Any stubborn anti-fighting game players out there?

[Asuka Soryu]

My favourite fighter games are Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm 1 and 2.

Open 3D enviroment to run around, you can back flip away from attacks/enemies, you can quickly rush up on an enemy and the controls are simple.

X - Jump
O - Attack
Triangle - Charge Chakra/use Jutsu
Square - Throw Shuriken to disrupt the opponent's jutsu/chakra gain.

 

[CAPTCHA]

I'm just a stubborn anti-RTS player.

To me, a game where just mass unit rushes can beat skill and knowledge just destroys any amount of fun for me.

Give Dawn of War a go if that's the problem. You have a very tight population cap that limits you to around 6 units, so what type of unit or what gear they are equiped with wins the war.

On Topic: Fighting games are a bit of a hang over from the days of the arcade, so I can see why people wouldn't be interested in them now-a-days. Wide-spread internet access has brought some of that feeling back, but the huge communities makes for a very steep learning curve. Moreso than playing at an arcade where you would possibly be matched against the same opponents time and again. I suppose you can just play with friends, but then it takes a fair bit of dedication from all involved. Trying to get someone to play a game religiously who has no real experience or interest in a genre is going to be near impossible. It can be very rewarding though if you can get a group together. I personally had a lot of fun playing Bloody Roar back in the day. Three of us put a lot of time into that game, learing each others fighting style and trying to one-up each other. On the other hand I bought Soul Calibur 4(?) and it was a total flop. None of my friends were interested and I quickly began to outmatch them, which madew them want to play even less, so that one went back to the store.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

Fact: I am claustrophobic and like very much to explore.
Fact: When I ask for "deep game-play", I mean focus on more than combat.
Fact: Intelligent story-telling is often important to me.

Do you see me ever enjoying a fighting game?

So chess isn't a deep game because it's just combat? And if you like to explore in your fighting games, try Power Stone and its sequel. It doesn't have a story as fleshed out as Blazblue's, though. Nor as deep gameplay, but it's solid fun (and funny).

I like fighting games in general, but hate MK overall. Go figure...

That's just because you have taste. ;D Joking aside, this new MK looks like it might be the first decent one since MKII way back in the day.

 

[Hop-along Nussbaum]

1) I suck at them.

2) They are way too repetitive with all the button mashing, etc. It's just the same punches and kicks, no matter what character you're playing.

3) There is no thought or strategy involved, for the most part. I prefer a game that will challenge my intellect, not my button mashing speed.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

So chess isn't a deep game because it's just combat? And if you like to explore in your fighting games, try Power Stone and its sequel. It doesn't have a story as fleshed out as Blazblue's, though. Nor as deep gameplay, but it's solid fun (and funny).

I judge video and board games with vastly different standards. Otherwise, I'd sooner rail on Chess for bland environments and turn-based combat. Is Power Stone anything like God Hand? Because I kinda like God Hand.

PS: Nothing like a good game of Monopoly to bring out my evil laughter.

You should apply that very sensible logic to genres of games as well. You should judge rpgs, FPSs, rhythm games and fighters all as unique and distinctly different beasts. This is how you're supposed to experience them.


Gaming is a new medium, it's not books or board games or TV. In gaming, genres are more distinct than in other mediums therefore you need to take that fact into account while judging games.



(also, not sure if you noticed it or not but I replied to your previous post too, look up a few posts, it may interest you)

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying but this needs to be addressed:

Turn-based combat is fine in a peaceful context like a board game, but JRPGs have been making the mistake far too long of applying this to deadly combat. The prospect of every starving animal, bloodthirsty demon, or devout soldier in existence obeying a turn-based honor code ruins every game that has ever implemented it. You could argue that it was actually done in the 18th century (according to The Patriot, anyway) but that just angers me more because real lives were lost to such an archaic system.

Turn based combat is NOT any sort of rule that combatants are following. Turn based combat is a way to add strategy to plain old combat.


If you want to imagine it like that, you can think of the combat as actually happening without pauses, and the time it takes for you to input moves being simply a time-pause in the real game world, so it's not like the foes are actually sitting across each-other waiting for you to input the moves, what you're inputting happens instantly and the fight actually is a non-stop event. It's like you're sending off the signals that happen inside the brains of the characters and they act, there's many such signals to be sent so doing them in human speeds obviously takes a while but in the role you're playing in that game you should imagine as though it happens instantaneously because that's how the game presupposes you perceive it.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Turn-based combat is fine in a peaceful context like a board game, but JRPGs have been making the mistake far too long of applying this to deadly combat. The prospect of every starving animal, bloodthirsty demon, or devout soldier in existence obeying a turn-based honor code ruins every game that has ever implemented it. You could argue that it was actually done in the 18th century (according to The Patriot, anyway) but that just angers me more because real lives were lost to such an archaic system.

Turn based combat is NOT any sort of rule that combatants are following. Turn based combat is a way to add strategy to plain old combat.

If you want to imagine it like that, you can think of the combat as actually happening without pauses, and the time it takes for you to input moves being simply a time-pause in the real game world, so it's not like the foes are actually sitting across each-other waiting for you to input the moves, what you're inputting happens instantly and the fight actually is a non-stop event. It's like you're sending off the signals that happen inside the brains of the characters and they act, there's many such signals to be sent so doing them in human speeds obviously takes a while but in the role you're playing in that game you should imagine as though it happens instantaneously because that's how the game presupposes you perceive it.

Filling in the pacing with your own imagination makes sense when turn-based combat involves a graph battlefield so that everyone can move on their turn. But there is NO STRATEGY worth standing still in the open and letting the enemy hurt you.

