VS=Good Game
joemama
Onaje Everett
"joemama" <jae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Sfa3 and VS games are equally fun, now lets stop this VSnoskillbrainer bs.
They are equally fun IN YOUR OPINION.
The fact of the matter is that a combo that leads to 50% damage in a Versus
game is much easier to pull off than a combo that leads to 50% damage in SFA3
(unless it's a VC).
I would love it if you'd just think about it before calling something that's
been analyzed for years by people that play both series well "not true". We
haven't missed any point that you haven't thought of. Of course, that'd be
because you simply made a statement and didn't bring any facts to back it up.
I'd say you did that because you have no facts. Now, if you DO have some
facts, then, by all means, state them so that I can shoot them down
one-by-one as I've done in the past. I WANT to debate you on this.
Oh, please don't misconstrue my boldness and confidence for arrogance. Like
I said, I know this is an argument I can win simply because it's been done
plenty of times. Experience is often the best teacher, but if you simply
analyze things without bias, you can often learn things the easy way.
Still, if you have proof to back up your statements...c'mon. Come get some!
:)
Onaje Everett
o_ev...@hotmail.com
"I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me."
-Philippians 4:13
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
joemama
seconds??? HUH ?? DOES IT??????????????
Terry Freedman
Onaje Everett (FreshOJ) wrote:
> In article <7aau2r$tv0$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
> "joemama" <jae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Sfa3 and VS games are equally fun, now lets stop this VSnoskillbrainer bs.
>
> They are equally fun IN YOUR OPINION.
>
> The fact of the matter is that a combo that leads to 50% damage in a Versus
> game is much easier to pull off than a combo that leads to 50% damage in SFA3
> (unless it's a VC).
And uh...how exactly does this determin how much fun a game is? I don't know
about you, but I play fighting games because it's fun to fight against other
people, NOT to worry about how easy it is to perform a "64 hit hyper redizzy
combo". (^_^;)
I'm not trying to say that the SFZ series and the Vs. games are on the same
level when it comes to gameplay...they're not, and I certainly don't need to
tell you that. However, I do wonder why people on this group complain about
things like this. If you don't like the game, DON'T PLAY IT. Although it can
be debated that the deeper a fighting game is, the more it lasts, it's also nice
to stop every once in a while and play a game that anyone can play and just have
fun with it. When I play a Vs. game, I'm not worried about my opponent's
skills...if they are really that spazzy, it's usually pretty easy to take them
out. If not, I just laugh it off and walk away. And hey, if the said "scrub"
happens to go play a more skilled fighter, I don't just walk up and destroy
them. It might just ruin ANY chance of this person ever wanting to the play the
game again. Unless of course, they REALLY spaz out the game by mashing the
buttons. Then, it's best to crush them as to save the game from a beating.
(^^)
> I would love it if you'd just think about it before calling something that's
> been analyzed for years by people that play both series well "not true". We
> haven't missed any point that you haven't thought of. Of course, that'd be
> because you simply made a statement and didn't bring any facts to back it up.
> I'd say you did that because you have no facts. Now, if you DO have some
> facts, then, by all means, state them so that I can shoot them down
> one-by-one as I've done in the past. I WANT to debate you on this.
Hey...
What ever happened to playing these games for fun?? :)
Lee
JB Gainz
>> game is much easier to pull off than a combo that leads to 50% damage in
>SFA3
>> (unless it's a VC).
Well, I don't know how difficulty of combos is an example for proving what
series is better... talking VS or SF.
All I know is VS games are easy and more fun, but for replay value SF games
bring me back, because of the challenge. I consider them equally entertaining.
Onaje Everett
"joemama" <jae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> so are you saying just because theres 50% combo game always end in first 10
> seconds??? HUH ?? DOES IT??????????????
(Is it going to be this easy?)
No, that's not what I'm saying. Lesson number one about me: What I say often
has a much deeper meaning than it appears to.
What I am saying is that it's tons easier to start a high-damage combo from a
weak attack and then do a long chain into either an air-combo that can end
with a super or into a super that can lead to a juggle or OTG which can then
lead to another super. No, I'm not saying that it always does. I'm saying
that it's possible. Why, you ask? TIME.
Time is the key factor that makes chain combos ending with supers much easier
to do than your standard Alpha 2 or Alpha 3 regular attack into SC combo.
With chain combos, you get much more time to recognize whether your attacks
are being blocked or are hitting. Look at Alpha 1. Why do you think most
people on the group say that it's not a good game? The main reasons are
Akuma, Guy, and chain combos. Chains are what make Guy so powerful in A1.
Actually, I should correct that. It's because he can chain from crouching
short that makes him so powerful. When he plays his wake-up game with you,
he can overhead attack with f+strong (which was too fast) or he could poke
with crouch short, chaining that into a combo ending with one of his Bushin
Runs or ending it with his Bushin Rage SC if the chain combo connects. The
point is that he not only gets time to think about whether or not his attacks
are connecting and divert into a safe combo, but that he also gets to do
15-20% more damage by chaining into stand strong-fierce before cancelling
into either a safe move or a high-damage move.
In the Versus series, this can't be any more true, especially thanks to the
ZigZag Magic Series. With Wolverine, I can do jumping
short-fierce-roundhouse, dashing standing jab-short-strong-forward(x2)-crouch
fierce....and you can do nothing but wait the full three seconds that it
takes for me to do this long attack. Now, while this chain is going, I'm
thinking to myself: Are my attacks hitting? James Chen, the legendary combo
maven that taught me what I know, says in his MSH Combo FAQ that, on average,
it takes a person around two or three attacks to tell if their combo is
hitting. So, by the time I've landed with Wolvie, I definitely know if I'm
hitting or not. Now, let's look at all of my options. I can proceed with
the d.s. jab-short and then throw you with strong and then OTG you, if you're
blocking. I can also do the above ground chain and then end with a jab
Berserker Barrage, leaving me safe, or I can add crouch roundhouse after the
fierce and then jab Berserker Barrage or Tornado Claw if I think you're going
to attack after the crouch roundhouse. If I'm hitting you, well, you should
know what's coming....after the crouch fierce, it's Berkerser Barrage X
followed by juggle or OTG (depending on what game I'm playing) or I'll add
crouch roundhouse and then Fatal Claw (MSF or MvC). If I don't have meter,
I'll probably cancel the stand strong into either a Tornado Claw or a fierce
Berserker Barrage (which leads to an OTG). If I've cornered my opponent with
this combo, I'll do the full chain and then combo into the fierce Berserker
Barrage and then OTG them into whatever. Note: I haven't even gone into air
combos, yet. See my point? Tons of options, but the key is that I get
forever and a day to choose them.
Now, while I like pixie characters, I also like other characters as well.
Take Magneto from MSH for example. When I first saw him, I had to play him.
I didn't care that his Magic Series was Weak Start, because even Weak Start
gives you plenty of time to choose your combo option (and Maggie has lovely,
painful combos). Magneto's biggest non-special chain would be jumping
d+short-forward-roundhouse, d.s. short-roundhouse. Usually, however, I'd
choose other moves besides roundhouse if I knew I was hitting, unless I was
extremely close (in which case I'd cancel the first hit of roundhouse into
either super). Still, Magneto's chains made him easy to win with if I could
touch my opponent. He was the first character I got a perfect off of Thanos
with (though that's not saying all that much), but all I used was jump
roundhouse, stand short-forward XX jab EM Disruptor. That was the only combo
I knew at the time (I was a beginner with combos at that time), yet it was
all I needed....and it's not a safe combo, either. Still, you'll find that
even the most limited Magic Series will lend you enough time to decide what
to do, provided you're awake.
In A2 or A3, the only way that you can hope to string out a combo long enough
to see if your attacks are hitting is if you do it with a bunch of weak
attacks...and even then, you may not get much time and you certainly won't
get much extra damage. Often times, if you decide to cancel a poke into a
super, it's do or die. It takes MUCH MORE manual dexterity to combo into a
super in A2 or A3 or even ST than it does in the Marvel series. Have you
actually tried cancelling a standing attack into a double FB move? If you
have, you know better.
So, I said all that to say this: When you get an extra 2 sceonds to determine
whether or not your combo is hitting and supers require very little manual
dexterity to perform, it makes big combos all the easier to perform.
BTW, remember who you're talking to. I do know what it takes to do combos in
the Marvel series. I'm not trying to brag here, I'm trying to get you to
recognize that I DO know what I'm talking about here.
One more thing: Include my text next time so that we can do this point by
point.
Onaje Everett
free...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
> Onaje Everett (FreshOJ) wrote:
>
> > In article <7aau2r$tv0$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
> > "joemama" <jae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > Sfa3 and VS games are equally fun, now lets stop this VSnoskillbrainer bs.
> >
> > They are equally fun IN YOUR OPINION.
> >
> > game is much easier to pull off than a combo that leads to 50% damage in
SFA3
> > (unless it's a VC).
>
> about you, but I play fighting games because it's fun to fight against other
> people, NOT to worry about how easy it is to perform a "64 hit hyper redizzy
> combo". (^_^;)
You misread. I separated both of my points because I was addressing two
different points. Terry, you should know better. I play BOTH, remember? I'm
the one that was coming out with combos and stuff, remember? Yeah...me! I
consider the Versus series fun, too, BUT I know better than to say that it's a
game of skill. Joemama was trying to say that the Versus series isn't a
no-brainer game. I know better than that.
