What people think is missing from modern fighting games
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- #fightinggames #gaming
We talk a lot about the differences between modern games and classic games. I had a talk with my stream, and reacted to Maximilian's take on a big factor IMO - "emergent gameplay".
@Maximilian_Dood vid here - • I Like My Games...LOOS...
@Brian_F vid here with a lot of specific examples - • Why modern games seem ...
Follow me on Twitter - / lordknightbb
Pull up to the clips channel - / @lordknightclips7878
Come chill with us on Twitch - / lordknight
Instagram - / lordknightfgc
Patreon - / lordknight
Contact - fgc@beastcoast.gg
Edited by ChadDrawsThings - / chaddrawsthings
Thumbnails by Tsuntenshi - / tsuntenshi
#lordknight
Good video, when people talk about how they can't tell different players appart whe playing the same character I 100% think they are talking about combo conversions/decision making in converting. People actually want LESS accessible options so that players who practice more are able to convert better than those who don't. Being able to do whatever you want can just make things over centralized when it turns out that 1 route/technique overpowers the infinite number of other options you could go for but are inherently trash
Also, doing more with less is a super valid design. Sfv definitely has emergent gameplay in the expression that happens with having LESS options. I want to play street fighter specifically because it limits your movement/air approach/etc and forces you to play more on the ground. That's the point
Maybe it's just me but Xrd like FEELS like it has alot of options but if u didn't know any better you'd think most characters have far less moves,alot of characters straight up didn't get half their kit used in tournaments. It's just kinda confusing at that point, meanwhile games like Type Lumina, Strive, hell I'd even say something like SF V have very clear concise options that can be used in different ways for different situations instead of {insert move here for singular situations which will never be encountered in high level play}
@@Brian_F brian spitting
I just don't think I can agree with the fundamental suggestion you're making here. UNI is a game where players can convert into full combos off of nearly every move in their kit, especially with resources, and that game has a *ton* of individuality and room for player expression. And that's with literally only three normal buttons. As long as a character isn't so cookie cutter that they're necessarily inclined to always do the exact same shit, then I don't see a problem with fighting games allowing players more conversion opportunities.
Emergent gameplay has 2 route: Intended, and unintended. Intended emergent design is controlled chaos/"life" by the devs who develope a system and allow the players to push the limits. My original video talked about the 2nd, unintended emergent gameplay (weird glitches and bugs), which gave a lot of charm to older games. In terms of intended emergent design, I do think SFV could allow MORE variety in conversions. The achieved this with Oro by actually both giving MORE options, and then RESTRICTING them. You cannot go for the optimal conversion from every hit/range. You have to modify/sacrifice damage based on the spacing/position on screen. Too many top tier characters don't have this restriction, so they ALWAYS get the optimal conversion. If you restricted them more, you would see more variety in player expression/optimization because more experienced/aware players would be the ones actually optimizing based in the scenario.
tl;dr, restriction can lead to more player expression
I think what max is getting at, and what most of us want, is to feel consistently rewarded for exploring a character. Learning new things that you didn't know your character could do is exciting... new combo routes, new conversions off of unusual situations, It's a great feeling when you add another item to your toolbox that you didn't have before. Eventually, though, the discovery period has to end and then all that's left is to refine what you have and build your macro strategy, and through a combination of tighter systems and easier access to information the discovery period can feel much shorter than it was back when all you had was the boys at the arcade and your Street Fighter 3 prima official strategy guide.
Or making more decisions on both sides of the game, offensively and defensively. I find it super weird people have an issue understanding this. Parries open the door to more decisions from both players. Multiple combo routes open doors for both players...combo breakers opens it up more. Guard breaks. How is this really so hard to understand?
I think this is it. I've been having a blast playing BBCF since it got rollback, because I'm constantly learning new combos, conversions, mixups, etc. I feel like there's always cool new things to learn with my character(s). On the contrary, in more recent games I feel like I've generally learned everything rather quickly. There's definitely more to dig into, but it doesn't feel as rewarding.
I completely agree, one of the reasons i stuck with HC is because his gun mechanic does whatever the player will practice to do.
I'm sure LK touched upon this. I think what Max *actually* means is that not only should he be able to (or at least fell like he's able to) do more shit in a fighting game, but it also needs to be more immediately obvious that there's more shit there. It needs to be designed, like it hasn't been designed. I say this because a point LK made is that no matter how stringent the systems are in fighting games (with few exceptions), there's always more shit to be found. The problem is the people finding the new shit aren't players like Max, whose good but isn't a pro and won't invest nearly as much time. I don't think that it's just simply that, "he wants to feel consistently rewarded by exploring" per se, but that there be clearer (not totally obvious) indications that more is possible.
@@MiketheNerdRanger Having more room for exploration has ripple effects: Even if 90% of the players aren't actively looking for tech it makes pro play more exciting to watch, since if someone is playing *your* character you might see something that you never knew was possible.
Naturally, though, you are right. The game does need a strong "hook" where you feel like there's an obvious depth that can be seen from the surface or people will potentially give up on the game before they even realize there's more obscure tech. SF5's Oro is a great example: he's got 3 unique "optimal" anti-air combos off of the same button depending on if it trades, hits one time or hits twice... but it's easy to see him like a lot of other street fighter 5 characters and completely miss all of the ways he can capitalize on strange situations.
What Max is asking for and what he’s describing are two different things. Max wants a fluid, I think that’s what he meant when he said “loose”, system and characters that can allow for more personalized approaches, but what he’s describing are games with a ton of combo potential or immediate gimmicks. And it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what he wants to. Max loves combos and tricks and it’s obvious they are his favorite element of fighting games, but more combo potential or confirm options don’t necessarily lead to more “emergent gameplay”. Because as players improve what is viable dwindles, that the rest might as well not be there.
"Emergent gameplay" feels like one of those fancy twitter word combos people throw around when they aren't quite sure what they don't like about a game that they *want* to like
Everybody is always trying to get a new term to catch on nowadays thanks to social media. When they can barely explain it.
When I was a kid somebody told me "when someone asks if I know what they mean a lot, I don't think they know what they mean"
Emergent gameplay is the new ludonarrative dissonance
It will occupy your feed for about a month and the discussion will go nowhere
The classic definition of "emergent gameplay" that I've heard (or "emergent mechanics") is when you have two or more systems implemented in a game, all with their own individual sets of mechanics, and those systems interact to create "new" mechanics; they are mechanics which "emerge" from existing, directly implemented mechanics. Emergent gameplay can be intended or unintended, and an emergent mechanic can be extremely useful or not useful at all; what defines emergent gameplay is the interaction of distinct systems and that's it.
@@bb010g hey thanks for trollsplaining the definition of the term but this content was more of a commentary on the fact that people have been throwing it around without really thinking about or caring what it means
This is easy to solve. Just:
- Have the game be niche
- Make it have no imput buffer
- Have a humongous amount of knowledge checks
I promise you no single match will be the same.
So King of Fighters?
So Tekken?
So Arm Joe on the Windows 95?
So +R?
You just described 4 different games that already exist.
Any discussion about player perception of games is incomplete without considering how people have incomplete information and make assumptions based on what they think they know. Consider especially how social media changes this for modern games compared to old games.
+1 to the idea of crossover streams where you teach Max BlazBlue or Brian_F teaches you SFV. Or maybe just a discussion table where you guys talk fighting game design. I feel like there's some great content hidden there somewhere that's becoming apparent as you guys build off of eachother's thoughts and ideas.
I really think "loose and emergent games" just translates to "tag games with Roman cancels"
I'll take a tag game with roman cancels. Guilty Gear vs. Street Fighter where you at
Tatsunoko vs Capcom is that game
Blazblue vs Guilty Gear
@@Aripuni1 yeah that’s long over due
@@juanmjx I never played that, need to check it out
I think a factor in why newer games feel like they are figured out faster is that there's more way's for information about them to be disseminated quickly. what with social media and the like, whereas in the older days any new tech people discover would probably take a lot longer to become common knowledge.
the information is not the reason at all. i still struggling to find melty blood OS or bbtag. people just found out that dbfz has proximity normal for a freaking 4 years. so the information is still bad.
@@blueperiodfan4725 info and tech still communicates way faster when there's a million people sharing info vs people at your local
I'd say its because FGs and FG developers are going through a shift where FGs are trying to appeal to a bigger audience.
The focus is now on accessibility, so depth is probably taking a hit because some mechanics are simplified or tightened up and characters are changed accordingly.
The problem is that people who play FGs normally can figure out the game overnight and theres nothing left to discover while new players dont consider losing to be fun.