No, that's not how it actually happens. Usually in a game there's a speed/evasion stat check versus a foes accuracy, melee combat is supposed to be a constant fighting in close range, it's just depicted as though you're sitting still, you should picture it as though it's basically a cut-scene that you make happen. Nobody is letting the foe hit them, they try their best to avoid it in fact, it's just that usually your foes have a good enough accuracy so you can't avoid stuff..or it's something huge like a meteor being hurled at you which usually never actually connects directly but the impact alone is damaging enough.

 

[Jakub324]

I don't really get fighting games - they're fun, I suppose, but I wouldn't pay £50 for one. It's a bit like one part of a good game that someone tried to stretch into a full game, like if a game was released containing only Combat Training from Black Ops.

 

[Frozengale]

Fighting games have one major flaw. Whenever one person is winning it means the other person has little to no control over their character. Stun locks and other mechanics that take control away from one of the players and gives it to another is a flawed mechanic. It creates an environment where you feel powerless to do anything and in a medium that is basically fully interactive creating situations where you are powerless is a very very bad idea. It would be about the equivalent of going to a movie and the screen flickers black every time someone is enjoying the movie more then you. Or it would be like if you were reading a book and the book would randomly delete words and sentences.

That is the reason that so many people enjoy Smash Bros. it's a fighting game that has the same fun competition of any other game but you only ever lose control of your character for a short duration (unless you are fighting in the 64 version or Melee and dealing with a pro). But hardcore fighter geeks love to be able to take control away from the other person by stun-locking them and creating huge combos.

I've never been a fan of stun locks and big combos. Once you get them into a lock it isn't really a 2 player game anymore, it becomes a game of Simon basically. Now I love Simon, but I would never force one of my friends to sit and watch while I play a game of it. Basically playing fighting games is like forcing your friend to watch you play Simon then punching them in the balls. It's not fun.

 

[Frozengale]

*Double Post*

Sorry

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Fighting games have one major flaw. Whenever one person is winning it means the other person has little to no control over their character. Stun locks and other mechanics that take control away from one of the players and gives it to another is a flawed mechanic. It creates an environment where you feel powerless to do anything and in a medium that is basically fully interactive creating situations where you are powerless is a very very bad idea. It would be about the equivalent of going to a movie and the screen flickers black every time someone is enjoying the movie more then you. Or it would be like if you were reading a book and the book would randomly delete words and sentences.

That is the reason that so many people enjoy Smash Bros. it's a fighting game that has the same fun competition of any other game but you only ever lose control of your character for a short duration (unless you are fighting in the 64 version or Melee and dealing with a pro). But hardcore fighter geeks love to be able to take control away from the other person by stun-locking them and creating huge combos.

I've never been a fan of stun locks and big combos. Once you get them into a lock it isn't really a 2 player game anymore, it becomes a game of Simon basically. Now I love Simon, but I would never force one of my friends to sit and watch while I play a game of it. Basically playing fighting games is like forcing your friend to watch you play Simon then punching them in the balls. It's not fun.

The point is to not want to be in that state. That is supposed to drive you to play better, not get hit and WIN.


I thought something like that was obvious.



Now, if you're a quitter or lack willpower, I can see how simply not playing the game may work for you, however if you have any semblance of pride about you, you'll stand your ground and play better so you won't get hit any more.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I fucking hate fighting games because for me, there is no satisfaction to be derived from playing alone, and since I'm crap at them, my friends always pound me into the dirt, so I end up randomly smashing buttons in the vain hope of scrounging out a win, which can be quite funny when it works.

SNIP

The point is to not want to be in that state. That is supposed to drive you to play better, not get hit and WIN.


I thought something like that was obvious.



Now, if you're a quitter or lack willpower, I can see how simply not playing the game may work for you, however if you have any semblance of pride about you, you'll stand your ground and play better so you won't get hit any more.

This is the attitude that bothers me when I play to try to improve, because my friends subscribe to the same theory, and it's quite hard, and not very enjoyable to learn to play better when I'm being 'taught' be someone who assumes that beating someone down is the best way to motivate them.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

This is the attitude that bothers me when I play to try to improve, because my friends subscribe to the same theory, and it's quite hard, and not very enjoyable to learn to play better when I'm being 'taught' be someone who assumes that beating someone down is the best way to motivate them.

Motivate, no, teach, YES.

If I take it easy on you, you won't learn what actually happens in a serious match so when you encounter one such match you'll be lost. While if I utterly crush you and you slowly but steadily begin faring better, when you go and face someone online who doesn't know half the stuff I do, you'll be so much better than them that all the pain will have been worth it.


So yea, when you get destroyed, take it as a learning experience, not as a motivational attempt. We've all been there, we all took it, it's a part of getting good.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I maintain that they can be good, I just don't like them. For one thing, I don't play games for one on one fights. A one on one fight is something that I could realistically experience, and also if I lose I can't blame it on anyone else.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Motivate, no, teach, YES.

If I take it easy on you, you won't learn what actually happens in a serious match so when you encounter one such match you'll be lost. While if I utterly crush you and you slowly but steadily begin faring better, when you go and face someone online who doesn't know half the stuff I do, you'll be so much better than them that all the pain will have been worth it.


So yea, when you get destroyed, take it as a learnign experience, not as a motivational attempt. We've all been there, we all took it, it's a part of getting good.

I understand what you mean, and your technique is probably pretty effective at actually increasing skill level, but it assumes that I'm going to want to learn, and if you don't motivate me to continue, I'm just going to want to go back to playing Rock Band. What you're suggesting is increasing the punishment of a loss by demonstrating your high level of skill, which is more likely to communicate that the road to acquiring the skill to stand toe to toe with you is so long and arduous that I might as well not bother.