Alright, 2D fighting games? Pretty cool. They’re also seeing something of a comeback recently, with Street Fighter IV actually doing some pretty good numbers, and lots of folks being psyched for BlazBlue and King of Fighters XII. But it’s seemed to me for a while that fighting games as a whole have been…well, not aging so well as a genre.
Sure, the visuals keep getting pumped, the soundtracks keep getting grander, and now we can fight people anywhere on the globe at the drop of a hat, but what about the rest of the game? What about the gameplay, the accessibility of it, and how we learn it? What about story, our favorite characters, and synergizing all that with the actual game we’re playing?
Of course, it seems the guiding mantra of developers when it comes to the core of fighting games is largely “If it ain’t broke,” and that’s worked well enough up until now. And while this is a logical thing to think, and hardly a bad attitude to have with game design, the fact remains that it could be done a lot better. In its current state, most core fighting gameplay is catered to one demographic; fighting game fans. Which is, again, a business strategy that surely “ain’t broke”, but why should developers settle there?
Ask a gamer with no fighting game experience to do a quarter-circle-punch or a dragon punch motion: Sure, they’ll be able to pull it off after a lengthy practice session, but they’ll still have likely days to go before they can pull them off at will during an intense match, which is practically the bare minimum level of technique required to really participate in a game like Street Fighter. Don’t even get me started on how tough it is for some non-gamers to even grasp the concept of a quarter circle.
Let’s ignore the baying of some players out there about the “dumbing down” of the genre for now; streamlining a product for accessibility does not necessarily make it any less rewarding or stupider at high level play, but someone somewhere will always make these sorts of statements, period. As noted in an article I read recently, for the developer it’s all a matter of discerning intent in user feedback: how many players saying these things actually have some sort of actual factual basis to go off of (surely some of them do) and how many players are just entertaining delusions of grandeur wherein they’re smarter and all around better people than the filthy, stupid, and overall “sheeple”-like general population because they’re good at an overly complex fighting game.
The solutions, in my mind, are clear: Either lower initial investment so that players can enjoy all of the best features of a fighting game as soon as possible (like the fantastic Smash Bros. series, in which most all character functions can be understood by newcomers very quickly and yet the game still provides room to grow in mastery even after years of playing) or someone, please, get around to finally making a tutorial that actually teaches people how to play your freakishly complex game. I’m not talking a simple “input these commands!” setup, as much as I did appreciate such a layout in Street Fighter 4, but an actual tutorial/story mode treated with the rigors of true game design: Introduce what your players can do and then drill it into them. Chart out how players usually learn your game despite so little support on your end, and then rebuild that educational theory part for part inside your game.
Perhaps: Introduce the player to basic mechanics and simple, one button inputs. Test them on them, drill the proper use into the player (make sure they understand on reflex that, say, you counter a high block with a Strong Sweep) and then throw them into something simulating a normal battle where they’re forced to use said theory. Then move on to your special moves, going one at a time, training their possible uses and setting up battles wherein players have to use them to effect at will to succeed. Basically, why can’t we use the exact same sort of game design theory we would for any style of single player action game? For every powerup you obtain in an action game, there’s sure to be an adversary or situation that requires you to use it and an opportunity to learn how to implement your new strength throughout the entire game through said interaction.
What about the characters, though? And (don’t laugh!) the story? Fighting games are known for their entertaining, sometimes goofy rosters, and where would they be without them? It’s hardly irregular for players to become ensnared purely by the charm of one character or another over their flat mechanical capabilities. But why are these stories, at best, mediocre? Yeah, people don’t play fighting games for fantastic narrative, but would it really hurt to try and save some budget to get a great scribe to pen up something for you? After all, if there’s anything that’ll endear your players to your game (and sequels!) beyond sheer gameplay, it’s creating characters that they’ll want to come back and fight as again and again.
