Any stubborn anti-fighting game players out there?

[gamer_parent]

fighting games tend to have a pretty high learning curve, especially if there is a healthy community of players to go around. Smash is not exempt from this. Wavedash and L-Dash anyone?

I once read that to play SF3 competently, it takes 8 months of training. 8 MONTHS!

Having said that, I do see a trend where fighting games are getting easier to pick up, which I think is great, but at the same time a lot of fighting games are just easing up on the input precision, rather than simplifying the number of subsystems you have to handle. And that is problematic, as the increase in subsystems will simply mean that you have more knowledge to learn if you want to eck out every advantage.

 

[Hobonicus]

You seem to have a lot of misinformation right up there.

First and foremost, I don't know what fighting games you've been playing but any half-way-decent fighter made in the last 10 or so years has infinite more depth when played on a high level than any current shooter. You talk about spatial awareness? How about being aware of that, all of your extremities, the way your extremities shift in fractions of a second and using all this information to decide what series of button presses to input, all in under half a second. This is the experience of playing a fighting game and you can't really comprehend it if you deem it inferior to those other genres.

Combos are just a fraction of the game btw. Combos are the moves you do AFTER having connected the initiating hit. How to do that, then which combo to do, all depending on spacing and timing and a thousand other factos, all shifting depending on your game-plan and there always being space for just a bit more improvement...you can't really surpass that in any other gaming genre out there.

There's actually a LOT of depth in fighting games. Of course, it depends on which one/s we're talking about here. But most fighters have really deep gameplay mechanics, it's just that most people aren't willing to play them that much.

I do think the fighting genre is inferior to other genres, that's true. But I'm in no way saying it's wrong to enjoy to enjoy fighting games, or judging anyone for liking them if I came off as some elitist, and I'm only speaking for myself. To use a different word, a major factor that makes me pass up fighters as a lesser genre is potential. There's really just one thing you do, even on a small scale.

The point I was trying to make was that while there may be depth within the core mechanic, I still feel that it's a fairly shallow mechanic. Super Smash Bros makes the environment a factor, which is HUGE, but if all the fights in Super Smash were played in a small flat arena I would be bored to death. If Space Invaders was remade to add a load of special moves and combos that utilized quick reactions and such, I still wouldn't like it because its core mechanic is shallow and gets boring fast.

I admit, I haven't played many fighters recently, only a bit of MvC3 and Soul Calibur 3. When I was younger I probably put a couple hundred hours or so into Soul Calibur 2. If someone can explain what they mean by deep mechanics I'm willing to listen, but I don't consider knowing what combination of buttons to press next in a split second as depth in a game. That's how all games are played, fighting games only require more practice and skill. And you can't ignore the depth of free three dimensional movement in shooters. It's something we all take for granted but that's like what I'm talking about when I say a shooter has more depth than a fighter. I don't mean anything like unlockables, stats, number of moves, I'm talking about the bare bones mechanics.

All that constantly shifting strategy, know-how, and reaction speed stuff is done in your head and while the path of your thought process sounds complex when written in such small increments, it ends up as muscle memory that in the end equates to an attack in a cramped and static area.

Again, I don't mean to insult anyone with this. Fighter is certainly a genre that people enjoy. Kind of like how someone might not like B-movies, clearly a lesser genre; but enjoyable nonetheless (Evil Dead 2 is my favorite movie btw, so don't hate). But like racing, puzzles, and on rail shooters, to me it just generally can't live up to the potential and depth of the others.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Then you are playing the WRONG fighting games...or people. That terrible misconception needs to die because no matter how much someone button mashes, they will NEVER win a match against someone who even only has basic skills down. Maybe win a lucky round, but that shit about button mashing = win is a big fat load.

Just need to quote this because it's, quite simply, the absolute truth.

If you are losing to a button masher either the game is terribly designed or you are no where near as good as you think you are, period.

There isn't one even moderately recognized fighting game out there right now that allows button mashers to beat players who have even a shred of an idea how to play. A button masher can at absolute best maybe steal a round here and there from a moderate player but that's all they will ever do. I agree with Seraph that the mashing=winning misconception about fighters needs to die a quick yet extremely painful death.

As to the OP, I think it really depends on the game. Some people just don't "get" fighters, and that's cool, but others just need to be introduced to them the right way. MK, for all it's focus on blood and gore, isn't that great of an introductory game. First off, it's rather ugly in motion and secondly, you can't really do anything cool looking without knowing what you're doing. Also, even though many fighting game fans love it, limiting the play field to 2D can automatically turn people off. If you want a good introductory fighting game, I would suggest either Soul Calibur or Tekken. Both have sexy graphics and full 3D battle fields. They also, for those new to the genre, have plenty of cool things that can happen if you do just hit random buttons or mash (but have more than enough depth to let experienced players easily deal with said random mashing).

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I'm trying to get my friends interested in playing Mortal Kombat, but they insist that all fighting games (except for Smash Bros) sucks. To be fair, I think there are a ton of problems with the genre, but if anything, MK does away with most of them. I try to tell them that the game's controls are a hell of a lot easier to learn than Street Fighter or Blazblue or whatever, and that there's a ton of personality in the game that makes it enjoyable long before we have the control scheme down. And the story mode is supposedly really good, but their response is "I don't play fighting games for the story, durrrr". You don't play fighting games, period! And we play single-player games together all the time, so what's the problem? Argh.

Fighting games have been so inaccessible for so long that when a game like Mortal Kombat comes out, people STILL don't want to play it. What's up with that?

Mortal Kombat is terrible though, it's good that they're not reintroduced into the genre from that game.


If something like Blazblue doesn't cause those people to salivate with excitement (beginner mode for easy execution of moves if you suck, multiple hour long tutorials teaching you everything you need to know, 20+ hours of storymode, the most unique and full of personality chars in any fighter ever except maybe Guilty Gear (though GG's were more one-dimensional)) then fighting games are simply not for them and they should focus on other genres.

Yeah, BlazBlue is the holy grail of fighters this gen. It also has a lengthy story mode for non-fighter fans. And a beginner mode. And a challenge mode to learn combos.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

Blazblue is good fun, and a splendid fighting game, but I wouldn't say it's entry level stuff, well, at least not Calamity Trigger, the extensive tutorial mode helps. But that won't help our friend here since I don't think his friends are the types to sit through that to learn about barrier guard, bursting, rapid cancels and so on.

If anything, Soul Calibur is a good place to start, yes it's poorly balanced but for beginning fighters tiers don't even come into it, and any conceivable button input will result in their character doing something cool. It's impossible to completely mess up in an SC.

 

[Bobbity]

Me. The occasional one is fun, but essentially all I do is button mash, and it gets very redundant very quickly.