> I'm not trying to say that the SFZ series and the Vs. games are on the same
> level when it comes to gameplay...they're not, and I certainly don't need to
> tell you that. However, I do wonder why people on this group complain about
> things like this.
Simple, it dumbs down the general fighting population, thus making the
competition on games of skill much less frequent.
> > I would love it if you'd just think about it before calling something that's
> > been analyzed for years by people that play both series well "not true". We
> > haven't missed any point that you haven't thought of. Of course, that'd be
> > because you simply made a statement and didn't bring any facts to back it
up.
> > I'd say you did that because you have no facts. Now, if you DO have some
> > facts, then, by all means, state them so that I can shoot them down
> > one-by-one as I've done in the past. I WANT to debate you on this.
>
> Hey...
>
> What ever happened to playing these games for fun?? :)
Nothing. You just missed my point. :)
However, there's a difference between fun and more fun. You tend to have more
fun when you have to work for something because you get a sense of true
accomplishment from it. That's also when you TRULY impress yourself.
I play games to have fun and compete, doing so to the best of my ability so
that I when I win, I can sometimes impress myself while doing so and when I
lose, I leave with no regrets. Regret is bad....not good....bad. :)
Onaje Everett
jbg...@aol.com (JB Gainz) wrote:
> > The fact of the matter is that a combo that leads to 50% damage in a Versus
> >> game is much easier to pull off than a combo that leads to 50% damage in
> >SFA3
> >> (unless it's a VC).
>
> series is better... talking VS or SF.
> All I know is VS games are easy and more fun, but for replay value SF games
> bring me back, because of the challenge. I consider them equally
entertaining.
Thank you for proving my point for me.
You made the same mistake Terry Freedman did. You didn't read my response
carefully enough.
What I was referring to when I said what you quoted was his statement about
Versus games not being no-brainer games. As you just pointed out, they ARE
no-brainer games. That's exactly what Capcom wanted them to be for the simple
reason of trying to get more players to play. Unfortunately, all they want to
play is easy stuff and very few people develop an interest in the skillful
fighting games from playing the Versus series. That's all I'm saying.
Since you haven't been here long, it's easy for you to make this mistake.
I've been playing the Marvel series since it came out. I've been coming up
with combos for it for the longest time. My favorite is Marvel Super Heroes.
I contributed quite a few combos to James Chen's XSF Combo FAQ. I've been
playing every Versus game, hoping that they'd improve from the downhill trip
they've been on since easy-to-juggle XSF. So, I've been at this for a while
now. I still play Marvel games. The fact of the matter is: If it's fun,
I'll play it. The Marvel series is fun for me, so I play it.
However, because of all of this experience, I know better than to even THINK
that the Marvel series isn't easier to play. I know too much about the engine
to say that. There are others on this newsgroup that know this, as well.
Terry Freedman
<o_ev...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <36CA53FD...@earthlink.net>,
> free...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Onaje Everett (FreshOJ) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7aau2r$tv0$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
> > > "joemama" <jae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > > Sfa3 and VS games are equally fun, now lets stop this
VSnoskillbrainer bs.
> > >
> > > They are equally fun IN YOUR OPINION.
> > >
> > > The fact of the matter is that a combo that leads to 50% damage in a
Versus
> > > game is much easier to pull off than a combo that leads to 50% damage in
> SFA3
> > > (unless it's a VC).
> >
> > And uh...how exactly does this determin how much fun a game is? I
don't know
> > about you, but I play fighting games because it's fun to fight against other
> > people, NOT to worry about how easy it is to perform a "64 hit hyper redizzy
> > combo". (^_^;)
>
> You misread. I separated both of my points because I was addressing two
> different points. Terry, you should know better. I play BOTH, remember? I'm
> the one that was coming out with combos and stuff, remember? Yeah...me!
Hey, uhm...actually...I don't remember! (^_^;;) I certainly recognize
you, but it's been a while since I've looked at any Vs./Marvel stuff.
> I
> consider the Versus series fun, too, BUT I know better than to say that it's a
> game of skill. Joemama was trying to say that the Versus series isn't a
> no-brainer game. I know better than that.
...Then I definitely misread all this, because I wouldn't agree with his
statement either! However, of course you know that it doesn't have to be
a total button-masher if you don't want it to be.
>
> > I'm not trying to say that the SFZ series and the Vs. games are on the same
> > level when it comes to gameplay...they're not, and I certainly don't need to
> > tell you that. However, I do wonder why people on this group complain about
> > things like this.
>
> Simple, it dumbs down the general fighting population, thus making the
> competition on games of skill much less frequent.
More like the general fighting popluation is already dumbed down and is
too lazy to learn to play the other games. ;) At my arcade, all we have
are a Marvel Vs. Capcom machine, and directly behind it, Street Fighter EX
2. When they first got in SFEX2, all the "scrubs" went over to play it,
but as soon as they found that mashing the buttons during a supe did
absolutely nothing and airblocking was nonexistent, they all left and went
back to MvC.
>
>
>
> > > I would love it if you'd just think about it before calling
something that's
> > > been analyzed for years by people that play both series well "not
true". We
> > > haven't missed any point that you haven't thought of. Of course,
that'd be
> > > because you simply made a statement and didn't bring any facts to back it
> up.
> > > I'd say you did that because you have no facts. Now, if you DO have some
> > > facts, then, by all means, state them so that I can shoot them down
> > > one-by-one as I've done in the past. I WANT to debate you on this.
> >
> > Hey...
> >
> > What ever happened to playing these games for fun?? :)
>
> Nothing. You just missed my point. :)
>
> However, there's a difference between fun and more fun. You tend to have more
> fun when you have to work for something because you get a sense of true
> accomplishment from it. That's also when you TRULY impress yourself.
I tend to have more fun simply when I fight against someone who knows what
they're doing, but I guess that's because my arcade is 98% "scrub". :)
>
> I play games to have fun and compete, doing so to the best of my ability so
> that I when I win, I can sometimes impress myself while doing so and when I
> lose, I leave with no regrets. Regret is bad....not good....bad. :)
........
Lee
kayin/ka khiong kwok
thing? IS it a fruit juice. :')
Cheers,
Ka.
=== Four words why Alien civilisations will never make contact with us...
===
"Are we there yet?"
Onaje Everett
"kayin/ka khiong kwok" <ka...@mpx.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Onaje,
(Captain America mode on)
Hello, fellow citizen!
(Captain America mode off)
> ummm... hope you don't mind me asking, but what's with the FreshOJ
> thing? IS it a fruit juice. :')
Oh, goody! I get to tell the "nickname story"! :)
Check it out. Way back in the mid-70's, a few months after I was born to be
precise, my dad tried to teach a friend of his how to pronounce my name. In
frustration, the friend said, "Nah, man. That's too hard. I'll just call him
O.J.", after (yeah...him) O.J. Simpson (who was really good in the NFL at the
time). So, anyway, that nickname stuck. Then later on, when I was getting my
middle school slang on ('cause it was the ONLY thing I had goin' for me), the
word "fresh" was popular. So, seeing the obvious opportunity, I merely stuck
that in front of it and *SPLADDOW!*, FreshOJ. :)
It's a shame people have forgotten what my old signature looked like, 'cause
I tell you that it's my IRC and ICQ nickname. That's why I put it up there.
When I come on IRC, those that don't know who I am will now know, if they
read alt.games.sf2 or rec.games.video.arcade.
So, Ka, there ya go. :)
Onaje Everett
(Begin)
From: Frederick Anderson <da...@uswest.net>
To: "Onaje Everett (FreshOJ)" <o_ev...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: VS=Good Game
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:40:14 -0800
Hi,
I'm not understanding a few things.
You said in one post that "they are equally fun IN YOUR OPINION."
How is that any different from YOUR opinion?
This topic could have been debated for years, but the end result isn't
always the right one. It's highly doiubtful there IS a right one.
Are we talking in these series of posts that VS games are just plain
good?
We know that is the opinion of the guy who wrote it, so how can he be
wrong?
I like the alpha, three and vs games. Here's why...
Alpha - It was an improvement over the SFII series by adding air
blocking, new characters and a bit more strategy. I like not playing
SFII
and just (I mean Hyperfighting and such) not relying on Ryu or Guile. I
was at the tournament in January in Tuscon. It had Neil "Cigar Bob"
Atkin
and others. I know Neil through my brother. While the tourney was preety
much just Hyperfighting I saw that a majority of people chose Ryu or
Guile. Neil told me that it's because certain characters have advantages
over the others. In alpha, I found that, at least in A2, the priorities
are more easily regulated by the players. Air blocking helped by adding
a
new dimension to the game. The old SF series come off to me as whoever
hits the button first and knows the four best things to do (throw, DP,
etc.). My only gripe, and a small one, is that you have to pick between
the different ism's. I liked V and A together.
Three series - I like this because all the characters look neater. It
feels well balanced to me. It feels, like I guess it should, like an
upgrades SFII.