@@Sorioku and thats why i give an example that people just found that dbfz has proximity normal for a freaking 4 years now.
even one of basic stuff people dont know about it.
@@hiramjackson8322 you could still has depth even with simplified mechanic.
the problem is that new modern fg making move so specific on how you use them. this is why new fg got figured out way too fast.
I think often overlooked is more movement options really lets creative players shine. Look at a Mishima player wavedashing in their opponents face only to bait out a hopkick and block punish it. Or a Magneto in umvc3 air plink dashing across the screen to reset neutral. Having quirky options like that can be fun to master and even work in a competitive environment.
I love having multiple options to approach or avoid opponents. More games should give you great movement. Doing backflips to avoid strikes may not be the most 'optimal' but it looks great and feels great so you know...it's fun. Fun. Huh. Doing things...for fun...in a game. Excuse me while I remove this lightbulb from the top of my head.
I think Max's take here is very interesting compared to yours.
As a tournament player, you're constantly looking to find new tech and push the character to improve at the game, and by extension to improve your results. I imagine that you're also looking at other top players of other games to scout out the kind of stuff they're doing to push their characters to figure out what you need to learn how to deal with in the future, which gives you a lot of knowledge on how the meta for other characters is being pushed. Finally, you're focused on one or two games at a time, which means you have a lot more time to focus on developing a single character.
By contrast, Max is probably closer to a mid- to high-level player (not tournament level and not quite top level, but he's not bad either due to having so much experience in fighting games), so he's not nearly as invested in pushing his character(s), he probably doesn't actively look for the cool stuff other players are pushing with their characters, and Max plays a lot of different games so he's spending less time developing any particular character in those games. His values are different because he's at a different level.
I think what Max is asking for is partially to allow for that discovery process to be accessible for non-tournament players. A big part of this is that you shouldn't need to go into training mode to discover new stuff until you're at the top level, and instead you should be able to get simple ideas or misinputs in the middle of the game and be able to test the practicality of your ideas or get surprised by the effectiveness of the move you misinput. At this level, you shouldn't be looking for stuff that's optimal or pushes your character forward, you should be looking for stuff that exists and broadens your gameplay experience.
Yeah, idk man, LK's vision here seemed very closed off in his own bubble, it's not about coming up with crazy tech people never saw before, it's about allowing the players to weigh their options and try to find the best solutions to problems, or to find the best ways to effect their gameplan. And modern fighting games basically always give you one ultimate optimal solution instantly.
So Max and LK are both right as we experience games differently. I'm actually surprised tekken wasn't mentioned as it is the perfect example. Loose games do get optimized but there are player that create their own route using uncommon routes to express themselves even though it is not optimal. I'm with max on that as that was the biggest issue with MK11 where characters had only 1 way to do a launch combo in comparison to mkx where you had 3 - 4 special moves.
Yeah man I immediately thought about Tekken too. I feel the 3Ds sometimes get completely forgotten in these discussions.
@@espelhogamer Point is though the game has a lot creative freedoms. So people play the same characters differently due to the amount of options even though there is an optimal game plan.
@@mecury007 Tekken jumped at me too but you can already see the rebuttal from those that barely even play it:
*annoying Urkel voice*
'You mean if a game doesn't have 80 moves per character you can't make decisions?'
@@joebrown6778 Its not the 80 moves is feeling no restraint similar to let say skull girl or even dbfz. The biggest issue is when a meta comes in that is so strong it kills creativity. This isn't a fighting game only problem as Overwatch had something called the GOATS meta where if you were not playing tanks GG's. Goal should just be free creativity and tone down over whelming meta's
@@joebrown6778 Then we'd have to explain that at high level having all that knowledge matters most. At low level the only thing people are immediately worried about is how to move and how to defend consistently. At that point they are still figuring out the 4 limbs and certain 'universal' traits like launchers and the 3 levels of attack (high/mid/low).
It's hilarious this came up so soon after LK mentioned 1) the insanely oppressive power level of Litchi in BB back in the day 2) how he took a moment to see what other Millia's are doing and discovered they're mostly doing the same techniques he invented. MvCI....probably felt _"loose"_ because its relevancy lifespan was terribly short, capcom dropped support for that game so fast it no longer has 50:50 Marvel:Capcom. DNFDuel probably felt _"loose"_ because the beta (in-game) LITERALLY DIDN'T EVEN TELL YOU ANY BUTTONS. Pretty big factors to kinda ignore... Either way, a lot more has changed than just the design of fighting games. Information moves fast, people stream, anyone can look up guides, games now drop internationally at much closer times, you can see what top players around the world are doing solely from replays, training modes have VASTLY improved, lab monsters can share tech easily through standardized FGC twitter and wikis, eSports is a thing, play has shifted to online from arcades, frame data gets hacked out of games fast assuming they're not already given and even if not then lab monsters do good on that front too, ranked is more standardized and pedestalized in competitive gaming compared to just "getting good against Jimmy down the street" (I think this contributes a LOT to lack of individual play and lack of exploring personal character expression in players). A lot's changed... Plus, while maybe not for SF5 (which I can't say too much on) since its lifespan seems to have come to an end in terms of official support, an entry can change a lot over the course of supported development. We don't know what GGSTRev2AccentSlash+R-T or MBTLReactressCalvados is gonna look like, hell we don't even know what DNFDuel on release gonna look like. Could be better, could be worse. Devs probably plan for that sort of longterm support a lot more cognizantly now than they did before.
I think this is a great point. Bad tutorials is a great way to "expand the discovery process"
"I want everyone to be like Izayoi" - Max when he finally plays BB with SKD and LK
Everyone being like Izayoi would be mad cursed
If that happened I’d burn down the arc system main office building
Can we please not
Replying to everyone here, that's really what he wants though. He wants every game/character to play like a top tier marvel all rounder.
@@jkreincarnation does he tho
parrying has a bunch of weird option selects in 3s, but max is describing using the mechanic exactly as it's intended and then calling that emergent...
That’s not contrary to how he’s using emergent…
He didn't give me the impression that he necessarily wanted big movelists and direct options when I first saw this.
I believe is a combination of movelist and mechanics that allow for very very different situations and variety. GG is a series that always had had a lot of that and it makes the discovery process very cool.
I must admit I had some of those "this feels loose" moments when you pick a fg where the ideas that you have just works and there's tons of stuff to discover but at the end of the day I think it's more important to have just straight up depth in a game (not necessarily complexity) because when you get good at the game it will feel "looser" anyway.
Yeah LordKnight's perception that Max wants tons of moves was of his own making. Max never said that. Max's whole rant can be best summed up by what he sais at 19:04
I also want to say like… I don’t think it matters if the competitive players optimize the game or characters to be a specific way.
The reason why I enjoy games that have more options even if most of the alternative choices are sub par is the fact that not everybody plays perfectly all of the time anyway.
Mew2King vs Mang0 for example: I can watch a melee set and identify certain players just by the way they’re choosing to interact with the opponent. Even if there’s a “right” way to do it, you don’t see it a lot from older Melee sets UNLESS M2K is playing. Then you see Mr Optimal but he still loses to Mang0 doing some dumb shit. That’s what’s so cool about having a game like that. Just because you will optimize the game doesn’t mean you won’t still lose to some rowdy Mang0 type player.
EXACTLY, I don’t like how aggressively Lord Knight immediately starts disagreeing right off the bat with Max lol. Sounds like salt to me tbh
As someone who shares Max's view (generally) and both plays fighting games and spends a lot of time working through interesting questions like this in game design, I think I can translate Max's rant into more of a point. Bear with me here but I want to talk about a seemingly unrelated game, Magic the Gathering, because MtG is not just the common language of game design, but is also a great analogue for fighting games as they share many similarities. A while back, the lead designer of MtG blogged about a concept their psychology department uses to identify types of players, the Spike, Johnny, Timmy article. In short, Spike players want optimization and skill honing out of a game and our happy winning most games, while Johnny players want an outlet for expression out of a game and are happy to win once if it's in a way they want.
In MtG there is a well defined algebraic curve used to define the appropriate power/cost/risk/reward of any one action in the game, it's not difficult or rare for players to crunch numbers and optimize a deck down to a single most optimal solution just based on spreads and expected outcome yet you still have the phenomenon of rogue decks where a player will take a random interaction that's gone unseen and sweep a tournament. This is an organic part of the game that is mostly possible due to 2 reasons 1: The sheer number of cards and interactions in MtG history is massive and ever growing making knowing every interaction impossible for any one player but most importantly 2: The static nature of a card game being printed and not patched when unintended interactions spring up. MtG at it's core is a sandbox where player expression is front and center because that's part of the promise the game is making when new players pick it up, it's personalized from the beginning by the act of creating a deck instead of using a preconstructed set of pieces. In a lot of ways fighting games also make this promise to new players, even if not intentionally, by having massive rosters of characters that all play in unique ways a new player assumes 99% of people won't know every detail of outside of who they play. This is a reason new and casual players hate mirror matches, you can't think my millia thoughts, I'M millia etc. is a very common casual sentiment.
