What people think is missing from modern fighting games - lightslingergame.com

What people think is missing from modern fighting games

LordKnight
Views: 28289
Like: 1703
#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 –
@Brian_F vid here with a lot of specific examples –

Follow me on Twitter –
Pull up to the clips channel –
Come chill with us on Twitch –
Instagram –
Patreon –
Contact – [email protected]

Edited by ChadDrawsThings –

Thumbnails by Tsuntenshi –

#lordknight

236 Comments

  1. I know this is silly to say and I don't know if you'll see this comment, but I really appreciate your YouTube 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. 🙂

  2. my biggest reaction to the video was… where is sf5 and where is power rangers? or mvci? as far as popularity, playerbase, how well know or well respected the games are… it just seems like they were rough examples to give for your thing that's supposed to be so fundamental to a successful game. for the record I've played and enjoyed them all so it's not an insult at any game. I just don't think this is as strict a difference as max implies. sf5 been out like 6 years and you can watch a punk video from this week, best player of the game that's 6 years old, say "I didn't know you could that" multiple times in 10 minutes. so maybe telling ourselves we've figured it all out is part of the issue here. idk.

    also as someone who likes mk11 his thing of like "I knew what the game was in 5 minutes" when it has a mechanic that's extremely similar to parry, which I thought is part of what makes sf3 so LOOSE… it just seems weird. I'd just really like to talk to him because I'm sure this is mostly me misunderstanding things.

  3. 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.

  4. Doa is one of the "loosest" games around, with moves that transition one to another in such a free and open way that they alow a ton of expression. Also defensive play even after getting hit has a ton of decision making that makes the game always interesting even while getting comboed. And yet it's the most misjudged fighting game ever (for good reasons, I'll admit that).

  5. emergent gameplay is by definition where there is no one inherently correct option, but several correct options for a given scenario. how intentional it is irrelevant

  6. I imagine a mechanic like roman/rapid cancels would make a game loose. I bet older GG would be considered loose by Max because of the different cancel options you get for most characters among other reasons.

    Also I'm using loose because of your reaction to it.

  7. 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)

  8. Longer discovery periods are cool, but I don't like games where it feels like there are unnecessary "gimmicky" parts to characters/system mechanics (tekken comes to mind). I think I'm one of the few who likes clear design philosophy when little fat.
    Melee doesn't have a lot of moves, but there are almost infinite situations to be explored through refinement of movement, defensive strategy, and countering the "good" option. I guess at the end of the day I want clear answers, but a lot of situations.

  9. I gotta complain about strive, WHY DO I HAVE A 3 FRAME REVERSAL WINDOW FUCK MAN. LET PEOPLE DP SO I CAN BLOCK THEM

  10. Emergent gameplay, variety of options, I don't understand at all. I like ACPR the most out of all the GG'S not because of those fancy smancy mechanics, I like it because I just have a better experience with it. If you start going to the theorems, you'll never see the end of it since not every player will agree with you. Just play whatever and however you want as long as you're happy. It's a Fighting "Game", it's supposed to be fun. You don't have to explain rocket science just to explain what makes a game enjoyable to you.

  11. Max: I" want emergant gameplay."
    Also Max: "Look how hard I have to work for my damage!!!"

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. I think what's important for player expression is to have multiple solutions to the same problem. Solutions here refer to your decision making in regards to pressure, neutral, combos, and defense, and the problems are the other character/player's decisions in those same areas. Some games will have more variety is one area than others, but I think this is really what nails down player expression for me. You also have to keep in mind this also works on a matchup level. Even in a game like +R with tons of options and solutions to every problem, there are some matchups which kill player expression because you are forced to use certain options more in order to win, because the other character just restricts what you can do that much.

    Modern fighting games tend to design problems and solutions explicitly so that there is really only 1 or 2 good solutions to a problem, sometimes you can squeeze more solutions or a better solution out of the system, but that isn't always gaurenteed. I think emergent gameplay will exist in literally any game, because metas and strategies will develop, but player expression and freedom of decision making is harder to come by in modern games.

  15. 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.

  16. Max just wants long movelets and yeah I kinda agree
    I think this whole striping characters down to the only most necessary elements to fit there intended play style is kinda zzz

  17. Definitely not the only way to make a fighting game emergent, but I think one of the reasons a lot of these emergent games became emergent is that there's counter-play mid-combo, not just because of the different ways to convert. You don't want to use the same combo every time because your opponent can combo break, or burst, or use a powerful alpha counter or whatever, so you have to vary it up after you land that first hit to keep your opponent guessing. If you use the same combo or pressure every time, they can respond with the same option, as opposed to a game like DBFZ where you're locked into that combo until it ends in a sliding knockdown. But DBFZ at least does have a bit of "looseness" in its team compositions.

  18. 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.

  19. 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).

  20. 4:15 maybe you should give kof a try, that's basically what you are describing 🥵

  21. 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.

  22. I feel like games with huge movesets like Tekken are the best at encouraging the player to express themselves through the options available to them. For example the character with the least number of moves is negan (~60 moves), and I've yet to see 2 negans play the same. I suspect the 3d aspect helps with this too.