The Vs - actually I only like XMSF, MSH and MSH vs SF. I DON'T like MvC
because they started taking out the high combos which to me look nice
and
are fun to do. I don't like starting with a super, and I don't like
infinites (on that game), but what am I to do. I don't like losing to a
typer with high priority characters. CapCom, Stryder, Spidey. I use
Spidey and try to do neat, semi random stuff. I don't dash in with C.
short->c.forward->s.Roundhouse and then superjump and do the AC. I liked
the variety and, as someone stated in a post, I think you, that you have
time to decide on what to do. I'll infinite "scrubs", but my definition
of one is more "a player who comes up with the attitude that he will
destroy you, and he tries either succesfully or not. AND he is less
knowledgeable (did I spell that right) about the game, i.e. he only
knows
one high damage combo."
Why is this a debate any way?
You could open up a machine and say "Well I told you it was crap."
(though I don't believe you have said this so this goes to anyone) as
crap oozed from the box and that doesn't make me or any other player
stop
liking that game as much.
You stick to your guns and live a happy life, I'll do the same.
It wouldn't be right, or friend making if I told everyone all the time
about what I believe. I have that freedom, but I don't. Now I do hold
all
people I meet to a set of standards that I only modify for that person
when I ask "Is s/he worth my time even though they do X?"
You play your games (sorry if I sound like I'm rambling, I printed out
the majority of your posts on this subject and am trying to answer
things
that I find in them) for your reasons. I won't say "I play games to meet
girls, therefore I practice constantly to be able to look good in front
of them. YOU would have more fun if you played for the exact same reason
because you a) get better and b) get a girl."
I'd be the third to argue with this statement, after reading the first
two people who did and deciding if it's worth my time.
I agree with your statement on regret.
On one post you say " I know better than to even THINK that the Marvel
series isn't easier to play."
What do you mean? Can you give specifics and examples? If I'm say a 7 on
SF skill on a 1 to 10 scale, are you saying that on a Marvel game a 3 or
4 would beat me without really trying? Are you saying that I could beat
a
10? Everything he does I can do. My brother kicks my ass at the VS games
and SFII but on ALpha I can win about 40% of the time, though my brother
is way better on all the SF games than me. I would, from my experience
say that the A series is easier BUT I work for all those wins.
To wrap up, we all have our own opinions and that is great. NO ONE is
right when it comes to opinions, not in the "Absolute Truth" way. If you
feel the need to post your opinion on a newsgroup, fine, but as the
others come in saying what "is right." and stuff... that's what happens.
You will probably be happier if you question your beliefs but only you
can find the answers and believ what you want in private, unless you
believe that everyone shold know.
(End)
Any responses?
Onaje Everett
>Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:40:14 -0800
>From: Frederick Anderson <da...@uswest.net>
>To: "Onaje Everett (FreshOJ)" <o_ev...@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: VS=Good Game
>
>Hi,
>I'm not understanding a few things.
>
>You said in one post that "they are equally fun IN YOUR OPINION."
>How is that any different from YOUR opinion?
My point in saying that was to point out that Joemama was trying to make a
statement based on an independent opinion. In essence, though he may not
have realized it, he was trying to speak for all of us. So, I was trying to
correct him....because not everyone enjoys the Versus series. I do, to an
extent, but I wouldn't say that it's fun..period.
>This topic could have been debated for years, but the end result isn't
>always the right one. It's highly doiubtful there IS a right one.
Well...if you're talking about whether the Versus series is fun or not, then
you're right...there is no right answer. However, if you're talking about
whether or not the Versus series is a no-brainer, which is what I was talking
about in my second statement in response to Joemama, then you're wrong. There
is a concrete answer to that...and I'll prove that.
>Are we talking in these series of posts that VS games are just plain
>good?
>We know that is the opinion of the guy who wrote it, so how can he be
>wrong?
I agree that when it comes to what is and what is not fun, everyone has their
own definition on that, as they should. Different strokes for different
folks.
However, when it comes to skill, there's no escaping the facts. The Versus
series was made to attract new players. Capcom made it easy on purpose. Yes,
easy.
>I agree with your statement on regret.
Not to sound arrogant, but you're wise for doing so. Regret is a bad thing.
Therefore, you do everything in your power to stay away from that thing. :)
>On one post you say " I know better than to even THINK that the Marvel
>series isn't easier to play."
>What do you mean? Can you give specifics and examples?
(Cracking knuckles)
Here we go.
>If I'm say a 7 on SF skill on a 1 to 10 scale, are you saying that on >a Marvel
game a 3 or 4 would beat me without really trying?
Not only is this true, but I can give you an example of this. When MSH came
out, I was one of the dominating players at Aztec Amusement Center. My
Captain America, Magneto, and Psylocke were a force. However, SFA1 was out
around the same time. People that I beat in MSH, I could only hang with on
SFA1. In fact, there was a tournament called "Midnight Madness" there at
Aztec. I think it was the third one that they had. They had tournaments in
SFA1, MSH, and KI2. I was in the first two tourneys. I did extremely well
in the MSH tourney, losing to the guy that ended up winning (I played him
constantly and his Spidey still forced me to turtle). I could've beaten the
guy that beat the person that got second (who just happens to be Milo
Cooper...Shuma-Gorath rocks!), so I essentially had third place. In the A1
tourney, I was beaten in the first match. My Guy wasn't all that great,
unfortunately, but I still should've beaten the Ryu I fought. I then lost
again to Mark Zedaker and his Adon...I think. Mark was just plain better
that time. Still, the people that I demolished in the MSH tourney were
people that I literally destroyed in SFA1 everyday. The people that I beat
in MSH were the people that could either hang with me or beat me consistently
in SFA1. Though both games had considerably scrubby features, MSH was the
easier game to play and master.
>Are you saying that I could beat a 10?
That depends on just how good you are. I know this...I've beaten Alex Valle
in MSF...and it wasn't that hard for me. It should've been because Alex is
just plain WAAAAY better than me in just about every other fighting game.
Yet, I was able to beat him and not sweat that hard. Isn't that telling
enough?
>My brother kicks my ass at the VS games and SFII but on ALpha I can >win about
40% of the time, though my brother is way better on all the >SF games than
me. I would, from my experience say that the A series >is easier BUT I work
for all those wins.
Isn't it funny that you have to work for all of your wins in the Alpha series
and yet your brother can beat you easily in all of the others, even when you
work hard at it? That should be telling you something.
The fact of the matter is that when you're comparing a game in which a weak
attack most often leads to a big combo to a game in which connecting a weak
attack doesn't guarantee that a big combo will follow, you're going to find
that the first game is much easier to win in. Why? All you need is for your
opponent to mis-block once or twice in order to win....and this is from an
attack that carries virtually no risk with it...yet you get how much reward
from it? Are you seeing my point? The risk and the reward aren't balanced.
That alone makes the Versus series require less skill to play.
Heh...don't make me bust out the three components of skill on you.
Doh....too late.
Let's look at the Versus series compared to the Alpha series, using the three
components of skill. One of these three components will be glaringly devoid
in one of the games. Just watch.
Applied knowledge: In the Alpha series, besides needing to know your
character's moves and your opponent's moves, you also need to know combos,
positioning, when and when not to roll, when to throw, when to poke, when to
attack and when not to. In the Versus series, it's pretty much the same
except for one aspect: combos. In the Versus series, if you can connect a
crouch short, all you need to know is what attacks can be strung out from
that one move and what the best way to finish that combo is. You get TONS of
time to think about this while you're in mid-combo, as I explained to Joemama
the first time he spouted something. In the Alpha series....not so. If you
start chaining attacks, you can't cancel that attack into a special move
unless you chain to a different attack. Even so, you can't hope to get off
more than three weak attacks on big characters and furthermore, those extra
jabs don't give much extra damage compared to the extra moves you can tack on
before a super in the Marvel series. Of course, in the Versus series, Capcom
made this much easier to see thanks to meters that charge extremely fast.
The Alpha meter has never been able to charge that fast. Only the meters in
COTA and MSH charged up slower than those in Alpha.
Manual dexterity: So negligible in the Versus series that it's not funny.
The most challenging motion in the game is a 720 for a move that's hardly
even worth all the effort, the Ultimate Final Atomic Buster...and you can
only tick into it. In Alpha, if you want to guarantee that a combo is going
to hurt by including a super in it, you HAVE to be able to whirl around the
joystick fast enough to interrupt that regular move with a double
quarter-circle move. Even the charge supers are a challenge at times,
especially the Somersault Justice motions. The Marvel series, on the whole,
has NEVER had anything as challenging.
Mind games: They exist in both the Versus series and the Alpha series. The
difference is in their need. In the Versus series, you can get by without
them. If you're attacking with your chain combo and you see you aren't
hitting, just divert into a safe combo and you're fine. No need to play
throw games unless you REALLY want to hurt them with juggle/OTG combos after
throws, which were sadly reduced in number after XSF.
So, you see, the Versus game only requires that you master two out of the
three components of skill. From there, applied knowledge only requires that
you master combos in order to win. If you keep throwing them out and making
sure you end them safely, you can't be touched. As for mind games, you can
get by without knowing how to tick-throw or fake into an attack....just as
long as you keep throwing out those safe combos and attacking safely (full
air-blocking allows this). Dashing also pretty much throws out the
positioning game, as well...so no need to learn that, either.