So I'll loop this back around to what Max is actually asking for which is MvC2. This is a game that is extremely appealing to the Johnny MtG players and when you look at it you can see why. Both games ask players to build their gameplan around interactions prior to match. Both games are played in a way that allows for the creation of ONE single win condition and executing it. Both games are filled with pieces and actions that in a vacuum appear sub optimal but are often wholly unique in their game. MvC2 is quite literally the Johnny MtG players wet dream, as evident by the recent resurgence in popularity of MvC2 ratio mode (see making seemingly bad things good) Now, MvC2 is in a unique position to appeal to players like this because of the aforementioned static nature of it's release. It's an old game, it's full of bugs and glitches that aren't getting patched out. But this plays to MvC2's credit because even at it's most degenerate and optimal, it will always require at a *bare minimum* 3 interactions to win a match. The MvC2 we see played today is not at all what the designers intended, but it's ok because the environment that current MvC2 exists in allows it that flexibility. Magneto is the definition of optimal in that game, we're talking about a literal 1F move that leads to unseeable mix or death. It works because much like MtG, MvC is a game of win conditions. MvC enjoyers aren't going to stop playing other characters because those characters don't have 1F lows, they're going to shift their perspective of the game to simply "don't get hit by it" because at the end of the day, their theorycrafted jank team comp is also going to kill in one or two exchanges and so it's all good.
How the game is played ends up changing and the people who get enjoyment from innovation get to take part through defining how the game is played. When Max talks about games feeling stiff, he's talking about developers that see the opportunity to define how their game is played as a problem to be solved. SF/MK/etc NEEDS your games to take X number of interactions to decide a match simply because the mechanisms aren't in place for the game to still be enjoyable if they took less or if characters behaved "incorrectly", they're not wrong, those games are designed from the ground up with Spike players and skill honers in mind. MvC2 almost has the same energy as learning to speedrun or routing a speedrun for a game. You've got glitches left and right that genuinely define the game. Sentinel likely wouldn't be played without fly/refly, Juggs wouldn't be played without power up glitch, Cable kinda dookie without AHVB. Because these things exist and were never patched out, you have Johnny players asking questions like "What assist can I use to turn fly/refly pressure into a kill" "BB Hood is actual trash, but can I use her to enable Juggs?" "If Cable AHVB is so strong can I dedicate my entire team to charging and enabling it?" The promise of tech still yet to be discovered is what makes MvC2 such an interesting game, and it's largely due to the fact that what we consider "tech" is always changing with no capcom around to tell people it's not allowed or unintended.
tl;dr - Adding 30 way mixups or whatever to a game like GG is an awful idea, I don't think that's what people are asking for because that's not what GG is and likewise for other games. What would be nice is if we had more games that think outside the box regarding what an acceptable interaction is, and maybe took more chances with letting characters do broken things so long as there's a larger meta-game to be played around it (such as having 3 guaranteed lifebars no matter how degenerate things get). While it's true many things will be optimized, if the end result of a set of options is lethal across the board, optimization matters less and less and we can start looking at expression in more interesting and flexible ways than "combo 6 do good damage" that will depend on the game it's in.
I think theres becoming a sea of messy definitions and conflated ideas between stuff like "emergent gameplay" and "player expression". Basically all games will have both of these things - because the developers literally cannot imagine the way every single different player will play every single different match in their game after they make it.
To me, there are two specific cases where discussions about each concept, when defined more articulately - are interesting:
1. When developers actively patch out new things that players discover. This conversation is often localized to fighting games, but my enjoyment of a lot of modern shooters like Overwatch and Apex Legends have really been hurt by developers patching out things like movement "tech", bunnyhopping, and other engine-quirks used to the advantage of players strictly because they're "bugs", or unintended, and bugs and glitches need to be "fixed" - a dynamic that simply didn't exist when games like Quake 3 were competitive. This plays into your broader conversation about patch culture and how games develop in absence of it, I think.
2. When games have a more limited option spread in any given situation. I think what I, and what other people, liked about Xrd was how situational the game was despite how high the character power was. A lot of modern fighting games have more universal conversionability, like DBFZ (Strive not necessarily so as you've touched on), more general character tools with the "fat" trimmed out, and so on and so forth.
Specific to Guilty Gear - the changes in the tech system dramatically changed the nature of scrambles, which were one thing I think defined Xrd, and resulted in so many novel situations playing out that made no two matches feel alike; and changes to system defense, which were a way the game became invested itself in very specific matchup knowledge and character interactions, made some people feel like Strive took a step back in this regard. Think in terms of how you used FB disc and lust shaker in AC and Xrd respectively to interact with the opponents defense. There was a lot of room for interesting, stimulating gameplay here on both the side of the attacker and defender - resulting in the "wide option spread" that some people feel like isn't as broad or interesting in Strive (although a lot of the people that say this don't understand either Xrd or Strive, so yeah lol).
Appreciate as always your perspective, which is always very interesting and enjoyable to listen to
You did say a lot of this stuff and keeping it a buck I wrote some of it as soon as I had the thoughts before finishing the video but I'm just talking shit
For some reason when the discussion turned to tight and limiting gameplay I thought of Baiken in Strive. I think it was Romolla/Deb who said her kit felt like the developers were afraid of making her overpowered. And that is part of why she thought they didn't give her back her Suzuran. As Suzuran would have surely helped change match ups and move be up the "tier list"
Everybody wants to play blazblue, but nobody wants to play blazblue.
Big anime milkers scares them well that and having the player base being far too down bad for the female characters.
@@boredomkiller99 came to- I mean, FOR Bullet's milkers, stayed for the gorilla grabs
I don't really understand any characters other than Pot (and even then I'm a floor 9 shitter) but it still feels bizarre to me seeing people say everybody plays characters the same because watching FAB or Snake_Eyez play is a completely different experience
follow your gut on that, cuz people will just keep making stuff up and making you feel crazy for disagreeing with it lol
2. Out of many other Strive player. Wow.
It's because you're woke
Super Smash Bros. Melee has always had the best "emergent gameplay". In addition to all the movement/offensive options it gives you. It ALSO gives you something to do while you're getting hit (beyond shielding/guarding). Your trajectory is directly influenced by where your analog stick is as you're getting hit, and beyond that you can tech, not tech, and mash to get out of hitstun. IMO giving players defensive options is a really underrated way to make the game feel more "loose"
Appreciate your assessment of the actual sentiment he's expressing. Feel like Strive is a great counterexample to have kept bringing up too as people have developed wall loops, wild combo recipes esp with the RC system, lack of air tech has led to different ways you can combo (naturally some suboptimal tho), and positive bonus choices like you mentioned
Core A gaming talks a little bit about this in the video about honers vs inovators. And I think it has to do with that, sice we're in an era where the games get figured out faster... It takes a lot more honing before you get to the point of inovation, a lot of new fighting game require you to be a lot more experienced with the basics and fundamentals to really be able to inovate.
And to me, that is a good thing, it gives new players a clear set of rules to play and understand the game at the beginning, while giving the option of breaking and bending said rules to more experienced players.
old gg does in some ways impose a system to create finite situations (ig. attack levels) but every situation has incredible amounts of depth to build upon. More powerful dash momentum, diverse gatling trees, malleable frame data with FD and IB changing pushback/blockstun, inherently the way meter is built with tension pulse and the extremely subtle ways that the more powerful forms of low profile+disjoint+retracted hurtboxes cause the game to feel incredibly deep in just the amount of different elements that can interact with eachother, let alone that the characters have way more diverse toolkits, which is what creates more situations which makes it difficult to always make the right choices and thus emergent gameplay compared to strive IMO
Hard agree. It's difficult to specify but +R is one of the few games where I can get a hit in some random ass position I've never labbed in my life and actually be able to convert that into something pretty good on the fly. And this is something that happens often in that game, cuz there are so many ways to create new situations. I play bridget and given the need to set things ups and all the air control he has I can basically be assured that no two situations in any match will be the same.