Not to lie, though. I know how utterly and completely ancillary story is to a game about beating the snot out of your friends. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to try, and it doesn’t mean that there isn’t massive potential:
Have you ever played an RPG and, filled with rage or sorrow after some pivotal storyline event, sat through the turn based battle ahead of you, knuckles white with the drive to mete out justice, revenge, or lord knows what? (Well, alright, I’ll admit I haven’t done this since I was a youngster with hormones to spare, but) Imagine this type of story driven motivation coming down to, say, a huge boss fight in the most visceral, reflex flowing genre out there? Narrative has a documented effect on how we play, and fighting games are so direct with us that they’re fantastic at bringing out emotions even without meaning to. So why not let the two walk hand in hand?
johnmartone
Kevin Edger
strangelovemd
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 8, 2009 at 3:09 am
Game Retail Store » GameSetLinks: Assignment… Blauschild?
[...] Is it just me? Fighting Games: Behind the Times « the other castle 'I know how utterly and completely ancillary story is to a game about beating the snot out of your friends. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to try, and it doesn’t mean that there isn’t massive potential.' [...]
July 8, 2009 at 8:54 am
Andrew
I enjoyed this post, because I just picked up BlazBlue and a lot of these thoughts have been on my mind. That game actually has a pretty good story mode similar in execution to that of a visual novel (except with fights instead of sex scenes). So I definitely think growth is happening in that direction.
However, I really agree on the point about accessibility. It’s funny to me that even relatively simple games can have endless tutorials, while fighting games didn’t even use to include move lists.
In some ways this is fine; I enjoyed Guilty Gear extensively without even knowing what a Roman Cancel was, but I probably would have enjoyed it that much more if, more than explain how to do it, someone showed me how it was useful. Understanding technical concepts like cancels is hard to visualize without seeing it in actual play. I agree that the genre could benefit from the same training methods that virtually any other game employs.
I do believe there’s a demand for this, if only because of the huge number of demonstration videos online, as well as many online communities dedicated to learning and teaching these games. The players have picked up where the developers left off, but those sorts of insular communities can be intimidating or uninteresting for the person who just wants to pick up a game and play it.
July 8, 2009 at 9:37 am
Kevin Edger
Thanks for commenting, I’m glad you enjoyed it! Yeah, actually BlazBlue is what spawned this. My roomie picked it up, and I’m a big fan so far; in terms of story and characters at least, it seems they’re actually really on the right track. The story mode never got me white knuckled on the controller, but it was interesting most of the way, and they know how to sell their characters. (Especially through extras like the delightful “Teach Me Dr. Litchi”)
And yes, practically every time I pick up a fighting game, I can’t help but start to think that everything that I know how to do in them (not that I’m that great) could have been taught via in-game experience and not through extensive trial and error and getting stomped by people who know better. It’s strange, if they can give me a roll-around-counter in Zelda and then teach me to be highly proficient with it by setting up relevant encounters, having Guilty Gear do the same with a Baiken counter or something just seems like it would be a natural thought. Really, the idea of making a game and then not teaching people how to play it seems antiquated beyond belief, the more I think about it.
There are a lot of awesome videos out there, and communities waiting to teach, and I really appreciate the dedication therein. It’s refreshing to find truly friendly guides (in particular there’s a video series out there for KoF to help introduce new players to the game before KoFXII comes out, narrated by Kyo, that’s fairly endearing) but a lot of the community can be frighteningly insular and so hardedged about how one plays the game, that it’s not hard to be turned off of the genre entirely through negative experiences in the scene.
July 8, 2009 at 6:55 pm
schlaghund
I think the big issue with developing a fighting game tutorial is the fact that any decent fighting game’s characters will play very differently than the others. Whereas most single-player games’ tutorials only have to think of teaching a moveset for one player character – i.e. the protagonist – for a fighting game, a comprehensive tutorial would have to be character-specific. That’s orders of magnitude more work than the example of a standard single-player game tutorial. Furthermore, the character matchups have to be considered, so a tutorial can’t necessarily teach that button X is a good counter if the opponent hits button Y, because that won’t always be the case. If your entire single-player game revolved around the typical game-design methodology of introducing skills and drilling them, then your fighting game would have to consist of a different single-player campaign for each character. Given the limitations of development time, the developer is basically forced to decide between short campaigns for each character, or a Dawn of War II-ish route – one long campaign that comprehensively teaches the skills of one particular character. I’m not sure either of those will really accomplish what you want.
Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the counters and the strategy are not always known to the developer at the time of development (as they’re generally discovered and tested/abused by the community over time). So I concur that a tutorial of sorts might help familiarize a player with basic mechanics, but I’m doubtful of how far it can go without the developer being forced to branch out into 20+ different character-specific tutorials and training paths designed to cater to each and every fighter. It’s a lot of work, to say the least.
I have to admit, though, that taking a standard game design approach might yield interesting results. I can imagine starting a single-player Ryu campaign in Street Fighter without the ability to execute any specials. Then, after a couple of levels, I learn the Hadouken, which has to be employed against some boss character shooting projectiles of his own. A little later, I learn Shoryuken and have to land a fierce one in a Sagat boss battle to win. Then, halfway through the campaign, Gouken teaches me how to do EX specials, and so forth. That’d be an interesting approach to single-player.
July 8, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Kevin Edger
That is a very real concern and a good point. It is true that characters tend to be different enough that no one tutorial is going to be enough to cover all the bases. I do still feel, though, that you could cover the very basic points of a character’s obvious moveset (covering only generic, beginner uses of moves and not match-up specific: “Shoryuken an air-bound attacker!”) with simplified tutorials and still save players weeks of trial and error. I know personally I find sometimes even developing a reflex for the most basic of character moves prohibitive and time consuming at best.
I realize it might be a bit demanding on dev time, but I feel like were it approached in a streamlined fashion (perhaps even just “mission” setups in three parts, with a “Do the move” period, followed by an opponent that can only be damaged through said attack moving in a particular pattern, then finally an all out match where using the attack at the right moments while still worried about the battle as a whole is the only way to victory, all using only existing assets) their output and how much they would increase accessibility would be invaluable, and still not terribly demanding to boot. The out and out story campaigns and tutorials don’t necessarily have to be one in the same, as it would be quite ridiculous to do a lengthy campaign for each character.
I do think that short, very generic and simple tutorials would contribute such a large amount to these games. More than “Input the command”, as a player also needs some sort of context to learn to use it in, and some practice using it in a full battle setting as well; I never have any trouble doing new moves in Training, but pulling them off properly and getting use out of them while I’m worrying about a friend flying at me is an exercise in frustration at times.
Basically, it’s true that a tutorial like this might only be able to teach what’s usually considered the basics and still fit reasonably into a development schedule; but even that would be a huge boon, as I’d place good money on many, many players never even completely getting over that “beginning” hump. I know I personally own fighting games that I picked up for their great mechanics and characters, but could never wring any sense of even basic reflexive comprehension with any character other than your standard Ryu clone simply because I had no chances to practice that didn’t involve fighting annoying AI opponents, doing moves in the impractical training environment, or trying fruitlessly to ply concepts against friends while we butted heads frantically. I have to say I’ve known more than a few friends that scrambled simply to even get up the hill of “basics”.
That last bit you mentioned, though, is what keeps my flames lit. A campaign that combines teaching the player gradually with a sense of empowerment with each new gain that also relates to a strong narrative is a drool-worthy fantasy. I’ve had very similar thoughts concerning Ryu, really.
July 22, 2009 at 4:47 pm
JC
Personally, my feel for fighting games is the skill should be in knowing when to use the moves, not how to execute them. ‘in-character’ Ragna’s never gonna go “OH SHIT I PUNCHED WHEN I MEANT TO DO A SUPER” so I shouldn’t have that issue either.
July 24, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Kevin Edger
Funny enough, this is really similar to a discussion had over at Schlaghund’s blog by us.
I think there is still room at the end of the day for games with a high execution barrier (that require lots of dexterity and require you to learn complex inputs) as it’s something of a niche, but I still think people who make these games at least need to devote more time to tutorials and leading players to a decent level of mastery if things are going to be so complex.
Still, I want to see more games like Smash and some of the Naruto/etc fighting games wherein all commands are so simple to input that the competitive gameplay advances to the mindgame stage almost immediately.