Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[ongoing project] Playing all versus fighters - chronologically!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by BigDeadFreak View Post
    The CPU is ludicrous, it's just so hard. I know there's supposed to be certain tactics that work against each opponent but trying to play it like a normal fighter is impossible.
    Some fighters, particularly early ones, are like that. Each opponent is less like a one-on-one game and is more of a puzzle. You have to explore and find some kind of deficiency and take advantage of it.

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by BigDeadFreak View Post
      It'd be interesting to hear from someone who understands how fighting games are made to see if they could explain why there's such a difference in feel between Capcom and SNK games. We all know instinctively that they are different but I don't think any of us can fully articulate why.
      For me the exceptions to the rule are the Samurai Shodown series and Garou: MotW. Both feel ‘looser’, very Capcom-y, and seem more forgiving in terms of timing for combos etc.

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by BigDeadFreak View Post
        It'd be interesting to hear from someone who understands how fighting games are made to see if they could explain why there's such a difference in feel between Capcom and SNK games. We all know instinctively that they are different but I don't think any of us can fully articulate why.
        I mean, I'm no expert in fighting games but I have a reasonable knowledge of how this stuff tends to work, so I'll have a go.

        If I'm to theorise, I believe it has to do with the philosophy behind each series of games, and their origin in earlier games, as well as technical constraints.

        I'll start off with a related example. When videogames went 3D in the 32-bit era, some genres faired well, and others faired poorly. We got whole new genres like FPS games, and we even lost some (or at least, some were diminished). The reason I mention this is to talk about football games, like FIFA.

        Most here will recall that of the early 3D football games, they were a very mixed bag. FIFA 96/97/64 were pretty poor. The Actua games were fun, but weren't quite right. I personally feel that Sega Worldwide Soccer was the first game to nail it, but that's a debate for another thread. Suffice to say, football games suffered.

        I believe this came about because 3D changed the way people perceived videogames. Just like how some things work in animation that do not work in live-action, some things work well in 2D that don't work in 3D, even if they're bizarre. This runs deep in videogames, as far as concepts like double-jumps or air-dashing; things we just accept, even though we realise they're a complete abstraction. Today we have a similar problem, with things that work in normal 3D games that don't work in VR.

        So going back to football games, what this preamble is all about is to clarify that broadly, 3D football games had two schools of thought. The earlier games were focused more on trying to re-create how football looked on television, and this was very much EA's approach. However, while this created a game which looked good, it was fundamentally flawed. EA's games had complex animation algorithms that were designed to preserve the fluidity of player animations, and blend smoothly in a realistic manner from one state to another. This prevented players from "snapping" in different directions, or going from one pose to another at unreal speeds. If a player had committed to a movement, they usually weren't able to "stop" that movement and "cancel" into another movement, unless it was realistic for a human to do that. It looked good, and made sense, as it's closer to simulating how a real football player moves, but it doesn't work for gameplay.

        Take the 3D/VR clash I mentioned above. On PC, on a monitor, we play as the Scout in Team Fortress 2 without too many problems, but in VR, you're acutely aware that the Scout runs at 60mph. It feels unnatural because of the increased sense of immersion. FPS games routinely allow players to fall large distances, or run through corridors that are 30ft wide. They have an exaggerated scale.

        Football games became playable again because developers realised that, while making the virtual players more responsive resulted in choppier animation, overall, it gave a better result for gameplay. It sacrificed visual fidelity for gameplay. This was a different philosophy; EA was trying to re-create football on TV, but Sega (and others) were trying to re-create football in the player's mind. EA got on board around the time of FIFA:RTWC98. Developers collectively realised, then, that the "secret sauce" (if you could call it that) was to allow controls to feel responsive, then create systems to disguise the problems it created.

        Instead of limiting the player's movements, you would accept that the player wants to move in a manner that is unrealistic. Once you elevate that to a kind of inviolable law, you can then start work on making that look as good as it can possibly be.

        So what does this have to do with Capcom and SNK fighters? Well, what I'm trying to do is to explain a little about how the underlying design philosophy of a game is expressed in how it moves and plays. Most gamers understand game visuals and features quite well; they understand how the look of Assassin's Creed feeds into the emotions that the game is trying to promote in the player's mind. However, moment-to-moment gameplay and level design are a bit arcane; people don't understand those quite so well.