A big example of a restricted system blooming into an advanced emergent gameplay style, is "gunz the duel"
How it's meant to be played is so boring, and the tech one random person found and shared to everyone made it the most mechanically intense game ever made.
Guns is a weird story, but not unique. A lot of stuff in competitive games started as tech/mechanical abuse
Bunny Hoping, rocket jumping, combos, cross ups, hit confirms, the whole moba genre
Life finds a way
I know this is silly to say and I don't know if you'll see this comment, but I really appreciate your CZcams videos that focus on your thoughts and process with fighting games.
Listening to your critical thinking process about FGs is very helpful for me, someone who doesn't think as critically about the FGs, to learn and be encouraged to enjoy more about the games.
So basically LK, thank you for all your hard work! It's been a blast. :)
Dood sounds like Sonicfox when they said "Strive is solved"
Starts falling off in strive tournaments. "Game sucks, already solved not my fault"
A lot of the responses that are critical of Max's take seem to be coming from the Strive crowd and I find that interesting.
@@joebrown6778 That's isn't really surprising, because we all know that Max is taking about Strive.
@@rachetmarvel931 Not only Strive though, and he's not the first to lodge that complaint.
Emergent Gameplay is defined as “A phenomenon where players utilize and push mechanics of a game to solve problems to the point where it’s questionable if these strategies are intended by the gameplay designer.”
Yes these strategies may open up the game to give players more options, but it becomes a problem when the strategy is so overwhelmingly good that nothing else should be considered.
Things like:
-Wobbling in Smash Brothers Melee which made fishing for a grab the only way to play for the ice climbers.
-Button combos in Halo 2 which made the Battle rifle so good that it eliminated the use of many other weapons.
The heavy handedness is a great way to put it. Whenever something unintentional is discovered, it gets patched out. It's not really that it's not there, it's just that it's going to get removed because it wasn't in the design spec. I would much prefer that devs mostly leave that stuff in. I'd prefer if they only removed stuff that actually breaks the game (such as gambit glitch) or adjust dumb stuff to avoid total kusoge scenarios (running out the clock with infinite jab combos and that kind of thing).
I think that is the more worrying aspect. Due to social media it is easier to find stuff that was for the most part unintended but not tested in a tourney environment but it has everyone crying wolf. Besides vanilla iterations of games aren't perfect either and it unfair to judge a FG by its first 3~6 months based on what the developers believe until there is more time and playtesting (at this point early adopters are the new loke testers). To which case after that then the devs have a solid idea for proper adjustments or even additions to the system or even the characters themselves.
Yeah I agree with you to some extent. I think a good way to put it is that people want high character power through the system mechanics. I do like it when system mechanics allow for several options, from combo paths, to different KD set ups, mix ups, neutral structures, etc, even if there's 1 true optimal option for all of those. However, I do agree that "player expression" is often bullshit code for "I just wanna do broken stuff". Not so Hot take (sorry not sorry): KOF is the best designed Fighting game at a system level, it has everything people want without pushing things too far, it adds just the right amount of restrictions to keep things both in check and "loose".
That's deadass just because KOF does have more options. No prescriptive judgements. It's not inherently better or worse; but the options on your jumping in KOF is simultaneously daunting and freeing
@@Se7enRemain yeah, I guess I do say "better" with the implied "better for my own taste", but still (for my own enjoyment), I do think it's more fun and smartly thought out than other games.
honestly this just makes me want a vid from you on the subject of player expression in fighting games, going over examples of games/scenarios with a lot of room for valid expression on a competitive level
would be helpful as a zoomer ass platform fighter player that doesnt have a lot of knowledge of older fighting games
i tend to think of player expression in a few different common forms:
execution
flashiness
risk/reward preference
niche knowledge
technique discovery
RPS preference??? (acting vs waiting vs preempting)
i tend to feel like people mostly only ever care about the first 2 of those
I agree with you on most points, but I'm not sure whether the more conversion ability=less expression one holds up for all games/characters. Take my opinion with a huge grain of salt, because I'm not a pro player by any means. I think there are characters who have very strong conversion ability but which remain expressive because that conversion ability is tied to a resource, or because those conversions lead to variably interactive situations. For example, Litchi, Kokonoe, and Mu in BBCF all have the ability to convert most of their hits into high damage, but require the placement of stage elements with which the opponent can interact by repositioning around to try to avoid conversions. In Skullgirls, most characters can convert most of their hits into full combos. However, this doesn't make them less expressive, since combos in Skullgirls are broken up by resets, which are chosen non-linearly in a decision tree involving potential reward, expectations, conditioning, etc. Also, some combo conversions are reliant on assists, leading to a choice between using assists for neutral and going into assist cooldown vs saving them for conversion setups. Sorry for the super long comment, but I would love to hear your take on these examples and how they fit into your theory of character depth.
Those things are still limits on conversion ability, though; the BB object placement type characters are limited by the presence and positioning of their toys, and SG assist conversions mean you're using a resource to get that conversion which is a limit in itself. I don't know much about how SG's combo tree actually works so I can't comment on that, but it seems like the sense of expression there comes less from neutral and more from actual combo theory, which is definitely cool but a different topic entirely imo.
Well mu is a bad example because most of her combos are done with no set steins and set steins often get in the way of combos
Actually bbcf has high conversion ability in general I think what really makes expression is not having one optimal route and having to decide between damage and placement(knockdown, corner carry ect)
@@lazersfixall3939 Isn't that still just based on obvious optimization rather than actual decision making? If you are mid screen, of course you are gonna do the corner carry/knockdown stuff, after that of course you are gonna aim for the all in max damage.
@@HellecticMojo no because sometimes you want the midscreen damage if you want to kill and sometimes you want oki in the corner rather than damage. It depends on the current situation. With mu most of the time if you're midscreen Dan hit 5c you opt for 6c for corner carry/zoning or you can 63214b for a cross up reset that does damage. In the corner you can end with 632146c super for damage and non super combo for oki these are decisions that are made depending on the current situation. one option does not rule all in midscreen or in the corner which is something I think strive suffers from. There isn't alot of variability in combos so one option rules all and there's no reason to go with anything else. Tl;DR it is a choice because different situations call for different responses
A problem with free flowing fighting games is that there's a wrong way to play and you might not know you're not playing a character correctly or wasting your time grinding combos that aren't worth your time.
Are you having fun tho
I think the very existence of a right and wrong way to play a character is the feeling people like Max want to throw out the window into a burning trash heap. Probably the reason Max likes tag fighters like MvC so much is that there's so many different combinations of characters and their tools interact so differently that it means no single character has a "correct" way to play them (in theory anyway)
@@Tomoka51 you’re describing a busted game. Which would most likely be more “fun”. Maybe the issue is e-sports. I grew up in an era of busted moves and busted characters. Nowadays balance takes priority
@@massterwushu9699 Mvc3 was a big esports draw though the biggest for a long time.
Dbfz is another game that has teams the ability to see weird interactions and play sub optimal still have fun and still be able to win that game was also a pretty big esports draw.
Heck you can even scale it back from team games and look at something like tekken which is being overlooked, in tekken there is optimal play but there is no right and wrong in how you play characters, theres lots of hidden tech that the game doesnt teach at all, people are finding new tech and combo routes all the time and generally speaking no two people really play the same even at a casual level.
I think the same people who ask for things like this would be the first to complain when the top end of the game is dominated by characters who basically maximize or abuse these "loose mechanics" they're asking for. "Why does this character get to combo of X", "Look how much harder I have to work for my damage and meter", "My character doesn't get to do X that this other character can, this is so unfair" etc. This was what so many Dustloop forum convos regarding earlier Blazblue versions were like by my memory.
The reason why a lot of modern fighting games might feel "over designed" is because they're actually trying to minimize people having feelings like this about the game (LK talked about this in his gatekeeper video about how people feeling like they can actually win with a weaker character like Goku Black is actually pretty important to your average dude's willingness to play and stick with FighterZ). And like LK said, you can't compare the speed at which knowledge spreads now to how it did for games pre-2010 let alone stuff before that. Who's to say that if the internet and match footage spread as quickly then as it does now (Not to mention just larger player pools in general) that you wouldn't see these "loose" games get solved just as fast just because people would quickly realize "Oh, the way I'm playing these games/characters is wack I need to get on this new strategy".
i think what you've identified is that max wants a game that feels a certain way, knows that he isn't getting that feeling, but hasn't diagnosed the reason. Here is a problem: a game can offer a lot of 'creativity' per se, where every player has a variety of approaches they might aim for, and a variety of at least partially valid interpretations of how to play, and how to use one's tools. However, a game can do all these things and still end being super convergent for a variety of reasons. I would say that in general, a game(or character) that gives you a chance for a lot of creativity is not necessarily one that offers you a lot of opportunity or incentive to improvise.