 

[Inconspicuous Trenchcoat]

As much as it pains me, I'm one of those people who really only has fun when they're winning. This isn't a guarantee, I can have fun while losing, but in general I don't like losing. This fact combined with the high learning curve (in my eyes) to fighting games, and they just don't really appeal to me. I feel that I'm too far behind to ever catch up. I liked Tekken and Primal Rage (?) in the arcades, but I never knew what I was doing.

I will pick them up on the cheap. I got Street Fighter 4 off Steam for a pittance and I enjoyed it. Played for 30 hours total; lost 49 out of around the 50 online matches I played. Then I gave it up, because all the guides I could find involved counting frames or something and that intimidated me even more than my 2% win rate.

There are games that are very hard, that I suck at, which I still enjoy. Bloodline Champions for example: I get my face destroyed on a regular basis. I think I'm so great, then I get humbled back down.

So, if it's not the difficulty, what is it? I think it's primarily accessibility to becoming "good enough" at the game. Bloodline Champions is hard, but it's fairly easy to learn how to become better; execution is another matter. Fighting games appear (to me) to be inaccessible in that regard. I'll never be able to remember all these combinations and what each fighter does and what moves win over another used at the same time. It isn't clear (to me) how to become "decent" at the game like it is in other genres, and I think that's my main issue with fighting games.

Fighting Games I have enjoyed: Super Street Fighter 4, some old version of Tekken, Primal Rage, Super Smash Bros. and Melee (Brawl.. eh, got old at that point).
MvC3 looks fun, I might rent that and try it. Don't have a modern console though >.> (I'll have to borrow my bro's 360 for a couple days)

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

No matter the fighting game, it's still about combination moves. Moves I can't do. It takes forever to learn how to do fast enough to be effective in combat, and still, odds are, when fighting against a real person you won't be able to get the combination off. It's a waste to me.

Also, there's a huge difference in player ability. There are only three levels of ability that I've ever seen:
Know what you're doing and are too good to fight fairly against those with less ability.
Don't know what you're doing so you'll die a lot.
Don't know what you're doing, but can get damn lucky pushing a lot of buttons.

It's a plain skill game.
I don't like that. I like story driven games. I like games that can give me an edge even if I suck at them. I like fun games. And since I don't have fun studying button combinations and trying to pull them off before an opponent kills you, there's no reason to play against real people.

That's just how I feel.
I do have a few fighting games, but I only play by myself. xD

What do you mean "fairly"? What's unfair about dominating your foe as much as is appropriate considering your difference in skill?


What is the point of having an edge you did nothing to obtain anyways. Isn't it utterly meaningless when who you defeat could be defeated no matter what you did or how much you sucked. Doesn't it carry more meaning to know that you need to have skill to win, when you do in fact win?

My point is taking two people of random skill sets and pitting them against one another is unfair.
Example: Weight classes in wrestling. You don't pit a 250 pound man versus a 120 pound man. It's an unfair advantage.
I'm not saying it's a horrible thing or that fighting games are shit for allowing two completely different skill sets like that to fight against each other, I'm just saying that at the basis, when there's not match-making that pits like against like, it's unfair. One side can easily have such an advantage that only those who luck into a powerful move will stand a chance at winning.
Some people like that kind of challenge. Some people like winning with that kind of challenge. That's fine. To each his own.

But I don't like seeing a game over screen 100 times just because I don't have the appropriate skill set or ability to press XXYBAAB as fast as the game requires. I don't like missing out on the story because of that. I like a game to sit well at my own skill level. I don't find arbitrary kill numbers and difficult bosses with no discernible weakness (unless you've fought them 40 times learning new insights every time) to be great motivation in a game. I'd rather see an end then be forced into quitting due to frustration. That is who I am as a gamer.

I answered the original question (Why are fighting games so inaccessible?) by describing what I dislike about fighting games. Not what I think needs to change or what is wrong with them. Just why I feel they're inaccessible.

Your wrestling argument sorta works against you though. The 250 pound man is not a better wrestler than the 120 pound one, he's just heavier thus he gets benefits outside his skill. That's all just a physical thing which ends up augmenting his ability to fight, not an actual talent-related factor. In fighting games it would be like fighting someone with a broken controller who can't do half the moves and yeah, obviously unfair.


What the games actually do is not that though. What they do is pit people with equal weight together, and let the one who is a better wrestler win. Thus it's fair, the only difference is that the skill gaps are larger than you would find in a wrestling league...but then again, if you go into a fighting game championship, the skill gaps would be much smaller than those you'd encounter playing online.




Let me leave you with this, luck and "getting one strong move in" never ends up mattering if you suck and your opponent doesn't. You need to be constantly aware of what you're attempting to do and the results it may have. The AI opponents usually are stupid easy too, they have identifiable patterns and reactions. Humans don't do that, they also adjust to your playstyle unlike any AI could do. The fact that you would complain about that tells me you've really had no proper exposure to skilled play.

Blazblue is good fun, and a splendid fighting game, but I wouldn't say it's entry level stuff, well, at least not Calamity Trigger, the extensive tutorial mode helps. But that won't help our friend here since I don't think his friends are the types to sit through that to learn about barrier guard, bursting, rapid cancels and so on.

If anything, Soul Calibur is a good place to start, yes it's poorly balanced but for beginning fighters tiers don't even come into it, and any conceivable button input will result in their character doing something cool. It's impossible to completely mess up in an SC.

They could use beginner mode, that mode is put into the game specifically for them, young children and the elderly.

Soul calibur is a mashfest and a 3D one at that, learnign it would do little to your skill regarding 2D anime style games.

As much as it pains me, I'm one of those people who really only has fun when they're winning. This isn't a guarantee, I can have fun while losing, but in general I don't like losing. This fact combined with the high learning curve (in my eyes) to fighting games, and they just don't really appeal to me. I feel that I'm too far behind to ever catch up. I liked Tekken and Primal Rage (?) in the arcades, but I never knew what I was doing.

I will pick them up on the cheap. I got Street Fighter 4 off Steam for a pittance and I enjoyed it. Played for 30 hours total; lost 49 out of around the 50 online matches I played. Then I gave it up, because all the guides I could find involved counting frames or something and that intimidated me even more than my 2% win rate.

There are games that are very hard, that I suck at, which I still enjoy. Bloodline Champions for example: I get my face destroyed on a regular basis. I think I'm so great, then I get humbled back down.