>To wrap up, we all have our own opinions and that is great. NO ONE is
>right when it comes to opinions, not in the "Absolute Truth" way. If you
>feel the need to post your opinion on a newsgroup, fine, but as the
>others come in saying what "is right." and stuff... that's what happens.
>You will probably be happier if you question your beliefs but only you
>can find the answers and believ what you want in private, unless you
>believe that everyone shold know.
My point is this: you can say that a game is fun to you. That's fine.
However, when you start spouting stuff about how the Versus game requires the
same amount of skill as the Alpha series, I'm not only going to contest
it...I'm going to prove you wrong with facts. Come correct or don't come at
all....and I noticed that Joemama hasn't come back against any of the facts
that I've posted.
I wonder what happened. :P
Bottom line: ('cause there is an answer if you search for it.)
Onaje Everett o_ev...@hotmail.com
Meaning: The Sensitive One
IRC and ICQ Nicknames: FreshOJ, DaJooce
Other Nickname: The Juice
Mantra: "I can do ALL things through Christ, who strengthens me."
-Phillipians 4:13
kayin/ka khiong kwok
thing? IS it a fruit juice. :')
Cheers,
Ultima
[SNARF]
Just something I wanted to point out here Onaje:
> Manual dexterity: So negligible in the Versus series that it's not funny. The most challenging motion in the game is a 720 for a move that's hardly even worth all the effort, the Ultimate Final Atomic Buster...and you can only tick into it.
Correction: The UFAB is a 360 + KK, not a 720. Even so, it's nothing
more than a style move... -_-
[slash]
--
Ultima - The Right Arm of Scrub Voltron
http://members.xoom.com/Ultima1 - The Street Fighter RPG Manifesto!
http://members.xoom.com/ShinUltima - U's Ultimate Rambling Page
If an arcade doesn't have a version of SF or SS in it, then it's not an
arcade
Shaunlar
open mind, eh?):
Onaje Everett wrote extensively about
"The Three Components of Skill" (thunder rumbles in the background...). The way
that this is presented is as if it were equivalent to the laws of physics,
carved in stone for any "real" fighting game to adhere to for respect in its
system. I beg to differ. While true, in SF you can need to be skilled at
these components to make any real progress (yeah EX2!), your error comes when
you suggest that the absence of one or more of them puts a game in the
"mindless" category. My reasons why it ain't so.
If you know how to use Venn diagrams, drawing three circles now (one for each
component) may help in understanding the logic of what I present. The three
circles should be put in an overlapping, triangular arrangement. Each circle
intersects with the other two once, while the center represents the
intersection of all three. Label each circle with one of your components:
Applied Knowledge, Manual Dexterity, and Mind Games.
SFA will go in the center, because it requires "great skill" in all three
components, ergo it rises above the depths of masherdom to the realm of true
fighters. Marvel games, according to you, would go in the space of Applied
Knowledge and (to a lesser extent) Mind Games. The fact that its missing the
Manual Dexterity component (to a greater extent than SFA) is one of the things
for which you shoot it down. With me so far?
Now let's take our logical premise and apply it to other titles. Outside of
the lovely village of Street Fighter are two towns called Virtua Fighter and
Tekken. Rumor has it that these games require a GREAT amount of skill (the
operating word here) to be successful. What kind of skill, mind games? Check.
Applied knowledge? Check (name a game that doesn't). Manual dexterity? Hold on
there big doggie.
Virtua Fighter characters have roughly twice the amount of SF moves, Tekken
three times (Applied Knowledge). Except for a few anomolies (Akira's SPoD, or
King's Rolling Cradle), my 7 year niece can perform 90% of the individual
attacks the second I demonstrate them to her. As a matter of fact, the
masher-friendly canned combos (i.e. VF's immortal PPPK variations) are easier
than the Marvel chain combos, since the attacks are buffered (stored) into
memory, thus requiring little timing. I mean, Eddy Goro is viewed as the
epitome of mashing, performing elegant combos with the ease of taking a leak.
Even a lot of the juggle combos, like King's staple u/f+4, 2,1, 1+2,1 is so
simple a monkey can do it. Now my question to you is, are these games in the
"mindless" category. If you need an answer, ask Valle who plays each these
VERY well. My vote goes in the "nay" column
My point is that your focus is all wrong. What works in one game is not
necessarily so in others. Skill in Applied Knowledge is required in every
game, for long term success. I'm sure even a Time Killer's expert could
dominate an arcade after enough practice and learning. Some games just aren't
worth learning. If Valle put in SFA practice time into Marvel before he played
you, are you saying that it would be impossible for him to excel because of the
game's lower "skill" ceiling? Hmmm. Jordan left basketball for baseball.
Just because he didn't excel has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the
national pastime.
Also, since Tekken players must account for 3D positioning, side and rear
options, okizeme (anti-rise strategies), countering counters (chickens), WAY
more moves and combos to remember, as well an abundance of mid-level hits, is
SF any less of a game in comparison? Of course not.
Manual Dexterity, while very important in game balance, is far less important
than you describe it. The complexity of some titles may discourage casual
players, which is probably why Tekken rakes in more dough - the accessability
of the game in the player's early stages encourages him to increase his Applied
Knowledge base. What's wrong with that?
Mind Games. This by far is the key to the success of a good fighting engine.
Options, options, options. No need for debate here. Notice why this is so
important though - it's the only one of the three that involves a human
opponent (the source of fun in fighters). The single, universal skill worth
hanging on to in your Trilogy of Components is that of Mind Games.
I hope you can see what I'm saying. I'll go on record to say that while SFA
requires a different set of skills to do well than Marvel games. But once all
the tools are learned in either title (VCs any one?), the smarter player will
hold the advantage. And also for the record, rereading joemama's original post
that started the thread, I agree with him - the games are fun! Mr. Everett,
you may get your source of fun from a different angle than him, but he speaks
no more for everybody as the people who say football is fun aren't attacking
the sport of hockey. SFA is flawed, but fun. Marvel games are flawed, but
fun. Virtua Fighter is flawed, but fun. Tekken is flawed, but incredible!
(sorry) And they each require their OWN components of skills (at varying
degrees) for success! Let's stick with the thing we all agree on - fighting
games are made to be fun!!!
Shauno!
James Margaris
>I'm feeling contrary today, so let me throw out some food for thought (keep an
>open mind, eh?):
>
>I hope you can see what I'm saying. I'll go on record to say that while SFA
>requires a different set of skills to do well than Marvel games. But once all
>the tools are learned in either title (VCs any one?), the smarter player will
>hold the advantage. And also for the record, rereading joemama's original post
>that started the thread, I agree with him - the games are fun! Mr. Everett,
>you may get your source of fun from a different angle than him, but he speaks
>no more for everybody as the people who say football is fun aren't attacking
>the sport of hockey. SFA is flawed, but fun. Marvel games are flawed, but
>fun. Virtua Fighter is flawed, but fun. Tekken is flawed, but incredible!
>(sorry) And they each require their OWN components of skills (at varying
>degrees) for success! Let's stick with the thing we all agree on - fighting
>games are made to be fun!!!
Of course, everyone can agree that "fun" is the most important, really the
only factor in a game. However, the question is how do you talk about fun? To
say that a game is good just because "it is fun" doesn't do much for anyone.
This is very similar to debates over music taste. Someone may say "well, I
know this isn't as technical as that, or as original as that, or whatever, but
it just *sounds good* to me, I like it. Isn't that what counts?"
Well, of course it is in a way. But, judging a game or music based on
something totally subjective is pointless. So, instead we talk about the
relative strengths or faults, and let the "fun" determination exist seperatly.
For example, if I compare music, I might say that music A has more variety,
better playing, more intersting time/key changes, a faster pace, and more
muscianship, whereas music B is more hooky and typical verse-chorus. Now, in
terms of "quality" this would probably make A better, but in terms of
taste...Backstreet Boys anyone?
If something is "low quality" but we like it we call it a "guilty pleasure."
Does this make it good or bad? Let me put it this way: Ever notice that
certain "classic," "high quality" books and movies really aren't very good (as
in fun and interesting) at all, even though they have a certain undeniable
"quality" air to them? (yeah, Good Will Hunting was good, ever want to
see it again?) Perhaps this is because the measure of "quality" in those cases
has strayed from any measure of enjoyment.
You may take the same view about SF. That in talk about positioning, timing,
etc, we are using a metric for "quality" which is no longer related to the
overall enjoyment of the game. However, there are certain aspects that are
related to both quality and fun.
Risk vs reward is an obvious one. Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's
say that in a Marvel game there were no combos, but each hit would do the
damge of the combo that would follow it in the real Marvel game. For example,
a Wolverine low short would do 25-60% damage, as would most launchers.
Wouldn't this game seem kind of odd? Wouldn't you complain pretty quickly that
a low roundhouse does 1/4 to 1/8 the damage of a low short or low fierce? It
just doesn't make much sense, now does it? The risk vs reward is way off, and
the damage seems just arbitrary and pointless.
Now let us take Dudley's screw punch (the multi hit special) in SF3, but we
will change it like this: Every time Dudley hits with it (I think, it has
been a while), or it is blocked or parried, if the opponent has a
suitable super and meter they automatically super him back. What the hell is
that? Complaints would fly all over the place. What the hell is the point of
an attack that makes you take much more damage? And yet, if you play someone
who knows what they are doing, this is exactly what the move boils down to in
real SF3. Once again, risk vs reward and overall arbitrariness of damage. WHen
you get down to the basic elements, you see that something is lacking.