There's a shit ton of possible game states in your average fighting game, but you don't actually run into a lot of them in practice. Either pressure from your opponent restricts your viable choices down to a small amount, or you're doing pre-rehearsed bread-and-butter, where the situation is confirmed into the optimal series of commands. I would liken this to chess, where only a subset of all possible board configurations actually occur in real games.
Perhaps what max actually wants is a game which is scrappier and less likely to place you in familiar, predictable, or solvable game states. I will grant that things like air techs and air resets have the power to do that. That said, this environment might be argued to actually be against creativity. You'll notice that a lot of the characters who do well in these situations are ones where you just have a fast or evasive option to hit as soon as you broadly recognize what situation you're in.
I hate to say it, but I actually think +R testament comes the closest that i've seen in guilty gear to creating gameplay that involves a large variety of game states, promotes player expression and improvisation, and still duly promotes and rewards creativity. That said, many people claim to hate to play against testament. I only wonder if it is actually those qualities which make people dislike him.
I feel like what you brought up about people liking games that are more developed over time goes hand in hand with the mindset that gives us people fondly remembering Xrd or SF4 where they were received more divisively among the hardcore fans/sold poorly in the past.
On the topic of stuff missing from modern games, I'd like for the devs to just let freeform nonsense tech develop rather than stamp it out; Yosuke's glide lead to an absolutely WILD character, but taking it out in Ultimax 2.0 took away what made Yosuke so unique and flexible.
Max is just nostalgic for the MVC3 era discovery phase, which was a unique point in time for the FGC and will never be replicated. It's also the era that made him rich.
U/MVC3 would be "solved" much faster today. Even still, while I'm partial to the type of games Max describes - the discovery phase of these games can be particularly chaotic and frustrating for certain kinds of players looking to be competitive.
My biggest issue is the nerfing of base movement options. They're becoming so binary and just terrible. KOF 15 would be the perfect game for me if the movement were more analog (it's still pretty dope though).
max sounds like a disgruntled melee veteran that moved out of the game to play their local that only has ultimate.
I think for me starting in Melee and then playing anime games, just having a lot of movement options is what I like the most. I think a lot of interesting/complex interactions can come up just from that alone. I don't care about extensive combos or the variety in combo routes all that much compared to just feeling like I can move around. I really just wanna move and interact with how the opponent is moving. I do agree people shouldn't be so quick to try and compare to older games though because information did not spread anywhere near as fast. I would bet that if any FG including any smash game considered og or whatever came out today, it would get "figured out" 10x faster than they did back then, but they'll look back and think "man those games must have been just so crazy deep that it took 20 years to learn these things". The combo stuff I 100% agree on, and that's probably why I actually don't like long combos all that much when you can convert off of everything. I think I prefer games where instead of a conversion every time, some or most of the initial hits just lead to another possible interaction between the players.
I think he worded it a little bad but I do agree with his general point of games being too “explicitly designed”, basically. Stuff like patches and season passes have only exacerbated this feeling, where back in the day a version gets one patch at best, and you’re left to rock with that version for a year or two, but now patches happen every 6 months or so, sometimes emergency patches even happen like in the case of the MBTL infinites. The players get to push the development for that version, but it feels like the devs are far more present in how you play in modern games, for better or for worse. I also think you can design limitations that aren’t just conversion ability, my most notable example being a character who is based around having amazing conversions, Sin. Unlike Millia, Sin doesn’t often have to ask what he does after he lands a poke or a non optimal hit, because he usually can convert, as long as he has food. But upon getting that hit, he asks a different question: Do I run oki or eat? I don’t think any other GG character asks the question of running oki or not, and I think it creates different types of Sins based on if they like to be aggressive and keep the pressure on after KD even after getting low on food, leading to less reward on hit and way worse situations in general, or playing it safer and potentially letting a dangerous character like Chipp or Millia reset back to neutral where they can maneuver around you and get one knockdown to seal the deal.
For me issue in the internet era of fighting games is not, restricted by design game system, tempo, variety or tendencies to simplify execution. IMO is the fact that by being potentially worldwide exposed people afraid to be wrong and instead of exploring the game by themselves they looking for optimal solutions, approved by some kind of "authority".
To be able to approach the game in a way you "feel it", test a new ideas, all that means you could be potentially wrong.
To not afraid of massive wave of criticism and discouragement, to simply have fun with game is actually quite a luxury nowadays.
At least in my opinion
There is also the fact that people have become leazy not wanting to put hours in training mode to discover by themselves add to that the sheer number of fighting games that are new make it hard to focus on one game only.
Leaziness and greediness such is the human nature
Brian F, Max, now you made a video on this.
I can't wait for this to become a meme and dudes to start saying " This game is too explicitly designed! "
" Oh nooo! My skill cap! "
" Nuuuuuuuh! Muh emergent gameplay! "
Oh boy I definitely can wait
Seems like our influencers are happy with thier new buzz word.
@@adhamsalem9121 YOUR INFLUENCERS, not mine. They are just people I enjoy casually watching from time to time, I try to form my opinions. lol
Emergent gameplay is nothing new, I think the first time I learned about it as concept was with Titan Fall 1 back in 2013.
@@thejedioutcast804 Chill ma man. I'm clearly being sarcastic.
It's funny that Maximilian mentioned UNI because that game is the perfect example of characters that have lots of options and despite this there is a clear ''optimal'' gameplan for that character. Yes there are characters that are more 'loose'(lmao) as he says, mostly the top tiers like Vatista and Byakuya but from my experience Phonon, Wagner, Nanase and maybe even Gordeau all have a single optimal way to play.
Despite this UNI is still mad fun though.
Uni has the advantage of having some of the coolest looking combos in fgs
Byakuya is top tier?!
*trauma intensifies*
I try to experiment with Potemkin tech, but I’m definitely not an expert. I especially love finding weird mixup situations. I don’t watch much high level gameplay though so I’m probably figuring out some stuff that is already meta. I definitely like how in GG it feels like everyone is broken and is balanced around being ridiculous. I feel like modern SF is scared of giving characters interesting mechanics because it’s harder to balance.
I much prefer GGACPR to Strive (and I went to +R after Strive) but for me I don't think it comes down to anything about emergent gameplay or one having more options than the other; for the characters I play (Strive Faust and +R Dizzy) I don't feel like there's an especially huge amount of difference in the amount of good options they have, if that means anything. I just genuinely prefer how movement and combos feel in +R. I don't know why people need to make big things about why they think certain games are so much better than others, because it almost always comes down to personal taste (I think MBAACC feels like shit, for instance, and I don't try to pretend it's anything other than me not liking how it feels). The amount of options is never what defines a fighting game imo, it's how those options manifest.
MK11 had tons of options. The execution left much to be desired however. Good point.
I really like seeing differing perspectives on topics like this because it really highlights a lot of the nuances of the discussion which would be largely overlooked if you just listened to one source. I’d like to hear more about this.
this is why the first week of a new FG is always the most fun
I find interesting that skullgirls is the poster child for "do whatever" game... When it is the most degenerate game ever.
have you ever seen mid to high level skullgirls? People trade pokes till something lands... Then it is a one way ticket to reset land
Fact
Skill issue.
There are multiple ways to break offense and multiple ways to win neutral. You just got combod in your first few games and never sat down to actually learn the game
@@mustard8148 wut?
not combos... Resets. Of course there is a way out, just flip the coin.
And if you got right, now is your time to go to reset land!!
Going back to neutral get rarer as skill level goes up.
There is two way to be able to burst of combos, one is the infinite prevention system. that is completely irrelevant becouse there is no point doing combos long enough to trigger it considering how easy is to reset.
The other one (the gauge) becomes more and more useless as skill goes up. is not even worth baiting that stuff. Just make shorter combos before reseting.