So, if it's not the difficulty, what is it? I think it's primarily accessibility to becoming "good enough" at the game. Bloodline Champions is hard, but it's fairly easy to learn how to become better; execution is another matter. Fighting games appear (to me) to be inaccessible in that regard. I'll never be able to remember all these combinations and what each fighter does and what moves win over another used at the same time. It isn't clear (to me) how to become "decent" at the game like it is in other genres, and I think that's my main issue with fighting games.

Fighting Games I have enjoyed: Super Street Fighter 4, some old version of Tekken, Primal Rage, Super Smash Bros. and Melee (Brawl.. eh, got old at that point).
MvC3 looks fun, I might rent that and try it. Don't have a modern console though >.> (I'll have to borrow my bro's 360 for a couple days)

I think there's a problem with the way you define "decent" or "good enough". People online usually are way better than good. Just play till you start winning more, everyone get's their ass kicked at first.



As for the scary frames, frames are time, nothing more. In a 60fps game there's 60 frames per second, so when discussing frames of a move, you're talking about how quickly the move happens or how quickly you need to input the following move for them to combo. That's all that is, nothing scary or complex lol, just time. You don't need to even be familiar with them on a memorization scale, you can just look at the game while you play, notice a move that is quick and remember it for being a quick move. That's all you do when you think of frames, deciding which move is quick enough to work in your specific situation and which isn't.



Accessibility is there, the thing is that the games are ultimately competitive. It isn't the game's fault if 10000 people spend 5 hours a day practicing and then go online. In fact, it's a testament to the quality of the game. If you can't be bothered to do that then just seek out other suctastic people so you can have some casual games for fun with similarly skilled foes.

 

[Trolldor]

I'm trying to get my friends interested in playing Mortal Kombat, but they insist that all fighting games (except for Smash Bros) sucks. To be fair, I think there are a ton of problems with the genre, but if anything, MK does away with most of them. I try to tell them that the game's controls are a hell of a lot easier to learn than Street Fighter or Blazblue or whatever, and that there's a ton of personality in the game that makes it enjoyable long before we have the control scheme down. And the story mode is supposedly really good, but their response is "I don't play fighting games for the story, durrrr". You don't play fighting games, period! And we play single-player games together all the time, so what's the problem? Argh.

Fighting games have been so inaccessible for so long that when a game like Mortal Kombat comes out, people STILL don't want to play it. What's up with that?

*shrug* Tell them Mortal Kombat isn't about the combat, it's about the extras like Babalities and shit.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

I am not a competitive person, and fighting games were made for exactly that crowd. The computer normally cheats with combos that can't be done by just any ordinary human, and can respond to your button presses with a counter, adding in fake difficulty.

Plus I suck at them, and I will stop playing a game when I lose too frequently or if I can't improve. Fighting games do precisely this to me.

So yes, I am an anti-fighting game player.

 

[lovest harding]

No matter the fighting game, it's still about combination moves. Moves I can't do. It takes forever to learn how to do fast enough to be effective in combat, and still, odds are, when fighting against a real person you won't be able to get the combination off. It's a waste to me.

Also, there's a huge difference in player ability. There are only three levels of ability that I've ever seen:
Know what you're doing and are too good to fight fairly against those with less ability.
Don't know what you're doing so you'll die a lot.
Don't know what you're doing, but can get damn lucky pushing a lot of buttons.

It's a plain skill game.
I don't like that. I like story driven games. I like games that can give me an edge even if I suck at them. I like fun games. And since I don't have fun studying button combinations and trying to pull them off before an opponent kills you, there's no reason to play against real people.

That's just how I feel.
I do have a few fighting games, but I only play by myself. xD

What do you mean "fairly"? What's unfair about dominating your foe as much as is appropriate considering your difference in skill?


What is the point of having an edge you did nothing to obtain anyways. Isn't it utterly meaningless when who you defeat could be defeated no matter what you did or how much you sucked. Doesn't it carry more meaning to know that you need to have skill to win, when you do in fact win?

My point is taking two people of random skill sets and pitting them against one another is unfair.
Example: Weight classes in wrestling. You don't pit a 250 pound man versus a 120 pound man. It's an unfair advantage.
I'm not saying it's a horrible thing or that fighting games are shit for allowing two completely different skill sets like that to fight against each other, I'm just saying that at the basis, when there's not match-making that pits like against like, it's unfair. One side can easily have such an advantage that only those who luck into a powerful move will stand a chance at winning.
Some people like that kind of challenge. Some people like winning with that kind of challenge. That's fine. To each his own.

But I don't like seeing a game over screen 100 times just because I don't have the appropriate skill set or ability to press XXYBAAB as fast as the game requires. I don't like missing out on the story because of that. I like a game to sit well at my own skill level. I don't find arbitrary kill numbers and difficult bosses with no discernible weakness (unless you've fought them 40 times learning new insights every time) to be great motivation in a game. I'd rather see an end then be forced into quitting due to frustration. That is who I am as a gamer.

I answered the original question (Why are fighting games so inaccessible?) by describing what I dislike about fighting games. Not what I think needs to change or what is wrong with them. Just why I feel they're inaccessible.

Your wrestling argument sorta works against you though. The 250 pound man is not a better wrestler than the 120 pound one, he's just heavier thus he gets benefits outside his skill. That's all just a physical thing which ends up augmenting his ability to fight, not an actual talent-related factor. In fighting games it would be like fighting someone with a broken controller who can't do half the moves and yeah, obviously unfair.


What the games actually do is not that though. What they do is pit people with equal weight together, and let the one who is a better wrestler win. Thus it's fair, the only difference is that the skill gaps are larger than you would find in a wrestling league...but then again, if you go into a fighting game championship, the skill gaps would be much smaller than those you'd encounter playing online.




Let me leave you with this, luck and "getting one strong move in" never ends up mattering if you suck and your opponent doesn't. You need to be constantly aware of what you're attempting to do and the results it may have. The AI opponents usually are stupid easy too, they have identifiable patterns and reactions. Humans don't do that, they also adjust to your playstyle unlike any AI could do. The fact that you would complain about that tells me you've really had no proper exposure to skilled play.

I'll give you that it's not a perfect example, but it hardly works against my point (just because weight does not equal skill doesn't mean it entirely misses the point). I feel it's a fair enough example.

They don't pit people of equal weight according to my example as I was drawing a comparison to weight and knowledge of the moves and the ability to perform those moves (AKA skill in game). For instance, I have never been able to pull off those moves as quickly as required for them to be useful in a person vs. person fight. I can easily get them off against an AI opponent because of how they work, but I have never once been in a situation where I had enough time for me to pull off one of those moves. I'm not a twitch gamer (not an insult, just a term I use for games who are fast with their trigger fingers or can easily pull of a big combination move in a short amount of time). I can't do things that quickly.