What if every time you parried an attack you automatically did your super
afterwards? But isn't this what happens? Risk vs reward. Tap forward and maybe
take a jab vs free super.
When risk and reward are balanced, the game is higher "quality." I would say
it is more fun, others may not agree, but we have some non-subjective items we
can discuss. You may say "well, those are good examples, but I still just like
these games." That's fine. Like what you want. But, we will feel free to
criticize whether you like the game or not, based on more objective issues.
I have focused on one particular aspect that I think is very important. WHen
risk and reward are balanced every move has a use, no move is vastly over or
underpowered, and the game seems more strictly defined and less frustratingly
arbitrary in nature. This is just one aspect of quality. We can argue about
the relative importance of mind games, controller skills, etc. But, the point
is that these factors DO effect the quality of the game, and these are factors
we can judge from game to game. "Fun" is something we can not judge at all, as
a group at least.
So, feel free to play whatever you find enjoyable. However, if its only merit
is that you happen to like it, don't bother defending it, just say it happens
to work for you. Everyone has guilty pleasures that they can't justify. But
*don't* claim that the game is good. Fun is subjective, good is objective (at
least more objective relatively)
So, in conclusion, Marvel games suck :)
James M
James Margaris
>Applied Knowledge, Manual Dexterity, and Mind Games.
I just wanted to point out that these three are not the only components.
Distancing ability is certainly important, and takes some manual dex and some
knowledge, but is not wholly covered by one or both of these. Similarly,
timing takes some knowledge and some dex, but you can have dexterity and
knowledge and just not have any rhythm.
So, I would add Spatial Abilities and Timing to the list. Spatial abilities
show up an awful lot in 3d games that allow dashing and sidestepping around.
Just think of all the matches of VF or Tekken where the fighters dash in and
out, trying to get each other to whiff. Timing obviously is hugely present in
every game, most obviously in things like reversals and juggles but to some
extent in nearly every action.
Applied Knowlege would be knowing what range each of your attacks works best
at. (among other things) Distancing would be effectively getting into and
judging that range. If you don't see the distinction, then try this similar
statement: Applied knowledge is knowing what motion produces a FB, Manual Dex
is being able to do that motion quickly and consitently.
James M
I
[snip]
Onaje's conjecture:
Skill is defined as 1) applied knowledge, 2) manual dexterity, and 3) mind games
Excellent...I had no idea that you also seek wisdom by attempting to define the
higher-level aspects of fighting games along with me. Welcome.
And here I thought you only dwell on lower-level petty argumnts of combos and whether
or not a low forward beats an uppercut. Surprise..surprise...
Did you come up with this definition by yourself? Please elaborate a little more on
the definition of skill. You have sparked my interest.
(of course, I will give my definition... ;-)
Shaunlar
fighters varies from game to game. The skills learned in soccer will not
necessarily help you in football, although the goal is the same - get the ball
from one end to the other. Both are good sports repsectively. I HATE soccer,
but I don't toss it in the category of a bad sport - just one that I don't like
to play (and requires a different skill set).
Marvel games aren't worse, just different. Some SF players don't prefer the VS
skill set the game requires and will list valid reasons for feeling that way.
Doesn't take any air out of the Marvel tire. Think of it this way - playing
Street Fighter in comparison to a real martial art one-on-one match up, Jet Li
might get V-Akuma'd and walk away from the machine saying it's "mindless
mashing" or, "any scrub can learn it, but it ain't a real contest!".
It's the same tired arguement that SF "purists" give to every other non-SF
title. Heck, even the pre-Alpha fogies lift their noses up at the A3! "Back
in my day, we didn't need no airblockin'. If ya jumped in unprepared, ya jus'
got whupped." Someone even suggested getting rid of combos all together. Hey,
I played that game when it was called Yie Ar Kung Fu!
1. Every game requires its own skill set to master. Zangief in Alpha is played
differently in MvC - both can be successful! If you don't like the skill set
required of one title, it's o.k. No one is upset. There are a ton of people
who don't like A3 for it's skill set. Application difficulty is a moot point
and not required for the "legitimacy" of a fighting engine (see my VF / Tekken
comments before). To them, it's just (gasp) boring! (although I don't think
so).
2. No one game will appeal to all players. What's the best song ever made? If
there aren't as many answers to this as there are Shoto comments in this
newsgroup, I'd be shocked. I can appreciate and enjoy the quality of
Bethoveen's 'Moonlight Sonata' and A Tribe Called Quest's 'Check the Rhyme'.
They both hold an appeal that the other can not provide.
3. Any, ANY game played at its highest levels of play can beat up the average
scrub. 'A masher's game' describes beginning, Average Joe accessability only.
It has nothing to do with the top levels of play. The best MvC players have to
think and react just as instinctively when playing each other as, say two
V-Akuma's or two X-Dhalsim's. What they're processing, applying, and
performing are where the differences lie. And, yes, there's more to MvC life
than 'dashing short' just as there's more to VF than PPPK.
Oh, I hope I don't sound upset, I'm not - discussing fighters is almost as fun
as playing them! I wish some of you would open up a bit. Out-thinking your
opponent is enjoyable regardless (almost) of the game.
Shauno!
Onaje Everett
> open mind, eh?):
>
> Onaje Everett wrote extensively about
> "The Three Components of Skill" (thunder rumbles in the background...). The
way
> that this is presented is as if it were equivalent to the laws of physics,
> carved in stone for any "real" fighting game to adhere to for respect in its
> system. I beg to differ. While true, in SF you can need to be skilled at
> these components to make any real progress (yeah EX2!), your error comes when
> you suggest that the absence of one or more of them puts a game in the
> "mindless" category. My reasons why it ain't so.
(snip)
While you presented your argument very well, you entirely missed my point.
I'll ask you this one question: Since manual dexterity isn't a factor in the
Marvel series, how easy is it to end any combo with a super?
The point is that because of the lack of manual dexterity needed to play the
game, it makes it that much easier to make a low-risk attack (like a dashing
crouching short) lead to a high-damage combo (think Wolverine). This also
contributes to appled knowledge being much easier to improve upon. Think
about this: How many people that you know are good at the Marvel series can
pull off a close fierce, Shinkuu Hadouken combo off with Ryu in BOTH games?
All three components have a relationship.
BTW, the reason why the thunder rumbles in the background is because the
other guy (the main contributor) that came up with these components is James
Chen. He knows his stuff, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge.
Onaje Everett
js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
> In article <19990218204429...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, shau...@aol.com
(Shaunlar) wrote:
> >I'm feeling contrary today, so let me throw out some food for thought (keep
an
> >open mind, eh?):
>
> >
> >I hope you can see what I'm saying. I'll go on record to say that while SFA
> >requires a different set of skills to do well than Marvel games. But once
all
> >the tools are learned in either title (VCs any one?), the smarter player will
> >hold the advantage. And also for the record, rereading joemama's original
post
> >that started the thread, I agree with him - the games are fun! Mr. Everett,
> >you may get your source of fun from a different angle than him, but he speaks
> >no more for everybody as the people who say football is fun aren't attacking
> >the sport of hockey. SFA is flawed, but fun. Marvel games are flawed, but
> >fun. Virtua Fighter is flawed, but fun. Tekken is flawed, but incredible!
> >(sorry) And they each require their OWN components of skills (at varying
> >degrees) for success! Let's stick with the thing we all agree on - fighting
> >games are made to be fun!!!
>
> Of course, everyone can agree that "fun" is the most important, really the
> only factor in a game. However, the question is how do you talk about fun? To
> say that a game is good just because "it is fun" doesn't do much for anyone.
(snipped examples)
Good points, bruh. Very good.
> You may take the same view about SF. That in talk about positioning, timing,
> etc, we are using a metric for "quality" which is no longer related to the
> overall enjoyment of the game. However, there are certain aspects that are
> related to both quality and fun.
Yep.
> Risk vs reward is an obvious one. Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's
> say that in a Marvel game there were no combos, but each hit would do the
> damge of the combo that would follow it in the real Marvel game. For example,
> a Wolverine low short would do 25-60% damage, as would most launchers.
> Wouldn't this game seem kind of odd? Wouldn't you complain pretty quickly that
> a low roundhouse does 1/4 to 1/8 the damage of a low short or low fierce? It
> just doesn't make much sense, now does it? The risk vs reward is way off, and
> the damage seems just arbitrary and pointless.
Dang, I wish I had thought of this example. That's EXACTLY what happens. The
only reason why the damage varies is because of how deep you hit your opponent
and how much you know about your character's combos. Combo is the key,
remember?
> Now let us take Dudley's screw punch (the multi hit special) in SF3, but we
> will change it like this: Every time Dudley hits with it (I think, it has
> been a while), or it is blocked or parried, if the opponent has a
> suitable super and meter they automatically super him back. What the hell is
> that? Complaints would fly all over the place. What the hell is the point of
> an attack that makes you take much more damage? And yet, if you play someone
> who knows what they are doing, this is exactly what the move boils down to in
> real SF3. Once again, risk vs reward and overall arbitrariness of damage. WHen
> you get down to the basic elements, you see that something is lacking.