That game is really really degenerated
@@affegpus4195 most chars have a meterless reversal. Everybody has a reversal that aleast cost one bar. DP assist though it can be kinda risky. Push block. Alpha counter. Safe DHC. Alpha counter into robo (preactivated lvl3) mashing jab sometimes. Ive seen people just jump out of corner. Big band has parry -> DP. Because the 6 input of 623 is the parry input
Alpha counter into run assist if you actually run that assist for whatever reason. PBGC which makes tones of stuff unsafe. Peacock can randomly drop lenny which forces your opponent to drop their turn so they dont get blown up. Most people dont know vs lenny combos so its a safe bet. Fukua 236LKLP is a decent reversal. Robo has lvl3 activating/ robo lvl 3 explosion. Raw tag for everybody. There is also just having good defense which can help alot of the time. There is plenty of options.. you just actually have to think to get out of ledge. Also you say "reset land" as if thats a bad thing? Its just a game with good offense. Not degenerate. You're prolly just salty because you got the game and some dudes on QM kicked your ass lmao
Also the gauge getting less important isnt exactly true. The point of the gauge is to make your number of touch needed get high so you have more of a chance to use this games multiple defense options. Its not useless because the green gauge is meant to make you reset faster not stop you from ever getting a hit. Also plenty of characters reset to neutral. It happens alot in pro level play. Valentine, Fukua, robo, peacock, Annie, anyone with brass assist all benefit from reseting neutral and it happens alot. Cough cough burst, blocked reset, reversal without conversion etc.
Damn I gotta get into Blazblue. Also it’s funny he mentions DNF duel cause I felt super limited in that beta
Yeah the game was fun but extremely limited. It was just that every character had their own limited but still bullshit bullshit. He just wants more Marvel.
Honestly I think i might be pretty spoiled from Melee.
I look at that game and it’s so insanely detailed because nothing is ever set in stone, and it’s also extremely fast paced.
So watching Xrd gave me almost that same feeling with some exceptions/flaws. I was excited to jump in with Strive, but I feel like they restricted so much of the game that it’s less interesting to watch/play.
One big thing I like about Strive is the lack of air teching and the longer hit stop on landing a hit. I think it changes the game in a positive way where you don’t necessarily always need to think about each and every scenario you might find yourself in. Sometimes you throw out a random move and the game goes “COUNTER” and you have plenty of time to think about what to do next. Definitely makes combos feel more custom, and you don’t have to grind out specific combos as much. As long as you know the properties of your moves (Dauro is a launcher on airborne dudes, Sol C.S puts people airborne for a short window) then you can kinda build your own combo.
I think that freedom of expression is a more effective term for what he was trying to say. There's something special about games like Smash bros melee and MVC2 that's kept people playing them for decades. Melee has tons of different viable playstyles for all the good characters, and a majority of it has to do with the movement options and how technically deep the game is. I'm not sure how other fighting games would implement ways to keep people coming back 10-20 years down the line, but I'm curious as to what others would think.
But there is also many people enjoying SF2 everyday. If you need a proof go to FC.
Thanks for providing best source analytical commentary and observation in the community. I was apart of the stream this came from and the only issue I have is in Brian’s video he had the tweet of what was defined as “emergent”. Unfortunately in your video you’re taking exception to an opinion without a clear definition of the topic. It just kinda seems like you’re coming at someone for being ignorant only supported by your opinions when as an audience member we don’t have any context on what the definition of “emergent” is in the video. I apologize if I sound critical you’re literally one of the best to do it and this seems like you’re beating up a clown.
Resonated with the millia thing. Tried to figure out the best way to play her , And what you should do to win. Everything was a set of questions such as , what do I do to get people to respect me ? How do I protect myself from being so negative ? I originally thought it had to be Meter but she’s not good at building it and I was like why don’t people break the wall? You can gain positive status anytime for rc mix up so why try so hard not to break the wall when It feels like millia needs the meter to get rolling? What’s the point in breaking the wall with super when using it for rc for your moves and oki is infinitely better ? You can easily ch with j.S and confirm quite easily with dust to air carry to break wall so why rejump? Why even rejump to optimize damage when she isn’t even good at damage? Isn’t it better to break wall to gain meter? What’s so bad about breaking the wall and it resets neutral if I’m playing a character like millia who’s whole plot is to rush down with her speed and movement versatility? I can use rc to make h disc meaty and delay it or use rc to go into high/low mix up with her moves so isn’t it good to have as much meter as you can for that? Isnt it best to exclusively use the meter on rc for her mix up game plan? Isn’t a millia in a perpetual state of positive status good? All my answers felt so anti-meta and I thought I was incorrect and rode ur dick for awhile and copied your movement/strategy because I thought this is how millia should be played until I told my self I didn’t get into fg to copy the next man over and in such an explosive game I wanted to try what I thought would work for me So I said fk it and went back to my old question and answers I opted for breaking the wall consecutively even tho it resets neutral and I’m being told to wall slump or always rejump combo to get to the floor to do super. I’d rather break the wall as quickly as I can because the meter for the rc let’s me do anything I want without having to worry about getting exploded and millia is really good at breaking the wall. You can drag ur opponent in the air or on the ground from one side to the other and if you hit the wall you will break it immediately. Millia with meter is broken , it’s so easy to condition after stock 1 because they’ll be so scared of the oki I can set up so easily after mirazh into haircar special , some people get so conditioned because of how late you can delay cancel h disc into rc . You can get them to finally block as long as you have meter and they see you using it for rc , so much so that I can delay cancel it so late they’ll block the disc for so long that I can mirazh into grab and because I’m still positive I can go for otg and pressure their block to gain back that meter. Ngl i win alot of games with this mindset of always breaking the wall and exclusively using my meter on rc for getting my opponent to block what ever mix up is coming ,it’s so free because they have to hold it . I actually don’t care if winger gives me hard knock down after wall break , Fuck a super , I go acapella. Millia is powerful but no one respects her. I thought her tools are good but inherently flawed and rc covers all of those flaws , iykyk.
His point with third strike is spot on tho
In every other street fighter
when someone jumps in at you
For the most part you either anti air.. or block
In third strike you can anti air.. You can block
You can parry
But then you have to wonder if they are going to empty jump with a parry, which would counter your anti air
Instead of being rock paper scissors it ends up being way more open, And i think thats what his point is when it came to speed
Its more about the flexible options and decision making
Casuals want the feeling of a lot of options even if it's an illusion, or to the detriment of the game.
3S parries grant the illusion of options because it's technically another "tool," even though OS' cause a lot of rps scenarios in other games to have binary outcomes.
If you look at high level 3S, there's actually way less going into the decision making and strategy from games like SF5 where every tool has a proper use.
I think emergent gameplay might be a concept that depends on what the individual feels it is.
I want to bring up an example not from fighting games. In Pokemon Black and White 2 competitive, the meta was dominated by Stealth Rock and Weather. Those same games introduced the Black and White Kyurem forms. White Kyurem specialized in special attacks, whilst Black Kyurem had a more mixed attack stat. Competitive players favored White Kyurem, as they could just focus on one aspect. Now as Kyurem is part ice type, all forms are weak to Stealth Rock. This meant that Black Kyurem was seen as lesser than White Kyurem, and thus it was put into a lesser rank, and people didn't use Black Kyurem because of fear of Stealth Rock. The thing is, whilst Black Kyurem has less Special Stats than White Kyurem, it was still one of the strongest pokemon in terms of stats, and it had a decent mixed movepool. It was only towards the end of Black and White's pvp did competitive players note they made a mistake, because Black Kyurem had one major advantage over White Kyurem, that being unpredictability.
Tl;Dr: White Kyurem was better at a limited scale, Black Kyurem was better on an emergent scale.
The only reason why white kyurem is not used over black kyurem is because it’s banned in OU
@@techmark3665 I never said it was?
@@CrocvsGator Sorry, I misread
@Tech Mark It's alright, it happens.
I'm not sure if people understand why they don't like certain games. For example, I don't believe that the lack of expression is the reason why people don't like SFV. I think the biggest issue is archetype bias. It seems that the developers want fireball zoners, grapplers, and rushdown characters to be weak in the game. You're fighting an uphill battle if your character isn't a limb zoner(that does high damage for not reason) or converts single hits into damage and oki. Gief has been bad for years and they still nerf him every patch. The new V shift mechanic hurts the weaker characters more than those in the top tier. The issue isn't that the game is designed in a certain way, it's that the system alienates as huge portion of its cast.
My opinion about what emergent gameplay should try to accomplish is to make people who are learning the game have answers that might not be optimal but do prevent them from being put into situations where they are asking, "What am I supposed to do here?" and have only one response - especially if the response is situational.
Take for instance the situation of "Sol is mashing far Slash." The reason why it was so oppressive as I see it is because the only answer is FD. You can't challenge, you can't backdash, you can't try to jump out, all you can do is spend meter to reset to neutral. And having so many characters and other such situations where there is only ONE answer to dealing with them (and even that answer can be unreliable) is what makes the gameplay feel so restrictive.
Speaking as someone who is fairly casual with fighting games, having a game where players can go off their instincts and still perform well enough is a good way to keep people around. Make people engage more with the macro of the game rather than the optimization by designing the game such that they don't find themselves in situations where they're helpless because they didn't do enough homework.