I find this last section to be a bit insulting, whether you meant it or not (no offense to you, I'm just being honest). Just because I lack the ability to play twitch games like that (even FPS tend to be fast for me) doesn't mean I've never had exposure to skilled play at all. I have played games with people who have played these games quite well. I've watched and played with friends who love fighting games. That is where my opinion on fighting games has developed from.
Just because my skill comes from more deliberate and slow strategy doesn't make me any less knowledgeable of twitch-based skill and I'd appreciate assumptions not be made like that.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

No matter the fighting game, it's still about combination moves. Moves I can't do. It takes forever to learn how to do fast enough to be effective in combat, and still, odds are, when fighting against a real person you won't be able to get the combination off. It's a waste to me.

Also, there's a huge difference in player ability. There are only three levels of ability that I've ever seen:
Know what you're doing and are too good to fight fairly against those with less ability.
Don't know what you're doing so you'll die a lot.
Don't know what you're doing, but can get damn lucky pushing a lot of buttons.

It's a plain skill game.
I don't like that. I like story driven games. I like games that can give me an edge even if I suck at them. I like fun games. And since I don't have fun studying button combinations and trying to pull them off before an opponent kills you, there's no reason to play against real people.

That's just how I feel.
I do have a few fighting games, but I only play by myself. xD

What do you mean "fairly"? What's unfair about dominating your foe as much as is appropriate considering your difference in skill?


What is the point of having an edge you did nothing to obtain anyways. Isn't it utterly meaningless when who you defeat could be defeated no matter what you did or how much you sucked. Doesn't it carry more meaning to know that you need to have skill to win, when you do in fact win?

My point is taking two people of random skill sets and pitting them against one another is unfair.
Example: Weight classes in wrestling. You don't pit a 250 pound man versus a 120 pound man. It's an unfair advantage.
I'm not saying it's a horrible thing or that fighting games are shit for allowing two completely different skill sets like that to fight against each other, I'm just saying that at the basis, when there's not match-making that pits like against like, it's unfair. One side can easily have such an advantage that only those who luck into a powerful move will stand a chance at winning.
Some people like that kind of challenge. Some people like winning with that kind of challenge. That's fine. To each his own.

But I don't like seeing a game over screen 100 times just because I don't have the appropriate skill set or ability to press XXYBAAB as fast as the game requires. I don't like missing out on the story because of that. I like a game to sit well at my own skill level. I don't find arbitrary kill numbers and difficult bosses with no discernible weakness (unless you've fought them 40 times learning new insights every time) to be great motivation in a game. I'd rather see an end then be forced into quitting due to frustration. That is who I am as a gamer.

I answered the original question (Why are fighting games so inaccessible?) by describing what I dislike about fighting games. Not what I think needs to change or what is wrong with them. Just why I feel they're inaccessible.

Your wrestling argument sorta works against you though. The 250 pound man is not a better wrestler than the 120 pound one, he's just heavier thus he gets benefits outside his skill. That's all just a physical thing which ends up augmenting his ability to fight, not an actual talent-related factor. In fighting games it would be like fighting someone with a broken controller who can't do half the moves and yeah, obviously unfair.


What the games actually do is not that though. What they do is pit people with equal weight together, and let the one who is a better wrestler win. Thus it's fair, the only difference is that the skill gaps are larger than you would find in a wrestling league...but then again, if you go into a fighting game championship, the skill gaps would be much smaller than those you'd encounter playing online.




Let me leave you with this, luck and "getting one strong move in" never ends up mattering if you suck and your opponent doesn't. You need to be constantly aware of what you're attempting to do and the results it may have. The AI opponents usually are stupid easy too, they have identifiable patterns and reactions. Humans don't do that, they also adjust to your playstyle unlike any AI could do. The fact that you would complain about that tells me you've really had no proper exposure to skilled play.

I'll give you that it's not a perfect example, but it hardly works against my point (just because weight does not equal skill doesn't mean it entirely misses the point). I feel it's a fair enough example.

They don't pit people of equal weight according to my example as I was drawing a comparison to weight and knowledge of the moves and the ability to perform those moves (AKA skill in game). For instance, I have never been able to pull off those moves as quickly as required for them to be useful in a person vs. person fight. I can easily get them off against an AI opponent because of how they work, but I have never once been in a situation where I had enough time for me to pull off one of those moves. I'm not a twitch gamer (not an insult, just a term I use for games who are fast with their trigger fingers or can easily pull of a big combination move in a short amount of time). I can't do things that quickly.

I find this last section to be a bit insulting, whether you meant it or not (no offense to you, I'm just being honest). Just because I lack the ability to play twitch games like that (even FPS tend to be fast for me) doesn't mean I've never had exposure to skilled play at all. I have played games with people who have played these games quite well. I've watched and played with friends who love fighting games. That is where my opinion on fighting games has developed from.
Just because my skill comes from more deliberate and slow strategy doesn't make me any less knowledgeable of twitch-based skill and I'd appreciate assumptions not be made like that.

Here's the thing, I know what you mean by twitch style play and fact of the matter is, 95% of the time you're not required to do that. The fact that you think you are is in itself a problem with your misconception of the genre.


You shouldn't react with special moves, you should have enough foresight to know you're about to need to do them and start inputting before you actually need the move to come out, ending up with a calm pace of game and the move coming out at the perfect moment. It's all about anticipation and focus, strategy as you put it, not twitch. The only time you'd need that is when what you anticipated ends up being false but by an error of your foe you have a second chance at the attack or defense or whatever it is you're doing so you need to think fast in order to maximize your chances of success.


It's much more strategy-heavy than twitch-reflex, it's so much more strategy-heavy than slower paced strategy games because whatever strategy you're using is tried and tested instantly and you need to have a vast enough pool of strategies with multiple layers of plan Bs upon plan Bs and situational exceptions and whatnot, otherwise you'd become predictable.



In the end, if all you did was twitch-based play, you really didn't delve deep enough into those games.

 

[crudus]

I don't play them since they are notoriously unbalanced. Every fighting game I have played has 2-3 characters that are superior to the rest or have unstoppable combos that can be pulled off effortlessly(by the computer or otherwise).

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't play them since they are notoriously unbalanced. Every fighting game I have played has 2-3 characters that are superior to the rest or have unstoppable combos that can be pulled off effortlessly(by the computer or otherwise).

There is no such thing as an unstoppable combo, and there are very few situations in fighting games where set up moves are truly unblockable. Even in those cases where there is an unblockable, the set up required is often extensive enough that if you know what to watch for you can avoid it before it happens.

There are also very few fighting games that are so dominated by 2 or 3 characters that the game becomes unplayable, especially considering that overpowered characters and tiers really only matter in high level play.