        On a certain level, Art of Fighting and Street Fighter II are the same game. They operate along similar lines, with similar rules, similar controls, and a very similar premise. They differ in the philosophy of their design.

        Street Fighter II was made in part by staff who had previously made Final Fight; a scrolling fighter. Scrolling games were, in general, much more fluid than contemporary one-on-one fighters, because the player character had to be nimble. Those games were all about controlling screen-space, and limiting danger to your character by effective positioning. I would also argue (though this might be contentious) that Capcom had greater desire to create a 2-player game, with the ulterior motive of increasing arcade machine revenue by creating a very adversarial game. That also required that the game should be easy from the get-go, with highly responsive controls that players would feel comfortable with right away; something that carried through to the visuals, where the characters were more like archetypes, with appearances that served to communicate their fighting style. In short, the game was designed to be disruptive.

        Art of Fighting and Fatal Fury: King of Fighters emerged from a different school of thought, being made in part by the team who made Street Fighter "1". I believe (particularly in AoF's case) they were designed to be visual showcases and very good vs-CPU fighters first and foremost,with admittedly entertaining 1-on-1 gameplay. Whereas Street Fighter II would pull people in with gameplay, SNK understood that arcades are, in part, about spectacle. It should be as fun to watch people play an arcade game is it is to play it, and in some respects Art of Fighting is even more fun to watch than play. Also, SNK were trying to "sell interest" in their arcade hardware, more than Capcom, where I would argue that Final Fight was a greater visual spectacle than SFII. Plus SNK's games in the arcades usually default to a punishing difficulty, and their fighting games are no different. Being vs-CPU focused gave SNK the chance to design their characters like "encounters" in an adventure game, where each opponent represents a different aspect of the experience - but also, SNK needed the player to fail a lot, to get them to pump in those coins (out of frustration!). This is represented by how SNK's fighters tended to have "routes", where you would fight against the same opponents in the same order, unlike SFII's random approach. This gave the player the chance to attack the problem over and over and learn the solution; in a way this is similar to the later Treasure game Alien Soldier.

        Consider this; on your phone, the buttons have the number 1 at the top-left, but on your keyboard, 1 is at bottom-left. This is weird until you understand that while numeric keypads look the same now, they evolved from different origins. The phone pads evolved from telegraphs, whereas keyboard keys evolved from tools used for book printing (and, later, typing). Street Fighter II and Fatal Fury are kinda like this. They look the same, and perform a similar function, but their family lineage is different. In a sense, it would be stranger if they were more similar.

        Someone who knows more about SNK/Capcom's history in this era may have a better idea about this, but this is what the two games say to me, looking in from the outside.

        Comment


          #79
          Great reply Asura, really insightful.

          Continuing with the football game theme, Art of Fighting really does seem like it's trying to recreate a martial arts movie. In a lot of ways it's more 'realistic' than SF2 even though it doesn't play half as well. I suppose it took SNK a few years to find the middle ground between a game that looked like a martial arts movie and one that played like a real martial arts contest with dynamic counters and fluid movements.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by BigDeadFreak View Post
            Interesting to see Art of Fighting 1 after reading about it. I'd always dismissed it as the second one is supposed to be so much better. I've owned the second game for a good few years now and can't get into it. The CPU is ludicrous, it's just so hard. I know there's supposed to be certain tactics that work against each opponent but trying to play it like a normal fighter is impossible. It also seems a bit dry and lacklustre in terms of presentation and atmosphere.

            The first game actually looks a bit better. The stages seem to have more atmosphere and, as you say Samuray, it does all feel like a martial arts movie. If I can find a cheap copy on ebay I might give it a go.
            Seriously??
            That's really cool if this thread has a part in people actually trying out new fighters. I didn't dare to hope. If you really do that, please let us know what you think, no matter that the thread will probably have moved on quite a bit by then. I would really love to hear about it!

            The CPU in "Art of Fighting 2" really is a disaster. Or maybe not if you look at things differently, but it sure as hell is not a good fighting game experience.
            Versus mode is a different story, of course, and I'll get to that soon. But if you can find someone to play against, it might really change your opinion of AOF2. If you can't, feel free to come to our next meeting!