The most annoying part about fighting games to me is knowledge checks, because if you haven't studied outside crap or happen to just naturally play in a manner that answers it, you can't DO anything about it. Many people, if they are asked why they don't play fighting games, might answer "because I don't want to have to study hundreds of moves," which while typically only true of a game like Tekken is something that feels more like a legitimate criticism in some newer games where the devs seem to go under the impression that "oh, you have no idea what to do in this situation and everything you try in your normal playstyle doesn't work? Look it up on the internet" is good enough.
Parry is such a useful mechanic to solve this because it lets you substitute raw frame data knowledge with knowledge of your opponent, even though obviously you will benefit from having the frame knowledge. It doesn't matter if they are spamming a forward-moving plus attack, or a move that pushes you too far away to punish (Mega Fist) because you can parry it and negate both of them. "oh but IB" - has a 2 frame window
Good vid, LK! I understand a lot more what your approach is and agree with some things of it especially your take at 10:21, I wholeheartedly agree with that.
i think what max is describing is a game like Killer instinct? its a super fun game for casuals and it had a lot of depth to for the competitive community. i personally cant wait for the next instalment for that game because i feel like its to late to hop in now lol.
I'd say LK's appraisal of what Max is saying is correct. Except DNF Duel has a very small move set, but its system mechanics allow moves to be chained freely. Any normal can cancel to any special and any special can be cancelled into another special. But the move set is not very large. So when he says he wants options, that doesn't exactly mean moves.
Thoughtful video, I would like to see you and Max have an interview and have a discussion about it. To see how both your insights can come together in a discussion about modern fighting games from a casual(Max) and competitive(Lk) point of view.
There are two big traits to a game that fill different players needs imo : Discovery and piloting. I think Richard Garfield also coined them as Innovators vs. Honers.
Discovery is simply experiencing every part of the game, just seeing what's possible within the engine. But from a more casual standpoint, I think there's something great about knowing that you can't experience everything right away. It's also a very accessible way to enjoy the game since it's so intuitive : I played warrior for 10 hours, how does playing a mage feel like now. There's a decent example lately that thrives a lot of the discovery aspect : Vampire survivors. You organically get random builds, random progression from game to game, etc etc. All that adds up for 10-20 hours just to feel like you truly experienced every mechanic combination from the game.
Piloting I think is more what you're about. For me it's everything that ties to attempting to play the game properly. What are the choices needed to play it well, how does it feel, the necessary practice to do so etc etc etc. So when you talk about games being solved or some esoteric options being made irrelevant by players, you're focusing a lot on the piloting part of the game. I think piloting will always be less accessible than the discovery because you inherently need introspection on yourself, comprehensive understanding of the game, etc. Vampire survivors is also a game that is pretty objectively very low on the piloting aspect. You can literally only just walk and have some agency on your build.
I don't think one's better than the other. But when you said "Max, come play blazblue", I think that's a solid example of a game where the discovery aspect is huge. You can spend hours discovering a character and still not really focus on super proper piloting. And there's 30+ of them. I also think a lot more modern games are intentionally designing the piloting part of the game. Which is probably where the 2 concepts tend to compete with each other. It seems very difficult to design a specific piloting experience while also designing a high discoverability at the same time.
Honestly I think the problem is the vagueness of the term emergent gameplay. A speedrun or a challenge run is emergent gameplay, an unorthodox strategy or approach to a matchup isn't necessarily. On paper, every example he gave is technically intended gameplay, the goal of a fighting is to reduce the opponents life to zero, or at least more than they reduce yours.
I think it's more important to consider how many different ways the game can be played effectively. As an anecdote, while playing Type Lumina a couple months ago, I ran into an Arcueid player online that constantly ran away and repeatedly timed me out. Not because Arcueid has tons of zoning tools or broken movement, but just because he was good at stuffing my air approach and escaping the corner whenever I gave him some room to breath. That and constantly using FR to buy time when I was ahead. With that said, in the hundred or so hours I put into Strive I don't think I ever saw a time out despite the fact that I was playing Axl for most of them.
For another anecdote, when Bonchan won SFV at Evo 2019, he repeatedly switched from Sagat to Karin in his matches. For context, In SF4 Bonchan was known for playing very passively and using Sagats strong fireballs and anti-airs as the crux of his gameplan. Oftentimes after scoring 40+ percent with an Ultra conversion he'd simply walk back instead of taking the oki (and space) after the knockdown. Despite this, in SFV it was pretty common to see his Karin rushing down and going for stuns even if the opponents had meter to contest.
I can't speak for Max, but personally I think this is the problem. It feels like you can't win in a lot of newer games unless you play in a certain way (Aggressively). It makes the cast feel samey when they're essentially all doing the same things in slightly different ways. I don't think you necessarily need a massive move list or difficult execution to achieve this, the system just needs to accommodate alternate win conditions. I love messing around with guard break in Samsho and Kof15, the GRD game in UNI, and ringouts, sabakis, and sideturn setups in VF5. You can, and most players will win most of their matches without seeing these mechanics, but it's nice to know that they're an option, and it's hype to see them implemented at high level play.
Hmmm. 7:38 makes a ton of sense but it never really thought about what strive is stricter on cancel windows. It was a big reason it didn't like the game, because it was the complete opposite of Uniclr but the same neutral/strike throw focus and it could never understand why until it heard that.
Very good video. I really like that you question the notion that having more shit with less defined purpose is inherently superior to more "limited" systems. I think it's ok to like just having a bunch of shit, but I would like those people to recognize that it's ultimately their preference. I think discussions like this in the long run will improve the discourse around fighting games.
"new game bad, old game good" is basically what he's saying. We're never going to get the 90's and 00's again where things like Melee are still being pushed 20 years after release and new stuff takes months to become relevant just because information is so readily available, especially with stuff like youtube where everyone wants to be the person to post "x character's bnb/optimal combos" or "is x character in *insert newest release here* actually a sleeper top tier ajdkfkccodkdk" and get those views in
I think fighting game devs should include a platform on the top of the screen where you can go to, and maybe two other platforms on the sides
i swear if one of those games come out today and people learn the best shit a character does it will definitely lose all that "emergent gameplay"
I think a better way to think about 'tight' or heavy handed game design is something like proscribed game design. They've designed many of these modern fg with a very specific playstyle in mind and have set up many ways to disincentivize other approaches. You can still see emergent gameplay show up in those systems, like with the emergence of Strive's wallslump stuff, but it has less impact on the overall game or is for very specific situations.
More choices and ways are not real on the age of internet where people just try to search the optimal path for every situation. See mmos for an example, a lot of choices possible, but everyone uses the same rotation.
I’ll never forget when BB started clicking for me, just started pressing a few more buttons n thought “hol up yall gon let me get away with this?” And the rest was history (i haven’t played BB in like 5yrs so I’m awful now but you get the point)
Love Max, but whenever he gets like this all I can think is "Man, its a shame he doesn't play BlazBlue."
SFV had a lot of examples of the balance feeling heavy handed. I have an good example:
Oro had an fast fall glitch, which was absolutely not broken. You could not do highs because you were stuck at the throw animation, you basically had an way to change your jump arc, and hit opponents who wasn't expecting it. But they removed it! For no reason! Oro wasn't even close to being a top tier character, he was mid tier at best, and they removed it. SFV really have a lot of examples of it.
I don't think emergent gameplay is exactly about developer intent, I think it's more about systems that are able to be used together to create new functionality that the systems themselves don't have individually. FPS games probably have better examples of this, like rocket jumping in Team Fortress. It was originally an unintended functionality in Quake, but it was included as an intended feature in later games like Team Fortress 2. However, it works off the same systems either way, which are the knockback from rockets, self damage from rockets, and the engine's air movement mechanics.
Because this is all using existing systems however, it creates interesting dynamics. Since you have to self-damage, you're trading health for movement. Because it's based on splash damage, your movement is limited to surfaces you can detonate a rocket on; you can always rocket jump off the ground, but you can only midair rocket jump off of walls. You can rocket jump at different heights and angles based on your rocket placement. But because it's all based on the basic systems of the game, most of this is intuitive to learn, and it doesn't initially overwhelm players with its complexity, while still allowing players to dive into it at a deeper level, and you can often learn more advanced techniques just by observing others.