There's nothing wrong with not liking or not being good at fighting games, but the reality of how fighting games works doesn't really match up with your statements.

 

[lovest harding]

No matter the fighting game, it's still about combination moves. Moves I can't do. It takes forever to learn how to do fast enough to be effective in combat, and still, odds are, when fighting against a real person you won't be able to get the combination off. It's a waste to me.

Also, there's a huge difference in player ability. There are only three levels of ability that I've ever seen:
Know what you're doing and are too good to fight fairly against those with less ability.
Don't know what you're doing so you'll die a lot.
Don't know what you're doing, but can get damn lucky pushing a lot of buttons.

It's a plain skill game.
I don't like that. I like story driven games. I like games that can give me an edge even if I suck at them. I like fun games. And since I don't have fun studying button combinations and trying to pull them off before an opponent kills you, there's no reason to play against real people.

That's just how I feel.
I do have a few fighting games, but I only play by myself. xD

What do you mean "fairly"? What's unfair about dominating your foe as much as is appropriate considering your difference in skill?


What is the point of having an edge you did nothing to obtain anyways. Isn't it utterly meaningless when who you defeat could be defeated no matter what you did or how much you sucked. Doesn't it carry more meaning to know that you need to have skill to win, when you do in fact win?

My point is taking two people of random skill sets and pitting them against one another is unfair.
Example: Weight classes in wrestling. You don't pit a 250 pound man versus a 120 pound man. It's an unfair advantage.
I'm not saying it's a horrible thing or that fighting games are shit for allowing two completely different skill sets like that to fight against each other, I'm just saying that at the basis, when there's not match-making that pits like against like, it's unfair. One side can easily have such an advantage that only those who luck into a powerful move will stand a chance at winning.
Some people like that kind of challenge. Some people like winning with that kind of challenge. That's fine. To each his own.

But I don't like seeing a game over screen 100 times just because I don't have the appropriate skill set or ability to press XXYBAAB as fast as the game requires. I don't like missing out on the story because of that. I like a game to sit well at my own skill level. I don't find arbitrary kill numbers and difficult bosses with no discernible weakness (unless you've fought them 40 times learning new insights every time) to be great motivation in a game. I'd rather see an end then be forced into quitting due to frustration. That is who I am as a gamer.

I answered the original question (Why are fighting games so inaccessible?) by describing what I dislike about fighting games. Not what I think needs to change or what is wrong with them. Just why I feel they're inaccessible.

Your wrestling argument sorta works against you though. The 250 pound man is not a better wrestler than the 120 pound one, he's just heavier thus he gets benefits outside his skill. That's all just a physical thing which ends up augmenting his ability to fight, not an actual talent-related factor. In fighting games it would be like fighting someone with a broken controller who can't do half the moves and yeah, obviously unfair.


What the games actually do is not that though. What they do is pit people with equal weight together, and let the one who is a better wrestler win. Thus it's fair, the only difference is that the skill gaps are larger than you would find in a wrestling league...but then again, if you go into a fighting game championship, the skill gaps would be much smaller than those you'd encounter playing online.




Let me leave you with this, luck and "getting one strong move in" never ends up mattering if you suck and your opponent doesn't. You need to be constantly aware of what you're attempting to do and the results it may have. The AI opponents usually are stupid easy too, they have identifiable patterns and reactions. Humans don't do that, they also adjust to your playstyle unlike any AI could do. The fact that you would complain about that tells me you've really had no proper exposure to skilled play.

I'll give you that it's not a perfect example, but it hardly works against my point (just because weight does not equal skill doesn't mean it entirely misses the point). I feel it's a fair enough example.

They don't pit people of equal weight according to my example as I was drawing a comparison to weight and knowledge of the moves and the ability to perform those moves (AKA skill in game). For instance, I have never been able to pull off those moves as quickly as required for them to be useful in a person vs. person fight. I can easily get them off against an AI opponent because of how they work, but I have never once been in a situation where I had enough time for me to pull off one of those moves. I'm not a twitch gamer (not an insult, just a term I use for games who are fast with their trigger fingers or can easily pull of a big combination move in a short amount of time). I can't do things that quickly.

I find this last section to be a bit insulting, whether you meant it or not (no offense to you, I'm just being honest). Just because I lack the ability to play twitch games like that (even FPS tend to be fast for me) doesn't mean I've never had exposure to skilled play at all. I have played games with people who have played these games quite well. I've watched and played with friends who love fighting games. That is where my opinion on fighting games has developed from.
Just because my skill comes from more deliberate and slow strategy doesn't make me any less knowledgeable of twitch-based skill and I'd appreciate assumptions not be made like that.

Here's the thing, I know what you mean by twitch style play and fact of the matter is, 95% of the time you're not required to do that. The fact that you think you are is in itself a problem with your misconception of the genre.


You shouldn't react with special moves, you should have enough foresight to know you're about to need to do them and start inputting before you actually need the move to come out, ending up with a calm pace of game and the move coming out at the perfect moment. It's all about anticipation and focus, strategy as you put it, not twitch. The only time you'd need that is when what you anticipated ends up being false but by an error of your foe you have a second chance at the attack or defense or whatever it is you're doing so you need to think fast in order to maximize your chances of success.


It's much more strategy-heavy than twitch-reflex, it's so much more strategy-heavy than slower paced strategy games because whatever strategy you're using is tried and tested instantly and you need to have a vast enough pool of strategies with multiple layers of plan Bs upon plan Bs and situational exceptions and whatnot, otherwise you'd become predictable.



In the end, if all you did was twitch-based play, you really didn't delve deep enough into those games.

Let me rephrase my statement then:
I have never played a fighting game (Soul Caliber 2, Dead or Alive 3 & 4, even Super Smash Brothers) where I ever felt fairly matched with a person because I did not and could not pull of moves that would have been viable attacks against someone who knew how to block and dodge well enough or pull off those moves faster than I could.

I'd appreciate not getting told how I play 'wrong' as well. All I did at the very beginning was express why I find the games inaccessible. I don't need a lesson on how I should play these games. These games play as twitch for me. I cannot come up with an instant view of what the other player will do (and to do that I'd need to not only know but understand EVERY MOVE IN THE ENTIRE GAME as I cannot anticipate a character choice). Sure, learning those moves and telling myself that I know exactly what my opponent will do based on what I know about those moves could be a viable way of saying these games are strategic, but in the end the game ends up being how quickly you can react to an attack and how quickly you can perform an attack. That is a twitch-based game (I'm not saying they aren't strategic, I'm saying they are too fast to be viably strategic to me). There is no way around it, that is what they are.
I can go on all day and say well if you pick moves without thinking than a stereotypical turn-based JRPG is just an action game, but no matter what I claim a JRPG is still a strategy based game.
Fighting games are twitch based. They require quick thinking and quick response. There's no sugar coating strategy on top of that and then saying I just didn't understand the game. I'm not saying they aren't strategic. I'm just saying they require knowledge and the speed to implement that knowledge. And speed is not a strong point of mine.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

No matter the fighting game, it's still about combination moves. Moves I can't do. It takes forever to learn how to do fast enough to be effective in combat, and still, odds are, when fighting against a real person you won't be able to get the combination off. It's a waste to me.

