fighter?
RN: Bullets are flying projectiles like any of the other projectile weapons in the game, and balancing out all the projectile weapons is actually not all that difficult. Some characters may have guns that put the opponent off guard, but while they shoot instantly, there might be a long time lag before the character fires -- that sort of thing. So we can fine-tune the balance in many different ways like that, which makes things really not that tough.
|
| |
|
|
Ed Boon has expressed similar goals for his new Mortal Kombat because truthfully, the hardcore fighting crowd alone cannot sustain these franchises.
TvC has a fantastic 2-button (3 really I guess) mode using the Wii Remote turned sideways.
Press button 2 for a fireball.
It's really that easy (Button 1 is attack, and B is switch - REALLY straight-forward and a big hit for my kids!)
I'm one of those who loved SF2 in the arcades and at home, and then got passed by by the complexity of fighters. I liked Smash Bros., but TvC really hit the spot for me. It felt so much like playing back at the arcades that I couldn't help myself. I went so far as to get an arcade stick to play with (though after trying the stick my kids quickly decided the simple Wii Remote controls were better).
It's one of those games that you get and wonder why more people aren't playing it, b/c it is just so much fun and so well done (Sin & Punishment 2 is my latest on that list, which also has a great 'girlfriend' mode co-op option).
I think the biggest problem with today's games is that they are no longer challenging. The game industry sees "accessability" as the key to success, so they design games that pamper you and baby you and hold you by the hand. As someone who grew up on '80s arcades and the NES, it's really annoying. They forget the mantra of the Arcade Games: "Easy to Learn, Hard to Master."
Street Fighter 2 mastered this formula, and the result was the biggest arcade game craze since Pac-Man. The rules of the game were quick to learn, and the controls were precise and fast. New players caught on very quickly. But this did not mean the game was overly simple. Heck, it took us forever to learn the joystick motions for a dragon punch. Fortunately, the game mechanics were balanced and strong enough that it didn't matter. Easy of play did not mean sacrificing depth; if anything, depth is required.
The key for today's games is to return to the arcade values, and shed all the bloat and excess of the Cinematic Games Era. And the games need to be challenging again.
As a fighting game enthusiast of intermediate level, I personally found TvC's simplified control scheme and lack of good online play extremely off-putting.
Actually, Eric, I do agree with you about TvC. I bought a copy for a friend of mine, and played it a couple of times. Even though I was really looking forward to it (and may still buy it eventually), I quickly grew tired of the button-mashing style of the game.
I think this does reinforce what I wrote about arcade values. Capcom wanted TvC to be a mainstream hit with the Wii market, so they simplified the controls so you can play with the Wiimote "NES Style." But this resulted in a melee style where strategy and technique was tossed out the window. You can literally just mash buttons at random and do very well. This became very frustrating for me, particularly when matches just drag on and on and on. For all the explosions and cool graphics (and TvC looks terrific), it takes forever to knock someone out. Sigh. Consider me slightly disappointed.
I would rather have played Street Fighter 2: Champion Edition on the Virtual Console, and I think the others would have done the same. The fighting is far better, far more balanced, and the special weapons had yet to completely take over. And notice how easy it is to play! How many kids played SF2 to death with nothing more than "jump kick, foot sweep" combos?
In the end, good game design is good game design. And the Arcade Games Era remains THE archetype for great videogames.
Personally, I find that if a fighting game leans to heavily on either one, it starts to lose out on "fun factor." In the case of TvC, I ultimately found it boring because it put too much emphasis on strategy and more or less ignored tactics, and that's also the same reason I eventually stopped playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl. At the same time, I don't find Guilty Gear fun, either, due it being the opposite extreme.
I really don't think that games need to be challenging to be fun, per se, but I do think they need to feel rewarding and balanced (Street Fighter II was not fun against the computer back in the day because the COM players would clearly cheat at higher difficulties). It just so happens that overcoming challenge feels intrinsically rewarding, I guess.
Quick aside: I don't know if I like the Reply button much. The nested view of comments makes it hard for me to find the newest comments in long threads.
Quick aside 2: I didn't make up the strategy vs. tactics distinction that I used above. Credit for that should go to David Sirlin.
I totally disagree, but it may be due to how you played (if you didn't use the classic controller or an arcade stick it certainly colored the experience, as would experiencing it for the first time if you hadn't played a vs. game before).
TvC is no more button mashing than MvC or the other 'vs.' games and for whatever it is worth was highly reviewed and hotly debated as whether or not it was the best of the vs. series.
Again, just another opinion.
Notably, Capcom's expectations for the title were low in the US, and last I read they stated it was slightly ahead of expectations.
End of post - I'd recommend giving it another shot, my personal opinion of the game started low, then after an hour increased, and then after a few hours greatly increased.
side note: Daniel, i feel you on the arcade thing and pretty much what you stated but what i dont agree is that when it coms to us hardcore gamers we do have to realize we cant have it all the time the way we want it. no gamers mean no sales. and no sales mean no games. there are alot of us older gamers who are fans beyond reason and hardcore but remember we are in a time of a new generation and companies if they want to be successful have to appeal to those crowds and they will be potential fans. which in turns means more money and more games. The Wii in my view and others i aocciate with , is not the scene for a game like MVC. Even if the wii sells more consoles and games then all the others does not justify that it should be one there even if its not built for such a game. That would mean other companies would have to create gamepads to function with its control scheme , yes that would rake in more money but the way things are today, alot of people are not willingly wanna shell out more money for a pad for just one game when they bought a console with a pad already to play on. Guitar hero type games are different cause you can use both. No matter what tho i think the arcades time has waned away a bit here and bringin them back is a win or lose n and hurts because why shell out tons of money a month to master a game you have at home thats equal if not better then the arcade counterpart? and you can play online against opponents and not have to wait for 2 hours in a huge line to play one round.
well i hope to have at least made some sense in my post. happy to be part of the community on here and fighting games are the best!