I think Roman Cancel in all Guilty Gears is a fairly good example of an intended mechanic that allows for emergent gameplay, in this sense. For just one example, Faust in Strive essentially has a metered teleport with Scarecrow RC, but pretty much every character essentially has hidden "moves" like this, without needing hidden inputs or overloading players with a massive move list. I think what people really want from emergent systems is a "think it, do it" feel, where a player can intuitively theorize a strategy based on their knowledge of the mechanics, and then immediately try it out in a game. Not every player will play the game in this way, but it doesn't increase the complexity for those who don't.
I just want Makoto back in SF tbh
People just don’t like feeling underwhelmed, most people aren’t trying to win EVO…just be fun. Dnf duel is a perfect example of simple(so far) but really fun. It FEELS good to play the characters, It’s more like a “here are your tools go crazy” kinda game and that’s fun. Then there’s strive, where everything feels so specific and calculated. Amazing game visually speaking peak animation for sure, but holy shit after playing bbcf it puts strive to shame. It’s not even close… even just moving around in bbcf feels better. But I hope the game does develop better, it has potential but it feels so linear. Just feels like fighting games are going backwards instead of forwards to me. Project L, dnf duel, and blazing strike look promising to me so far.
Your argument gets completely thrown out the window once you brought up DNF Duel, that game is completely braindead and almost as bad as vanilla BlazBlue.
@@ChocolateBar999 maybe because the final build of the game isn’t out? I mean shit the game isn’t due until summer dude. It is DEFINITELY fun, I enjoyed my time with the game as did MOST people that played it. That’s what actually matters, how does that go completely over your head? LOL.
@@ChocolateBar999 being braindead is fun dude 😎
Seriously tho Idc if it's too simple and watered down it's still pretty fun.
You MAD uncharitable towards Max my guy 🤣🤣
Fantastic video, I've always felt something was off about the opinion that the more ***LOOSE*** the game is, the more fun it is.
Skullgirls let you pick whichever move you want as an assist, but why would you ever use anything but a special move. Plus the combo structure is pretty much identical wherever you are on screen (if you're not trying to optimize everything to death). There wasn't much of a reason to experiment for a casual, nor is it rewarding.
The Disgaea reference hit for me. Game gives tons of options but you can beat most fights with a single mage because of the way you can level and the range the spells have. Final Fantasy Tactics, by comparison, requires more strategy because of the limitations it puts on the player and character builds.
i would define emergent gameplay as a cumulative process in which a player uses a game's tools and mechanics in a combination of ways both intended and unintended by the game's developers in order to achieve a desired result that causes previously established metas and preconceptions to shift from their original state without the direct intervention of system/character changes made by the game's developers
what i think max is getting hung up on is the idea that game's need mechanical freedom in order for emergent gameplay to happen and that the more mechanical freedom a game has, the more emergent gameplay there will be over the course of the game's lifetime
personally, i think he's half right
like you said, LK, restrictions force players to get creative and this is the other side of the coin in tandem with the other that allows emergent gameplay to happen.
think of it like a pendulum. if a game is overly restrictive and controlled, then the development of new strategies and ways of playing the game are also hindered which means optimizing the game happens faster but if a game is too loose and free form then strategies and techniques that are developed are invalidated over time to the point that there is only one strategy
to use examples of each side of the pendulum swinging too far in one direction i would say a game like granblue is too restrictive and controlled and a game like dbfz is too loose and free form. both are very different games but both naturally experience shifts in their metas and the preconceptions about the games very infrequently as a result of both of them swinging too far towards either restriction or freedom
conversely, games like KI 2013, GG AC +r, SF3 Third Strike, and Skullgirls all have a much less rigid meta surrounding them as a result of new strategies and creative application of tech allowing for their metas to naturally shift more often as a result of those strategies and techniques gaining more or less relevance in response to combat what's popular at the moment and this is because they all strike an appropriate balance between what they restrict and what they allow for that then enables this kind of flexible environment to exist
Personally I used to watch Xrd matches all day everyday. When Strive came out I stopped watching tournaments a month into the game cause everything was the same over an over again. Like it's not fun watching anything if you can predict what the players are gonna do. Like Zato under pressure. Either gonna mash 2P into 6P straight 6P or 2p2p2p2p an thats it. That's every match imo characters just do the same things they did last match an who ever is better/cheaper wins
I find it weird that people always say 3S is a game where everything has an answer because... well it's not super true. Yeah you can respond to situations with parry but after getting parried yourself there isn't much you can do. A game with more outplay potential would be like GG XX, since after getting slashbacked you still have many cancel options.
3S is still a great game, don't get me wrong, but for different reasons.
I think with that, there's a way to not get parried, which is to go for grab or delayed buttons, so that's an answer. After getting parried, you're probably dealing with knock down, which has a rps element that, according to nuki, daigo didn't like since he didn't feel rewarded for knocking someone down. 3rd strike is full of dumb stuff like urien unblockables, oro unblockables, chun li, genei jin, and more, but in general, you're not out of luck.
Player expression being integral in competitive scenerios and actually being rewarding is what I believe makes a long running fg.
We still have no idea what strives ceiling looks like. The game continues to evolve.
With all due respect to the guy, Max doesn’t really get it. Emergent gameplay is borne out of restrictions, not “freedom”. But players are usually not great judges of what they actually want.
LK doesn't seem to really get it, but in his defense, Max does a poor job articulating what he means fo sho.
I was waiting the entire video for LK to say "just play Blazblue" lmfao
Even then, not every character in BB is just designed to overstimulate you. I'm totally with you on combo conversion being pretty much the biggest component of these vague "game feel" points people make
Battlefield and Call of Duty specifically from online multiplayer is the perfect example of emergent gameplay! Every thing a player does changes the match and you will never play the same match the same way twice or it is highly improbable because you and each player teammate or enemy team are always changing each other's paths throughout! All it takes is one player to not do the same thing, if everyone else tries to replicate the previous match exactly as it panned out; to completely alter the match entirely. Creating a chain reaction from friend and foe that makes the match a unique match. As an example everyone does the same thing as the previous match but as you run down that hall where you killed an enemy player, you decide half way to turn around out of the hallway you came from. That move creates a snowball effect that will change everyone's encounter with each other and throws off the replication! Hallway man survives because you went back, they find your teammate who spawns in who in the previous match survives his spawn in but here is killed by that surviving hallway enemy etc etc most multiplayer games that are pve/pvp/pvpve are like this!
I still don't really feel like I understand what Emergent gameplay is specifically. Most games have specific optimal ways to engage with. Especially fighting games. The thing that stood out the most to me was having people use characters in different ways, but most fighting games are like that to begin with. Most of the time it doesn't seem like most players play the exact same way. The win condition maybe, but general playstyle, not really. That could be character specific but i dont feel like it would be. could be wrong tho lol.
I feel like what max is harping on ab is take the strive gatling system like he was saying it influences your decision making based off of what you can get off of it I feel like he wants say hey you can get stuff off of all these options you can press type deal and I feel like the strive roman cancle system is the definition of freedom you can do so much random shit cuz the whole point of it is you have a sex basement of options just everything everywhere with 50 meter but in the end there's still optimal ways to use it yk either way still mad fun
I'm watching a video of someone watching a video of someone watching a video.
There is an interesting parallel between this and Pokémon double battle tournaments. In Pokémon when the new game comes out Pokémon tournaments tend to not include all the Pokémon from all the other previous games. And in general the power levels of all the Pokémon is lower, so you see more team variety. But when you add the other Pokémon, despite the added variety, there is a centralisation of strategy. You see fewer Pokémon being used at the competitive level because they added all the strongest Mons. But when you look at single battle tournaments they run tournaments with different strength levels of Pokémon in mind, so you can make a team of Weaker Pokémon and still use that team as long as you're playing at the right level. Beyond that it's not like every Pokémon is using the same moveset or items, each team will use different things depending on the strategy of the player. I think emergence is what you make of it.
What i want is a conversation between LK and Max tbh, just what LK mentioned he wanted himself. I can't help but feel there are some misunderstandings in how LK interpreted what Max meant in this video. Like how LK thinks what Max wants is more moves and more mechanics. Which wasn't necessarily what he said, just something LK thought Max might have meant. Which in a sense makes it feel kind of one sided. I would love to hear a dialogue.
Bro, you dropped Disgaea vocally? Hella love that series.
Max is a casual. Not a scrub, but nowadays a casual
Emergent gameplay is when relatively simple mechanics interact to produce scenarios that are more than the sum of their parts. Whether or not the devs intend for these scenarios doesn't matter really.
For example I've been playing Street Fighter Alpha 2 recently, and one thing I noticed is that there's no extended hit stun on counter hit - which means there's a flexible mixup scenario instead. This is emergent gameplay.