Also, there's a huge difference in player ability. There are only three levels of ability that I've ever seen:
Know what you're doing and are too good to fight fairly against those with less ability.
Don't know what you're doing so you'll die a lot.
Don't know what you're doing, but can get damn lucky pushing a lot of buttons.

It's a plain skill game.
I don't like that. I like story driven games. I like games that can give me an edge even if I suck at them. I like fun games. And since I don't have fun studying button combinations and trying to pull them off before an opponent kills you, there's no reason to play against real people.

That's just how I feel.
I do have a few fighting games, but I only play by myself. xD

What do you mean "fairly"? What's unfair about dominating your foe as much as is appropriate considering your difference in skill?


What is the point of having an edge you did nothing to obtain anyways. Isn't it utterly meaningless when who you defeat could be defeated no matter what you did or how much you sucked. Doesn't it carry more meaning to know that you need to have skill to win, when you do in fact win?

My point is taking two people of random skill sets and pitting them against one another is unfair.
Example: Weight classes in wrestling. You don't pit a 250 pound man versus a 120 pound man. It's an unfair advantage.
I'm not saying it's a horrible thing or that fighting games are shit for allowing two completely different skill sets like that to fight against each other, I'm just saying that at the basis, when there's not match-making that pits like against like, it's unfair. One side can easily have such an advantage that only those who luck into a powerful move will stand a chance at winning.
Some people like that kind of challenge. Some people like winning with that kind of challenge. That's fine. To each his own.

But I don't like seeing a game over screen 100 times just because I don't have the appropriate skill set or ability to press XXYBAAB as fast as the game requires. I don't like missing out on the story because of that. I like a game to sit well at my own skill level. I don't find arbitrary kill numbers and difficult bosses with no discernible weakness (unless you've fought them 40 times learning new insights every time) to be great motivation in a game. I'd rather see an end then be forced into quitting due to frustration. That is who I am as a gamer.

I answered the original question (Why are fighting games so inaccessible?) by describing what I dislike about fighting games. Not what I think needs to change or what is wrong with them. Just why I feel they're inaccessible.

Your wrestling argument sorta works against you though. The 250 pound man is not a better wrestler than the 120 pound one, he's just heavier thus he gets benefits outside his skill. That's all just a physical thing which ends up augmenting his ability to fight, not an actual talent-related factor. In fighting games it would be like fighting someone with a broken controller who can't do half the moves and yeah, obviously unfair.


What the games actually do is not that though. What they do is pit people with equal weight together, and let the one who is a better wrestler win. Thus it's fair, the only difference is that the skill gaps are larger than you would find in a wrestling league...but then again, if you go into a fighting game championship, the skill gaps would be much smaller than those you'd encounter playing online.




Let me leave you with this, luck and "getting one strong move in" never ends up mattering if you suck and your opponent doesn't. You need to be constantly aware of what you're attempting to do and the results it may have. The AI opponents usually are stupid easy too, they have identifiable patterns and reactions. Humans don't do that, they also adjust to your playstyle unlike any AI could do. The fact that you would complain about that tells me you've really had no proper exposure to skilled play.

I'll give you that it's not a perfect example, but it hardly works against my point (just because weight does not equal skill doesn't mean it entirely misses the point). I feel it's a fair enough example.

They don't pit people of equal weight according to my example as I was drawing a comparison to weight and knowledge of the moves and the ability to perform those moves (AKA skill in game). For instance, I have never been able to pull off those moves as quickly as required for them to be useful in a person vs. person fight. I can easily get them off against an AI opponent because of how they work, but I have never once been in a situation where I had enough time for me to pull off one of those moves. I'm not a twitch gamer (not an insult, just a term I use for games who are fast with their trigger fingers or can easily pull of a big combination move in a short amount of time). I can't do things that quickly.

I find this last section to be a bit insulting, whether you meant it or not (no offense to you, I'm just being honest). Just because I lack the ability to play twitch games like that (even FPS tend to be fast for me) doesn't mean I've never had exposure to skilled play at all. I have played games with people who have played these games quite well. I've watched and played with friends who love fighting games. That is where my opinion on fighting games has developed from.
Just because my skill comes from more deliberate and slow strategy doesn't make me any less knowledgeable of twitch-based skill and I'd appreciate assumptions not be made like that.

Here's the thing, I know what you mean by twitch style play and fact of the matter is, 95% of the time you're not required to do that. The fact that you think you are is in itself a problem with your misconception of the genre.


You shouldn't react with special moves, you should have enough foresight to know you're about to need to do them and start inputting before you actually need the move to come out, ending up with a calm pace of game and the move coming out at the perfect moment. It's all about anticipation and focus, strategy as you put it, not twitch. The only time you'd need that is when what you anticipated ends up being false but by an error of your foe you have a second chance at the attack or defense or whatever it is you're doing so you need to think fast in order to maximize your chances of success.


It's much more strategy-heavy than twitch-reflex, it's so much more strategy-heavy than slower paced strategy games because whatever strategy you're using is tried and tested instantly and you need to have a vast enough pool of strategies with multiple layers of plan Bs upon plan Bs and situational exceptions and whatnot, otherwise you'd become predictable.



In the end, if all you did was twitch-based play, you really didn't delve deep enough into those games.

Let me rephrase my statement then:
I have never played a fighting game (Soul Caliber 2, Dead or Alive 3 & 4, even Super Smash Brothers) where I ever felt fairly matched with a person because I did not and could not pull of moves that would have been viable attacks against someone who knew how to block and dodge well enough or pull off those moves faster than I could.

That's just a matter of practice and learning curve. It's not a problem with the games, just a problem with who you decided to fight. Had you trained equally as much as your opponents or faced a person with as little training as you had, these issues would have been alleviated, thus these issues are not issues of the actual game but of the way you chose to play it.

You can't say it's the game's fault if in any given FPS you decide to just go for the melee attacks and abandon shooting for whatever reason. Your reasoning behind such a choice may be valid and you may enjoy such thing or you may have a fundamental issue with guns or w/e, regardless of all of this if you had played the game correctly your issues wouldn't exist and since the game was designed to be played in a specific fashion and it does function when played in that fashion, it doesn't have a problem.