>
> What if every time you parried an attack you automatically did your super
> afterwards? But isn't this what happens? Risk vs reward. Tap forward and maybe
> take a jab vs free super.
Great example! This is exactly what happens in Three.
> When risk and reward are balanced, the game is higher "quality." I would say
> it is more fun, others may not agree, but we have some non-subjective items we
> can discuss. You may say "well, those are good examples, but I still just like
> these games." That's fine. Like what you want. But, we will feel free to
> criticize whether you like the game or not, based on more objective issues.
>
> I have focused on one particular aspect that I think is very important. WHen
> risk and reward are balanced every move has a use, no move is vastly over or
> underpowered, and the game seems more strictly defined and less frustratingly
> arbitrary in nature. This is just one aspect of quality. We can argue about
> the relative importance of mind games, controller skills, etc. But, the point
> is that these factors DO effect the quality of the game, and these are factors
> we can judge from game to game. "Fun" is something we can not judge at all, as
> a group at least.
Well said.
> So, feel free to play whatever you find enjoyable. However, if its only merit
> is that you happen to like it, don't bother defending it, just say it happens
> to work for you. Everyone has guilty pleasures that they can't justify. But
> *don't* claim that the game is good. Fun is subjective, good is objective (at
> least more objective relatively)
>
> So, in conclusion, Marvel games suck :)
But they're fun!!! :)
Seriously, though....great post. I couldn't have said it better.
Onaje Everett
js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
> [clip]
> >Applied Knowledge, Manual Dexterity, and Mind Games.
>
> Distancing ability is certainly important, and takes some manual dex and some
> knowledge, but is not wholly covered by one or both of these. Similarly,
> timing takes some knowledge and some dex, but you can have dexterity and
> knowledge and just not have any rhythm.
But the reason why it's called APPLIED knowledge is because it's based on what
you can do, not just what you know. It's like I said while James Chen and I
were coming up with this:
"If you know something, but don't (or can't) do it, you may as well not know
it."
Or, to make it hit home even better:
"Now I know!"
"And knowing is half the battle!"
"G.I. JOE!" :)
The other half is DOING.
> So, I would add Spatial Abilities and Timing to the list. Spatial abilities
> show up an awful lot in 3d games that allow dashing and sidestepping around.
> Just think of all the matches of VF or Tekken where the fighters dash in and
> out, trying to get each other to whiff. Timing obviously is hugely present in
> every game, most obviously in things like reversals and juggles but to some
> extent in nearly every action.
Read the above again. I think timing would most likely fall under manual
dexterity.
> Applied Knowlege would be knowing what range each of your attacks works best
> at. (among other things) Distancing would be effectively getting into and
> judging that range. If you don't see the distinction, then try this similar
> statement: Applied knowledge is knowing what motion produces a FB, Manual Dex
> is being able to do that motion quickly and consitently.
Dare I say it again, and I'm not trying to make it sound like you're not
getting it, it's not what you know that wins a fight....it's what you DO with
what you know. :)
Onaje Everett
"joemama" <jae...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Sfa3 and VS games are equally fun, now lets stop this VSnoskillbrainer bs.
THIS is what started it all. Remember this phrase....this pathetically false
phrase that has NO logical argument to stand on....well...the VSnoskillbrainer
bs part.
The first phrase can't be proven one way or the other. That's an individual
preference.
Onaje Everett
I...@I.COM (I) wrote:
> In article <7ai1rd$3a6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, o_ev...@hotmail.com says...
>
> [snip]
>
> Onaje's conjecture:
> Skill is defined as 1) applied knowledge, 2) manual dexterity, and 3) mind
games
>
> Excellent...I had no idea that you also seek wisdom by attempting to define
the
> higher-level aspects of fighting games along with me. Welcome.
You haven't been paying attention, my argumentative friend. :)
> And here I thought you only dwell on lower-level petty argumnts of combos and
whether
> or not a low forward beats an uppercut. Surprise..surprise...
Ha! I have depth! Shocked?! :)
> Did you come up with this definition by yourself?
I'm telling you now, so that you're warned. Don't mess with the wisdom of
James Chen. James Chen and myself came up with this about....three years
ago, regarding skill in a fighting game. It still holds true.
As for elaborating, you'll have to look it up on DejaNews. I've elaborated on
it several times last year...and I'm running out of typing energy. :)
Onaje Everett
(Lion-O mode on)
What's wrong, Snarf?
(Lion-O mode off)
> Just something I wanted to point out here Onaje:
>
> > Manual dexterity: So negligible in the Versus series that it's not funny.
The most challenging motion in the game is a 720 for a move that's hardly even
worth all the effort, the Ultimate Final Atomic Buster...and you can only tick
into it.
>
> Correction: The UFAB is a 360 + KK, not a 720. Even so, it's nothing
> more than a style move... -_-
Doh! Haha! Even LESS than I thought! Thanks, Ultima! :)
Wait...isn't there a 720 move though?
Onaje Everett
shau...@aol.com (Shaunlar) wrote:
> My main point that the list of skills that need to be mastered in all "good"
> fighters varies from game to game. The skills learned in soccer will not
> necessarily help you in football, although the goal is the same - get the ball
> from one end to the other. Both are good sports repsectively. I HATE soccer,
> but I don't toss it in the category of a bad sport - just one that I don't
like
> to play (and requires a different skill set).
I understand completely what you're saying. However, the problem comes when
those skills that are needed in order to win at a game basically mean using
tools at your disposal that are sorely unbalanced in the risk-reward
department.
> Marvel games aren't worse, just different.
That's not the point. The point is that they're MUCH easier to learn. An
Alpha scrub can easy walk up on someone that's a master on both Alpha and
Marvel and compete. Why? They don't have to risk as much on Marvel as they
do on Alpha in order to succeed. In Alpha, you have to play smart. In
Marvel, you can attack somewhat mindlessly and still win. I know. I've
played and done both.
> Some SF players don't prefer the VS skill set the game requires and will list
> valid reasons for feeling that way.
And you know this, man!
> Doesn't take any air out of the Marvel tire.
It does when you try to say that the Marvel series is just as skillful as the
Alpha series. The risk-reward imbalance is proof enough.
> It's the same tired arguement that SF "purists" give to every other non-SF
> title. Heck, even the pre-Alpha fogies lift their noses up at the A3! "Back
> in my day, we didn't need no airblockin'. If ya jumped in unprepared, ya jus'
> got whupped." Someone even suggested getting rid of combos all together.
Hey,
> I played that game when it was called Yie Ar Kung Fu!
One problem: I'm not an SF purist...I'm a "good game" purist. :)
> 1. Every game requires its own skill set to master. Zangief in Alpha is
played
> differently in MvC - both can be successful! If you don't like the skill set
> required of one title, it's o.k. No one is upset. There are a ton of people
> who don't like A3 for it's skill set. Application difficulty is a moot point
> and not required for the "legitimacy" of a fighting engine (see my VF / Tekken
> comments before). To them, it's just (gasp) boring! (although I don't think
> so).
Again, the point is not which one is more fun. The point is which one is
more SKILLFUL. You can't honestly contest that the Marvel series is easier
to learn than the Alpha series.
> 2. No one game will appeal to all players. What's the best song ever made?
If
> there aren't as many answers to this as there are Shoto comments in this
> newsgroup, I'd be shocked. I can appreciate and enjoy the quality of
> Bethoveen's 'Moonlight Sonata' and A Tribe Called Quest's 'Check the Rhyme'.
> They both hold an appeal that the other can not provide.
Skill is the point, not fun. We're evaluating skill here. Remember what
Joemama originally said in his post that prompted my response? He said to
'stop with the VSnobrainerskill bs.' False statement. If I see a false
statement that I know I can reveal as false, I jump at it.
> 3. Any, ANY game played at its highest levels of play can beat up the average
> scrub.
Not always true. How can that be true when the learning curve is different?
How can it be true in this case when the reward given for scrubby tactics is
so high that the learning curve is low? Logically, that can't stand.
'A masher's game' describes beginning, Average Joe accessability only.
> It has nothing to do with the top levels of play. The best MvC players have
to
> think and react just as instinctively when playing each other as, say two
> V-Akuma's or two X-Dhalsim's.
Heh...there's MUCH more going on in A3, though. Much much more. I'll leave
that for an A3 master to tell you.
What they're processing, applying, and
> performing are where the differences lie. And, yes, there's more to MvC life
> than 'dashing short' just as there's more to VF than PPPK.
While there is, where's the reward for exploring that life? There is none in
MvC, anyway. In VF, however, there's reward for going beyond PPPK. It's the
skewed risk-reward balance that causes this.
Viscant
> What they're processing, applying, and
>> performing are where the differences lie. And, yes, there's more to MvC
>life
>> than 'dashing short' just as there's more to VF than PPPK.
>
>While there is, where's the reward for exploring that life? There is none in
>MvC, anyway. In VF, however, there's reward for going beyond PPPK. It's the
>skewed risk-reward balance that causes this.
Not entirely true. Not all characters even can effectively do the dashing
ducking short that everyone talks about. That's pretty much the main thing I
tend to take offense to when people talk about MvC because it's not true for
all characters and isn't even a good idea in all cases. Due to increased throw
ranges in MvC, it is sometimes asking for it.