            AOF1's single player really is fine; miles apart from the CPU terror in the sequel.

            Anyway, the atmosphere in AOF1 is more ...how can I put this? Vivid? Colorful? AOF2 feeling a little bit dry in comparison puts it, in fact, perfectly.


            Originally posted by BigDeadFreak View Post
            I used to own the third game (it was one of the first Neo Geo games I bought) but thought it was really dull. The graphics were technically amazing but the rest of it was a little lifeless.
            Wait what - ? Well, okay, I'll report back when we get there. But I did play AOF3 a long time ago and remember it being pretty awesome, presentation- AND gameplay-wise.


            Originally posted by samanosuke View Post
            For me the exceptions to the rule are the Samurai Shodown series and Garou: MotW. Both feel ‘looser’, very Capcom-y, and seem more forgiving in terms of timing for combos etc.
            Feeling looser is actually an excellent way to put it, I think! It'll be really fun to experience the evolution of SNK and Capcom titles side by side.


            Originally posted by Asura View Post
            I mean, I'm no expert in fighting games but I have a reasonable knowledge of how this stuff tends to work, so I'll have a go. (...)


            Wow, what a great read. Thank you!!!

            You've really thought this through and I find it easy to agree to your thesis. Definitely gonna tell the rest of the group about this!


            (As I said, I'm away from home right now so no new game until Tuesday at the earliest, sorry about that!)

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by BigDeadFreak View Post
              Continuing with the football game theme, Art of Fighting really does seem like it's trying to recreate a martial arts movie. In a lot of ways it's more 'realistic' than SF2 even though it doesn't play half as well. I suppose it took SNK a few years to find the middle ground between a game that looked like a martial arts movie and one that played like a real martial arts contest with dynamic counters and fluid movements.
              Some of their games really feel amazing when you wrangle them around just right, though. I always used to find that, once you'd sussed out the invasion/evasion stuff, Fatal Fury 3 feels like a dance. Just you get there quicker with Street Fighter.

              It's a bit like the difference between League of Legends and DOTA2. DOTA2 is the more intricate game (simply because there are more things you can do in it) and its fans insist that makes it superior, but that isn't necessarily the case. Like it might be better, but just being more complicated isn't what makes it better. This is similar to the difference between something like Street Fighter and KoF. In particular, I find the Street Fighter III games held my attention much longer than anything SNK have ever put out, and if anything, they were simpler in many respects than some of the games that came before.

              Comment


                #82
                Interesting reading you guys discuss the difference in design and play between Capcom and SNK games. Funnily enough I remember reading an article somewhere where they mentioned Western games in general having less fluid controls and they wondered if Japanese games were better because of their cultures knowledge of martial arts. I found that a bit funny as I don't think many game creators were martial arts experts.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Enjoyed reading that, Asura - thanks.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by shinobi7000 View Post
                    Interesting reading you guys discuss the difference in design and play between Capcom and SNK games. Funnily enough I remember reading an article somewhere where they mentioned Western games in general having less fluid controls and they wondered if Japanese games were better because of their cultures knowledge of martial arts. I found that a bit funny as I don't think many game creators were martial arts experts.
                    Also, the idea that they have martial arts in the eat but we don't in the west is pretty old hat. Boxing and wrestling are martial arts just as much as karate and judo.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by shinobi7000 View Post
                      Interesting reading you guys discuss the difference in design and play between Capcom and SNK games. Funnily enough I remember reading an article somewhere where they mentioned Western games in general having less fluid controls and they wondered if Japanese games were better because of their cultures knowledge of martial arts. I found that a bit funny as I don't think many game creators were martial arts experts.
                      I don't personally think there's much weight to that. I would imagine as many people who made western fighting games do some form of martial art in their spare time as western racing game devs love to drive cars.

                      That being said, cultural backing certainly plays a part; I mean it affects practically everything.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by BigDeadFreak View Post
                        Also, the idea that they have martial arts in the eat but we don't in the west is pretty old hat. Boxing and wrestling are martial arts just as much as karate and judo.
                        Throw in Brazilian Ju-Jitsu and Capoera as well which originated in the West.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          BJJ is just judo for skinny people
                          Last edited by BigDeadFreak; 02-05-2018, 10:45.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Night #2 began with...