I'd appreciate not getting told how I play 'wrong' as well. All I did at the very beginning was express why I find the games inaccessible. I don't need a lesson on how I should play these games. These games play as twitch for me. I cannot come up with an instant view of what the other player will do (and to do that I'd need to not only know but understand EVERY MOVE IN THE ENTIRE GAME as I cannot anticipate a character choice). Sure, learning those moves and telling myself that I know exactly what my opponent will do based on what I know about those moves could be a viable way of saying these games are strategic, but in the end the game ends up being how quickly you can react to an attack and how quickly you can perform an attack. That is a twitch-based game (I'm not saying they aren't strategic, I'm saying they are too fast to be viably strategic to me). There is no way around it, that is what they are.
I can go on all day and say well if you pick moves without thinking than a stereotypical turn-based JRPG is just an action game, but no matter what I claim a JRPG is still a strategy based game.

Yes, you'd need to understand every move in the entire game. That happens naturally over time. You don't put in actual effort, you just play the game and it occurs by itself. No need to be frazzled over something you don't need to actively pursue.

Speed and twitch are not the same. You need to be speedy but if you KNOW what you're supposed to do there's no twitch involved, there's a planned and expertly executed strategy. It's sort of like playing an instrument...the notes don't magically appear in front of you in a random fashion, you know they're coming so you anticipate their arrival with your fingers, ending up in a perfectly timed harmony.

Turn based Jrpgs are obviously strategical lol, they're actually my favorite genre of games in general. I can easily make a connection between them and fighting games too. The way you think when facing that one boss which has shifting weaknesses depending on which element you hit it with demanding you have enough elements in your part for whatever it may happen to shift to is a great parallel to playing against a jack of all trades type character in a fighter. Or those enemies that are super strong but with low HP demanding that you take them out quickly...those are your glass cannons in fighters, speedy chars with great combos that die easily and need to be faced with great care because two mistakes may cost you the match. I could go on forever with this .

 

[Halo Fanboy]

In a shooter I can organize with other teammates where to attack and when. When in a fight I can tell how much ammo my opponent is using, how much damage I'll take from it, and when he'll have to reload, giving me an opportunity to strike. When they go for cover, I can find an ambush point on the other end and wait for them to go around and hit them right in their blind spot.

What you're describing is highly imprecise by comparison. I'm talking about having one sixtieth of a second define success or failure here. Not simply having a general "I'm doing this now" thought in your mind.

You've missed that FPSs and other 3D open spaced competitive games also have that level of preciseness and reflexes, it's simply more buried by all the lower level mechanics. Anything that can be done in a 2D game like Blazblue can be complexified ten fold by a 3D open world environment (or a hundred fold in an RTS)

That's not to say the arcade's 2D and small arena games aren't some of the most complex new games, but if the high tech industry wasn't currently catering to scrubville they could easily dwarf the complexity of those games.

 

[GeorgW]

If I'm gonna play any fighting game, it's gonna be the new MK, I'll give it that. I've wasted my money trying to like it so many times before, but it's just not worth the buy in for me. I'd love to play it if a friend got it and we could evolve together, but that is not the case right now. Like everyone, I still love SSB.
The reason people dislike the genre is because it has a really steep learning curve. Having a friend would help that, but fighting the computer is impossible.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I really can't stand the Genre. All they are is button-mashers with no strategy whatsoever, with the exception of a few.
And I've never been good at them.

 

[lovest harding]

No matter the fighting game, it's still about combination moves. Moves I can't do. It takes forever to learn how to do fast enough to be effective in combat, and still, odds are, when fighting against a real person you won't be able to get the combination off. It's a waste to me.

Also, there's a huge difference in player ability. There are only three levels of ability that I've ever seen:
Know what you're doing and are too good to fight fairly against those with less ability.
Don't know what you're doing so you'll die a lot.
Don't know what you're doing, but can get damn lucky pushing a lot of buttons.

It's a plain skill game.
I don't like that. I like story driven games. I like games that can give me an edge even if I suck at them. I like fun games. And since I don't have fun studying button combinations and trying to pull them off before an opponent kills you, there's no reason to play against real people.

That's just how I feel.
I do have a few fighting games, but I only play by myself. xD

What do you mean "fairly"? What's unfair about dominating your foe as much as is appropriate considering your difference in skill?


What is the point of having an edge you did nothing to obtain anyways. Isn't it utterly meaningless when who you defeat could be defeated no matter what you did or how much you sucked. Doesn't it carry more meaning to know that you need to have skill to win, when you do in fact win?

My point is taking two people of random skill sets and pitting them against one another is unfair.
Example: Weight classes in wrestling. You don't pit a 250 pound man versus a 120 pound man. It's an unfair advantage.
I'm not saying it's a horrible thing or that fighting games are shit for allowing two completely different skill sets like that to fight against each other, I'm just saying that at the basis, when there's not match-making that pits like against like, it's unfair. One side can easily have such an advantage that only those who luck into a powerful move will stand a chance at winning.
Some people like that kind of challenge. Some people like winning with that kind of challenge. That's fine. To each his own.

But I don't like seeing a game over screen 100 times just because I don't have the appropriate skill set or ability to press XXYBAAB as fast as the game requires. I don't like missing out on the story because of that. I like a game to sit well at my own skill level. I don't find arbitrary kill numbers and difficult bosses with no discernible weakness (unless you've fought them 40 times learning new insights every time) to be great motivation in a game. I'd rather see an end then be forced into quitting due to frustration. That is who I am as a gamer.

I answered the original question (Why are fighting games so inaccessible?) by describing what I dislike about fighting games. Not what I think needs to change or what is wrong with them. Just why I feel they're inaccessible.

Your wrestling argument sorta works against you though. The 250 pound man is not a better wrestler than the 120 pound one, he's just heavier thus he gets benefits outside his skill. That's all just a physical thing which ends up augmenting his ability to fight, not an actual talent-related factor. In fighting games it would be like fighting someone with a broken controller who can't do half the moves and yeah, obviously unfair.


What the games actually do is not that though. What they do is pit people with equal weight together, and let the one who is a better wrestler win. Thus it's fair, the only difference is that the skill gaps are larger than you would find in a wrestling league...but then again, if you go into a fighting game championship, the skill gaps would be much smaller than those you'd encounter playing online.




Let me leave you with this, luck and "getting one strong move in" never ends up mattering if you suck and your opponent doesn't. You need to be constantly aware of what you're attempting to do and the results it may have. The AI opponents usually are stupid easy too, they have identifiable patterns and reactions. Humans don't do that, they also adjust to your playstyle unlike any AI could do. The fact that you would complain about that tells me you've really had no proper exposure to skilled play.