Take three characters that have lately come into discussion in the newsgroup,
Zangief, Venom and Red Venom. All pretty damn good characters, wouldn't you
say? Out of these three characters, only one could even perform an efficient
dashing ducking short (RV) and it is highly impractical that he try this
anyways. These three can also gobble anyone who tries the dashing ducking
short on them by throwing them. The risk/reward here is actually fairly
balanced. If I miss, I'm probably going to die if I have Red Venom; if I have
the others, I'm going to be severely wounded. If I get the throw off, I can do
a super combo with the Venom's or launch the Triple Option with Gief. Other
characters can try to throw out of dds, Wolverine, Hulk (Jin on occasion, but I
don't think I'd bother trying), but their risk/reward is skewed around 5-1 out
of their favor, so they don't really count.
I already wrote up on how all characters could avoid a dds, I'll repost if
anyone really doubts it, it works. DDS isn't completely a scrub tactic, but
it's not the best you've got in your arsenal, almost definitely.
--Viscant, The Icy Rose
"You have 206 bones in your body. Want another?!?!"
WhoaMoses
>> Marvel games aren't worse, just different.
>
>That's not the point. The point is that they're MUCH easier to learn.
An
>Alpha scrub can easy walk up on someone that's a master on both Alpha and
>Marvel and compete. Why? They don't have to risk as much on Marvel as they
>do on Alpha in order to succeed.
Um......who cares how easy a game is to learn? How long it takes to learn a
game is not determines how good it is......
>One problem: I'm not an SF purist...I'm a "good game" purist. :)
>
If that was true you wouldn't base your judgements on how long it takes to
learn a game, or how much skill it takes to master it.
>Skill is the point, not fun. We're evaluating skill here.
>Again, the point is not which one is more fun. The point is which one
is
>more SKILLFUL. You can't honestly contest that the Marvel series is
easier
>to learn than the Alpha series.
Um....once again....
I've debated this before on this board about a month ago, and got flamed for
it. But I'm sorry, I stand in my beliefs. Does anybody know what the word
"game" means? Well here's the official definition according to Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary (for all you guys in college): "game, n., activity
engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY." So that means that a "game" is
BETTER if it's more fun to play, right? RIGHT! That's the whole purpose of a
game! I dunno where this whole idea of a game being better cuz it takes more
skill to play came from. Games are better if they are more fun to
play......and I'm sorry for not being a "hardcore" SFer but MvsC is just more
fun to play. It brings people, who are both good and bad at the game, together.
And it's as fair as any other Capcom game: if you know what you're doing, no
scrub will ever defeat you. So stop the whining about the learning curve being
so small, okay? That's irrelevant. I admit that A3 takes more skill to learn
and to play, but so what? The game isn't as fun as MvsC. There isn't ever as
much competition, and the game just gets boring after a while.
Sure u can argue that certain characters (Chun-Li, Strider, Wolverine, etc.)
dominate the game, but the same goes for any fighting game (maybe excluding
KOF97 which was pretty balanced overall if u knew how to play it). If you get
bored with playing as the dominant characters, then get some guts and pick Jin
or Morrigan or someone else.....after all, it would take more SKILL to win with
them, right? And since u love skill so much......
Now I made you look stupid didn't I? That's okay, I'm sure 500 guys who just
want to "go along with the crowd" and conform to popular belief will flame me
for this post, just so they look good.
O well. That's the way the world works.
By the way, I like the religion related quote.
kayin/ka khiong kwok
I wrote in message ...
>In article <7ai1rd$3a6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, o_ev...@hotmail.com says...
>
>[snip]
>
>Onaje's conjecture:
>Skill is defined as 1) applied knowledge, 2) manual dexterity, and 3) mind
games
>
>Excellent...I had no idea that you also seek wisdom by attempting to define
the
>higher-level aspects of fighting games along with me. Welcome.
Errr..... does dumb luck ever figure into this? :')
falco...@my-dejanews.com
Onaje Everett (FreshOJ) <o_ev...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Manual dexterity: So negligible in the Versus series that it's not funny.
> The most challenging motion in the game is a 720 for a move that's hardly even
> worth all the effort, the Ultimate Final Atomic Buster...and you can only tick
> into it.
> >
> > Correction: The UFAB is a 360 + KK, not a 720. Even so, it's nothing
> > more than a style move... -_-
>
> Doh! Haha! Even LESS than I thought! Thanks, Ultima! :)
>
> Wait...isn't there a 720 move though?
Nope, no 720s in the VS games.
An interesting thing to note here is that all moves that have Alpha motions
are pretty much style moves. There are three kinds I know of:
1. Raging Demon style motions (for...uh...level 3 Raging Demon style moves).
2. Double fireball motion (the only one is Dan's Super Taunt! Dan's Super
Taunt takes more skill to do than most supers in the VS series!)
3. Charge back, forward, back, forward (Shadow type level 3 supers)
So, are they saying that being skilled at Alpha is only good for style points?
FalconPain
Overall annoying "Dan and the Third Row" player
"Oops, I Haru Ichibaned the wrong way." - Myself, while playing MSF
Onaje Everett
whoa...@aol.com (WhoaMoses) wrote:
> >
> >> Marvel games aren't worse, just different.
> >
> >That's not the point. The point is that they're MUCH easier to learn.
> An
> >Alpha scrub can easy walk up on someone that's a master on both Alpha and
> >Marvel and compete. Why? They don't have to risk as much on Marvel as they
> >do on Alpha in order to succeed.
>
> Um......who cares how easy a game is to learn? How long it takes to learn a
> game is not determines how good it is......
Bruh...the process goes like this: Find out what flavor the Kool-Aid
is...THEN dip in it.
You don't know what I'm referring to, so why are you responding?
For future reference: Joemama tried to pass off a statement that the thought
that the Versus series is an easy series to learn was "bs". Go back and read
his one-liner. I agree that fun is what YOU make it to be, but you can't
expect me to sit back here and let something as hideously wrong as that above
statement go by without pointing out every fact that contradicts it.
> >One problem: I'm not an SF purist...I'm a "good game" purist. :)
> >
>
> If that was true you wouldn't base your judgements on how long it takes to
> learn a game, or how much skill it takes to master it.
This is where you're dead wrong. You see, the skill involved has a DIRECT
correlation to how the game plays. If it's easy, I'm going to get bored with
it, like I did with MSF and MvC. If it offers a challenge and actually
requires me to think, I'm going to keep on playing it, like I do with HF,
Super, ST, DS, and Alpha 3. For ME, I can't play a game that's easy unless
the cool factor is astronomically high....like it is with Strider. :)
That makes sense, doesn't it? Besides, it's like I've been saying for a very
long time on this newsgroup: Don't you like it when you do things that
totally shock yourself? When you push yourself to the limit, those things
happen!
> >Skill is the point, not fun. We're evaluating skill here.
>
> >Again, the point is not which one is more fun. The point is which one
> is
> >more SKILLFUL. You can't honestly contest that the Marvel series is
> easier
> >to learn than the Alpha series.
>
> Um....once again....
> I've debated this before on this board about a month ago, and got flamed for
> it. But I'm sorry, I stand in my beliefs. Does anybody know what the word
> "game" means? Well here's the official definition according to Webster's
> Collegiate Dictionary (for all you guys in college): "game, n., activity
> engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY." So that means that a "game" is
> BETTER if it's more fun to play, right? RIGHT! That's the whole purpose of a
> game! I dunno where this whole idea of a game being better cuz it takes more
> skill to play came from. Games are better if they are more fun to
> play......and I'm sorry for not being a "hardcore" SFer but MvsC is just more
> fun to play. It brings people, who are both good and bad at the game,
together.
If we we're talking about fun factor, this would be relevant...but we aren't,
so it isn't.
It would've done you a lot of good to have been reading everything that was
said up to this point, rather than jumping into the middle of it. You don't
know what's going on.
> And it's as fair as any other Capcom game: if you know what you're doing, no
> scrub will ever defeat you. So stop the whining about the learning curve being
> so small, okay? That's irrelevant.
It's totally relevant when people try to say that the Marvel series takes as
much skill to play as the Alpha series...for one example.
And, for the record, it's not whining when you dissect all of the bad things
from a game....it's called critiquing. Whenever I list all of the negative
points of a game, I do so to either disprove the hasty statements of others or
suggest ways of improving it. My future is in game design...so let's just say
that I'm practicing. :)
And PLEASE remember.....I play this series, too.
> I admit that A3 takes more skill to learn and to play, but so what?
THANK YOU! My point has been proven. Enough said. :)
> The game isn't as fun as MvsC.
This is where you and Joemama fit in the same category. It's YOUR OPINION
that the game is fun. Not everyone feels that way. Qualify your statements
with neat little phrases like "In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)". Thank you.
> There isn't ever as much competition, and the game just gets boring after a
> while.
Let's examine that, shall we? Isn't it funny how less people either CAN play
or WILL play SFA3 over MvC? There ARE reasons for this! Wouldn't you say
that it's the overall less-skillful playing neccessary in MvC that keeps
people (especially newbies and scrubs) coming back for more? Heck, you mean
I don't have to think that much to compete on an average level? Yeah..I'll
play more! :P
The average person is way too satisfied with being average. The average
player often doesn't realize that they're not good until someone good comes
along, either. They'd rather be good in their own eyes than really test
themselves to see if they're good.
