Fighting games have a product design problem
cthor.me20 points by bentcorner 2 days ago
20 points by bentcorner 2 days ago
Fighting games are too inaccessible for me. I just want to play about game with cool characters with sick abilities beating each other up (Skullgirls, Street Fighter, Tekken) but there’s always so much mental preparation and input memorization you have to go through just to have the slightest chance at winning/having fun. The problem is multiplied by the sheer number of characters you get to play as and against in these games.
The whole genre, in some ways, has felt like some gated community to me that’s closed for anyone not willing to pour in the hours to learn.
"Cool characters with sick abilities beating each other up" is vague enough to describe any genre. It doesn't even describe gameplay. Could be anything from singleplayer (or co-op) beat 'em ups. Or a hack n slash like Dynasty Warriors . A turn based JRPG like Final Fantasy with flashy abilities like summons fits that description.
Anyways, to me the things that make fighting games difficult and fun are what differentiate them from beat 'em ups, which get pretty boring quickly.
I don't disagree that combos are not fun to learn, but I don't know what you could replace it with. Removing it would turns games into punch, punch back, kick, kick back without any risk or counterplay. Adding blocking/countering would have to be more complicated than just "hold block" to keep it interesting and would require memorization all your opponent's moves too. I'd say Tekken 8 already has this problem especially with King's chain grabs. So lots of games are going for auto-combos to make comboing easier instead.
I actually did play Skullgirls and Street Fighter 6 in a way without learning combos for a character. It's pretty easy with a zoner, and plenty of players hate playing against that too.
> I don't disagree that combos are not fun to learn
But wasn't that one of the last points?
Rhythm games are fun.
Yeah, that's why I like that games are doing auto-combos instead.
I also enjoy rhythm games, but they're different combos. Especially for the learning process: you're really not punished for dropping combos in rhythm games, and you can keep playing as if you didn't drop it (unless you're going for the full combo of course). That's really not the case for fighting games, requiring you to restart to the beginning of the combo each time. And in a multiplayer game, it gives your opponent an opportunity each time.
I mean the barriers you are describing are at the same time why I and others enjoy playing fighting games.
Further, I dont know when you've tried picking one up last, but any title in the last few years has plenty of concern for "accessibility" especially regarding inputs.
Most competitive spaces can be described as "some gated community to me that’s closed for anyone not willing to pour in the hours to learn".
The emphasis on single-player in the author's recommendations gells with me. I don't think it's a coincidence that SF6 has such an extensive campaign and is a huge success. By contrast 2XKO has none and is completely dead on arrival (though it has other problems as well). People need space to breath and learn before getting jumped on by somebody online, something to do when they're not feeling at 100%, a way to get more attached to the characters and world. RTS has this exact same issue as well: new titles release with just a PvP skirmish mode and die on release.
SF6 was my first fighting game. Sitting in the lab and learning to do a 3 hit combo with a dragon punch motion correctly over and over was actually rewarding. I don't think it's necessary to remove motions from the genre. I definitely would have dropped the game if my only initial choices were lab and multiplayer though.
Divekick saw this coming years ago | https://store.steampowered.com/app/244730/Divekick/
I enjoyed this analysis quite a bit.