I'll give you that it's not a perfect example, but it hardly works against my point (just because weight does not equal skill doesn't mean it entirely misses the point). I feel it's a fair enough example.

They don't pit people of equal weight according to my example as I was drawing a comparison to weight and knowledge of the moves and the ability to perform those moves (AKA skill in game). For instance, I have never been able to pull off those moves as quickly as required for them to be useful in a person vs. person fight. I can easily get them off against an AI opponent because of how they work, but I have never once been in a situation where I had enough time for me to pull off one of those moves. I'm not a twitch gamer (not an insult, just a term I use for games who are fast with their trigger fingers or can easily pull of a big combination move in a short amount of time). I can't do things that quickly.

I find this last section to be a bit insulting, whether you meant it or not (no offense to you, I'm just being honest). Just because I lack the ability to play twitch games like that (even FPS tend to be fast for me) doesn't mean I've never had exposure to skilled play at all. I have played games with people who have played these games quite well. I've watched and played with friends who love fighting games. That is where my opinion on fighting games has developed from.
Just because my skill comes from more deliberate and slow strategy doesn't make me any less knowledgeable of twitch-based skill and I'd appreciate assumptions not be made like that.

Here's the thing, I know what you mean by twitch style play and fact of the matter is, 95% of the time you're not required to do that. The fact that you think you are is in itself a problem with your misconception of the genre.


You shouldn't react with special moves, you should have enough foresight to know you're about to need to do them and start inputting before you actually need the move to come out, ending up with a calm pace of game and the move coming out at the perfect moment. It's all about anticipation and focus, strategy as you put it, not twitch. The only time you'd need that is when what you anticipated ends up being false but by an error of your foe you have a second chance at the attack or defense or whatever it is you're doing so you need to think fast in order to maximize your chances of success.


It's much more strategy-heavy than twitch-reflex, it's so much more strategy-heavy than slower paced strategy games because whatever strategy you're using is tried and tested instantly and you need to have a vast enough pool of strategies with multiple layers of plan Bs upon plan Bs and situational exceptions and whatnot, otherwise you'd become predictable.



In the end, if all you did was twitch-based play, you really didn't delve deep enough into those games.

Let me rephrase my statement then:
I have never played a fighting game (Soul Caliber 2, Dead or Alive 3 & 4, even Super Smash Brothers) where I ever felt fairly matched with a person because I did not and could not pull of moves that would have been viable attacks against someone who knew how to block and dodge well enough or pull off those moves faster than I could.

That's just a matter of practice and learning curve. It's not a problem with the games, just a problem with who you decided to fight. Had you trained equally as much as your opponents or faced a person with as little training as you had, these issues would have been alleviated, thus these issues are not issues of the actual game but of the way you chose to play it.

You can't say it's the game's fault if in any given FPS you decide to just go for the melee attacks and abandon shooting for whatever reason. Your reasoning behind such a choice may be valid and you may enjoy such thing or you may have a fundamental issue with guns or w/e, regardless of all of this if you had played the game correctly your issues wouldn't exist and since the game was designed to be played in a specific fashion and it does function when played in that fashion, it doesn't have a problem.

I'd appreciate not getting told how I play 'wrong' as well. All I did at the very beginning was express why I find the games inaccessible. I don't need a lesson on how I should play these games. These games play as twitch for me. I cannot come up with an instant view of what the other player will do (and to do that I'd need to not only know but understand EVERY MOVE IN THE ENTIRE GAME as I cannot anticipate a character choice). Sure, learning those moves and telling myself that I know exactly what my opponent will do based on what I know about those moves could be a viable way of saying these games are strategic, but in the end the game ends up being how quickly you can react to an attack and how quickly you can perform an attack. That is a twitch-based game (I'm not saying they aren't strategic, I'm saying they are too fast to be viably strategic to me). There is no way around it, that is what they are.
I can go on all day and say well if you pick moves without thinking than a stereotypical turn-based JRPG is just an action game, but no matter what I claim a JRPG is still a strategy based game.

Yes, you'd need to understand every move in the entire game. That happens naturally over time. You don't put in actual effort, you just play the game and it occurs by itself. No need to be frazzled over something you don't need to actively pursue.

Speed and twitch are not the same. You need to be speedy but if you KNOW what you're supposed to do there's no twitch involved, there's a planned and expertly executed strategy. It's sort of like playing an instrument...the notes don't magically appear in front of you in a random fashion, you know they're coming so you anticipate their arrival with your fingers, ending up in a perfectly timed harmony.

Turn based Jrpgs are obviously strategical lol, they're actually my favorite genre of games in general. I can easily make a connection between them and fighting games too. The way you think when facing that one boss which has shifting weaknesses depending on which element you hit it with demanding you have enough elements in your part for whatever it may happen to shift to is a great parallel to playing against a jack of all trades type character in a fighter. Or those enemies that are super strong but with low HP demanding that you take them out quickly...those are your glass cannons in fighters, speedy chars with great combos that die easily and need to be faced with great care because two mistakes may cost you the match. I could go on forever with this .

I have not ever found it to develop naturally over time. I don't just understand a character's moves because I fight them. I'd have to learn them. And if I don't find a certain character archetype to be appropriate (whether based on difficulty or just plain frustration) to use (the big guys in Dead or Alive as an example) I do not feel like wasting the time on playing them to learn their moves. The fact that they already don't act in a way that I find fun, puts applying anymore extra time into them pointless to me. No one puts time into something they dislike unless they get something out of it. And I don't get anything out of fighting games.

Speed and twitch to me are the same. I define them in the same way. That is what twitch gaming is to me, speed. Whether there's strategy behind it or not twitch gaming is about speed to me. It's just semantics to me.

I feel like my point isn't getting across. I'm just saying that I find them inaccessible. I'm not saying fighting games are bad because of how they work. They're just not for me because of how they work.
I don't need it proved that I'm wrong about them as it's just my opinion. I've played plenty. I own a few. I'm just describing my time with these games. This is my opinion, there is no proving it wrong. I can play games how I choose. If I have to follow a set way to play a game that I don't feel comfortable with then the game is not for me. That is why fighting games are inaccessible to me. They do not work in a way that I enjoy or am comfortable with. And when I try to play them there is no (or very little) fun for me.

If your ultimate goal is to make me see fighting games in a different light, then you'll be disappointed. If this is just a discussion for the sake of discussion, I'd prefer comments not be applied to the generic 'you' as when read it feels like the comments are meant to apply directly to me and my opinion (and I find it hard not to be defensive when faced with those kinds of statements).