                            Dead Dance (SNES)

                            The PAL title of this game is „Tuff E Nuff“ and the American one "Hey Punk! Are You Tuff E Nuff?", which is kind of silly and hilarious at the same time.

                            We have some post-apocalyptic scenario going on here, maybe post-nuclear? I remember my best friend back in the day got this game as psycholigical compensation, to make up for the lack of a Neo Geo. He brought it over to my house too and while it was nowhere near SNK-worthy, it was ….interesting.

                            So I decided to get a dirt-cheap Japanese copy for the fighting club. Was it worth it? Yes and no. The versus mode is a joke…you can choose between four characters, two of which are a Ryu/ Ken type palette swap, more or less. But the atmosphere is noteworthy nonetheless, and after playing for a bit we decided to tackle the single player mode, to see what else is hiding in here.

                            We were surprised by how many characters we encountered, and there were interesting stages as well. My favorite is the missile silo…..that’s pretty unique and wonderfully menacing.

                            Gameplay seemed pretty basic so after beating it, we went on to other titles. Just recently I learned there’s supposedly some cheat code that would unlock more characters in versus mode….uh, seriously? Why hide that? Making one or two fighters unlockable, sure, I get that. But the majority of the cast? So far we haven’t tried it out, so not sure if it’s true.

                            The score was between 0 and 1 kitties for this one due to the extremely limited versus mode and the simple gameplay, but one of us gave 3 kitties because the atmosphere felt very captivating to him.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Nobody here has played "Tuff E Nuff"? Oh well, onwards and upwards:


                              Street Fighter II Turbo: Hyper Fighting (SNES)


                              Yeah, so we’re already at the second SFII-iteration. Pretty much everyone knows the bosses are playable now, which brings me to Balrogs stage (Las Vegas): Man, this is beautiful!!! I distinctly remember seeing it for the first time, during single player in the basic SFII back then, and it really really wowed me. Those colors!! Bit of a shame the floor is not that shade of blue anymore but rather purple now. Oh well.

                              I’m not a huge fan of those new colors for all characters, and whenever I remember to do so I select the original coloring. Especially Blanka looks absolutely atrocious, but pretty much everyone suffered. Zangief in light blue…? …but why??

                              Gameplay is, of course, fantastic, and that’s what really counts. We did, however, tone down the turbo speed to just one star…the faster modes seemed a bit silly to look at and didn’t feel great to play.

                              That being said, this is the favorite SFII iteration for one of our members, who GREATLY prefers it over the yet to be discussed „Super Street Fighter II“. We all agreed that the original „Street Fighter II“ starts to feel a bit unfinished or unpolished once you’ve tasted „Turbo“.

                              What speed setting do you guys play it on? After some experimentation we agreed on just 1 turbo star; more than that and it would seem hectic and a little silly even.

                              Funny sidenote: One member brought the „Champion Edition“ for Mega Drive to the next meeting and we compared the two. The result was that all of us very much favored the SNES version although playing with the six button controller felt really nice. But music, voice samples, graphics too….that was too much of a cosmetic downgrade for our taste.

                              Trying to talk one of the others into buying "Street Fighter II" for PC Engine....played that version once and it seemed really fantastic! (I don't wanna buy it because I already have four "Street Fighter II"s )

                              Comment


                                #90
                                I agree about the Mega Drive vs SNES versions. I had a Mega Drive back in the day so that was my only option but I was always jealous of the SNES edition. However, I'd much rather have the crappy sound and slightly worse graphics if it means I get a decent 6 button pad.

                                I was obsessed with Street Fighter for years (never really got that great at it, mind). I just loved everything about it. The graphics were so bold and vivid, the characters so creative and the whole thing just felt unlike any other game I'd ever played. The thing I loved most was doing dragon punches with Ken; it just felt so cool and it never got boring. Well, it did after about 15. I hardly play the series now as I'm a bit tired of it all.

                                I always loved Guile's stage the most. It seemed to tie in really well with stuff like Afterburner and Top Gun.

                                As for the speed setting, I always used to play it on 4 stars. However, that'd probably be a bit too fast these days so I imagine I'd settled for 2. On the Mega Drive version you could go up to 8 or 10 but that was just absurd.

                                And no, no one has played Tuff E Nuff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X