  23. Really surprised Max didn't get more into BlazBlue. Although I remember him saying something along the lines of its cool, but none of the characters appeal or fit him.

  24. Not gonna ngl, but I can't help but feel violated anytime max says "loose" and "tight". 😥

  25. 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

  26. i dont see him playing ASW games, Examu (now team arcana) games, fkdig, blade arcus, even fate UC and Basara X.

    he only “recently” jumped into kof series. as far as content i have seen him play and promote.

    i would love to see him play and promote games from the makers i listed at top as well as the few other games in the list.

  27. Max is SO FUCKING BAD at explaining his points, he has good ones but he does not know how to say it

  28. 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.

  29. You saaaay people don’t try to come up with new things. I object, I think people do but people aren’t good at it. Looking at ssbm it has so many different styles from different people playing the same characters. I’d argue that the SF wave are filled with the people that they don’t try to come up with stuff. I know people tried a lot of things in dbfz but the game didn’t allow you to branch out much. The bad people that stuck with for years weren’t into figuring stuff out on their own. I think the FGC is all cap tho, they pretend to want emergent game play but they don’t branch out to other games to try out different styles. FGC just loves to complain as a excuse for why they suck at the only games they play

  30. 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

  31. We have plenty of those types of games he wants and they are primarily anime fighters.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. Fr tho. Blazblue has what Strive players who feel it's lacking. I'm so glad it got rollback.

  36. Man's 100% begging to play Blazblue. I was thinking it the whole time, LooseKnight.

  37. Making fighting games have emergent gameplay requires 2 things, offensive and defensive options.
    Offensive, simple, make it easier to combo anything. I’m not saying everything has to be optimal. Just that it shouldn’t be difficult to find multiple ways to connect attacks.
    Defensively, a little less obvious, but there are many great examples. Killer Instinct Combo Breaker and DOA’s counter hold systems, along with the anime fighter Burst mechanic make for excellent defensive options.
    Also, Strive’s Roman Cancel system is exemplary of a mixed Off/Def mechanic.
    If DNF Duel gets a burst mechanic, it’s gonna be even more lit.

  38. "max play blazblue, your begging to play blazblue"

    Funny in his "rate the EA" he said this game isnt for him. Not hatin tho.

  39. 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.

  40. I think what I like from Dragon Ball that Strive doesn't have is the possibilities? I mean go on Twitter and type FighterZ combo, and within 5 posts you have a new TOD. Do the same for Strive and you don't see showcases like that. Idk, maybe that should be articulated differently, like I just like long combos or pressing buttons, but that's what makes stuff feel "solved" to non-pros like me.

  41. I'd say that the fact modern games are figured out faster stems not only from experience with the genre, previous installments or social media but also the fact that modern games are (usually) better at communicating their systems and mechanics to the players. I think fgc is so used to relaying on each other to figure out games due to bad tutorials and obfuscation of core mechanics that when new productions are more up front and beginner friendly (in context of converting a newcomer to someone play against other players effectively) they might feel like the game is solved for them. Moreover while a number of available options may feel like creating freedom at first there is no way all of them are well balanced or suit the character's playstyle leading to situations where design and general moveset can lead someone to believe they face one type of a character but then get destroyed by something that has no business being their opponent's kit. This can go other way around confusing new players with options that defy character archetype and aren't useful in context of their core gameplay, like setplay options on a balanced or zoning character. These extra moves can push players to attempt a playstyle that doesn't work well and become frustrated.

  42. The things I will write here, are maybe already known etc. and I am not a competitive player, I enjoy the games I play and try to get better in my pace and so.
    BUT one thing LK said about the way of getting to information is aboslutly right, rn it is much much easier to get knowledge so yeah the games feel figured out even if they are maybe not. One example is the way I want to learn to play with Baiken in strive. Sure I get help if I have no idea, I looked up easy to use BnBs for the character. But atm I try to find own routes, and through that I found some funny RC Combos – all are not optimal, BUT fun as hell.
    Also with that way of learning it is much more hype if you see something on a tournament stream you never have seen – a cancel, an otg or even some simple interaction between two moves.
    So I find things much slower than I would if I would use the knowlegde of the community – I have "emergent" gameplay in that regard.
    Still I can see what Max means, many new games try to explain almost everything in their tutorials, so maybe that is that missing feeling. Instead of having a simple tutorial and let the player figure out the depth of the system – the tutorials show some depth.

  43. "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

  44. 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

  45. 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

  46. Hot take, people don’t actually want too much emergent gameplay. Emergent gameplay is only good when what emerges is good for competition. There is no guarantee that an optimal strategy will be good for competition, just look at wobbling in melee. In fact, I would bet that it’s probably the exception to the rule that what emerges makes the game more fun and interesting, rather than more boring and overcentralizing. This is why people really cherish games like melee and MvC2. These games are those rare games where emergent gameplay improved the game, rather than degraded it.

  47. I'm watching a video of someone watching a video of someone watching a video.

  48. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.