That is my main gripe with the Versus series, anyway. I still have no problem
with MSH...'cause that game still requires a bit of skill to play.
(snip overpowered character spiel)
Did I mention Chun, Hiryu (Strider is what he DOES, not his name), or any
other supposedly overpowered character? No. I didn't. Stick to what I say.
Dont' put words in my mouth.
> Now I made you look stupid didn't I?
Your arrogance is to laugh. Ha! :) Just like them Versus "masters" (who are
nothing more than arrogant scrubs) that think they're good at something
because they can get a fluke light attack in and combo me to death. Chance
only gets you so far. In the end, skill still reigns supreme. Yes, I said
that. My concern is not me losing. My concern is how flabby the Versus
series makes players when it comes to other fighting games. If you ever try
playing nothing but a Versus game for a year and then finally getting your
hands on any other game, you'll notice the difference. I know I sure did.
> That's okay, I'm sure 500 guys who just want to "go along with the crowd" and
> conform to popular belief will flame me for this post, just so they look good.
No, they'll flame you because you're wrong...AND off-base.
Dont' worry about it, though.....'cause I went through the exact same thing
as a newbie. Oh yes yes! I've been through the fire....but now I'm pure
gold. :)
It'll take this and other flames for us to be able to show you that you really
DON'T know as much as you think you do. As long as you can take it, keep
bringing it. I live to teach.
> By the way, I like the religion related quote.
Well....y'know....all I can say is.....it's true.
Onaje Everett
o_ev...@hotmail.com
"I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me."
-Philippians 4:13
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Shaunlar
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Onaje's conjecture:
>> Skill is defined as 1) applied knowledge, 2) manual dexterity, and 3) mind
>games
>>
>> Excellent...I had no idea that you also seek wisdom by attempting to define
>the
>> higher-level aspects of fighting games along with me. Welcome.
>
>
>> And here I thought you only dwell on lower-level petty argumnts of combos
>and
>whether
>> or not a low forward beats an uppercut. Surprise..surprise...
>
>Ha! I have depth! Shocked?! :)
>
>> Did you come up with this definition by yourself?
>
>I'm telling you now, so that you're warned. Don't mess with the wisdom of
>James Chen. James Chen and myself came up with this about....three years
>ago, regarding skill in a fighting game. It still holds true.
Hey, when I shot this conjecture down in another post, you didn't address it.
I have to assume you missed it, but here's the DejaNews snippet:
I'm feeling contrary today, so let me throw out some food for thought (keep an
open mind, eh?):
Onaje Everett wrote extensively about
"The Three Components of Skill" (thunder rumbles in the background...). The way
that this is presented is as if it were equivalent to the laws of physics,
carved in stone for any "real" fighting game to adhere to for respect in its
system. I beg to differ. While true, in SF you can need to be skilled at
these components to make any real progress (yeah EX2!), your error comes when
you suggest that the absence of one or more of them puts a game in the
"mindless" category. My reasons why it ain't so.
If you know how to use Venn diagrams, drawing three circles now (one for each
component) may help in understanding the logic of what I present. The three
circles should be put in an overlapping, triangular arrangement. Each circle
intersects with the other two once, while the center represents the
intersection of all three. Label each circle with one of your components:
Applied Knowledge, Manual Dexterity, and Mind Games.
game, for high level success.
I'm sure even a Time Killer's expert could dominate an arcade after enough
practice and learning. Some games just aren't worth learning. If Valle put in
SFA practice time into Marvel before he played you, are you saying that it
would be impossible for him to excel because of the game's lower "skill"
ceiling? Hmmm. Jordan left basketball for baseball. Just because he didn't
excel has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the national pastime.
Also, since Tekken players must account for 3D positioning, side and rear
options, okizeme (anti-rise strategies), countering counters (chickens), WAY
more moves and combos to remember, as well an abundance of mid-level hits, is
SF any less of a game in comparison (having "less" knowledge to apply)? Of
course not.
Manual Dexterity, while very important in game balance, is far less important
than you describe it. The complexity of some titles may discourage casual
players, which is probably why Tekken rakes in more dough - the accessability
of the game in the player's early stages encourages him to increase his Applied
Knowledge base. What's wrong with that?
Mind Games. This by far is the key to the success of a good fighting engine.
Options, options, options. No need for debate here. Notice why this is so
important though - it's the only one of the three that involves a human
opponent (the source of fun in fighters). The single, universal skill worth
hanging on to in your Trilogy of Components is that of Mind Games. And even
that is heavily used, by the "experts" in MvC!
Shauno!
n00body
Shaunlar wrote in message <19990219201559...@ng119.aol.com>...
>>> Did you come up with this definition by yourself?
>>
>>I'm telling you now, so that you're warned. Don't mess with the wisdom of
>>James Chen. James Chen and myself came up with this about....three years
>>ago, regarding skill in a fighting game. It still holds true.
>
>
>Hey, when I shot this conjecture down in another post, you didn't address
it.
>I have to assume you missed it, but here's the DejaNews snippet:
<SNORK>
I probably shouldn't get into this, but Onaje did say something about you
missing his point although you made a good argument.
Onaje Everett
shau...@aol.com (Shaunlar) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <7ai1rd$3a6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, o_ev...@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >James Chen. James Chen and myself came up with this about....three years
> >ago, regarding skill in a fighting game. It still holds true.
>
> Hey, when I shot this conjecture down in another post, you didn't address it.
> I have to assume you missed it, but here's the DejaNews snippet:
(snip)
You need to use DejaNews to search for my response, then....'cause I
responded. You probably missed it....or replied to soon.
kayin/ka khiong kwok
let's just keep it at that. The answer is YES. It was more or less aimed at
kiddies, although if I had kids (and my version of the dancing baby is
starting to bug me) I wouldn't let them play video games. There's a lot
better things that a kid could do.
robo...@my-dejanews.com
whoa...@aol.com (WhoaMoses) wrote:
> >
> >> Marvel games aren't worse, just different.
> >
> >That's not the point. The point is that they're MUCH easier to learn.
> An
> >Alpha scrub can easy walk up on someone that's a master on both Alpha and
> >Marvel and compete. Why? They don't have to risk as much on Marvel as they
> >do on Alpha in order to succeed.
>
> Um......who cares how easy a game is to learn? How long it takes to learn a
> game is not determines how good it is......
The learning curve shows how deep a game is. ST, a great game, had a huge
learning curve, people are still learning things about it even to this day.
e.g. I thought, like everyone else, that Vega killed Zangief for free (don't
start). I heard about the "walk forward a little bit, c.strong" against the
air dive trick, and I have to agree, that match up is like 6-4, now, hardly a
"for free" match. The game is like, what, 5 or 6 yrs old? These little
nuances that we're finding adds another element to the game, makes people
think, re-evaluate, adds more dimensions. VS games are all played out. Even
if there are new things to discover, like the Spidey/Red Venom handcuff move,
so what? -- the basic tactics of the game, which Onaje described in good
detail, make everything else moot b/c nothing new has been demonstrated to
beat those basic, boring strategies (e.g. typical Wolverine play,
combo-chain-into-super). The fact of the matter is that the VS learning
curves are so low that people are "forced" into equal skill levels, e.g.
people who can 2-in-1 super in VS, but can't in regular SF, find themselves
in the same class of people who can when they play VS games. This creates an
_illusion of competition_, where I hypothesize that VS-lovers find the game
"fun". In truth, however, if not for the give-you-time-to-think-chains
(among other faults of the game), the game will not be as competitive, and
ergo, not as fun. Among other things I find that VS-lovers like are: 1) big
numbers; 2) combo inflation; 3) jumping around like idiots; 4) connecting
supers onto everything; 5) speed. However, this list is very much conjecture
and not in the least exhaustive.
> >One problem: I'm not an SF purist...I'm a "good game" purist. :)
> >
>
> If that was true you wouldn't base your judgements on how long it takes to
> learn a game, or how much skill it takes to master it.
> >Skill is the point, not fun. We're evaluating skill here.
>
> >Again, the point is not which one is more fun. The point is which one
> is
> >more SKILLFUL.
"Fun" is subjective, in upon itself. Therefore, there needs to be some sort
of qualifier(s). Skill is a perfect example of a qualifier. If I'm playing
ST and I land Ryu's 10-hitter, I'm happy and having fun. Why? B/c I
connected a very hard to hit/use combo. It's like personal fullfillment. I
have reached the next level of manual dexterity, timing, and mind games.
W/out any qualifiers, anyone can find anything fun. Is pig-fucking fun? No,
I would say, w/the implicit qualifier that we are talking about fun for
society. W/out that qualifier, it might be the most fun thing to a person,
and thus subjective. There is no use arguing about subjective qualities.
You can't honestly contest that the Marvel series is
> easier
> >to learn than the Alpha series.
>
> Um....once again....
> I've debated this before on this board about a month ago, and got flamed for
> it. But I'm sorry, I stand in my beliefs. Does anybody know what the word
> "game" means? Well here's the official definition according to Webster's
> Collegiate Dictionary (for all you guys in college): "game, n., activity
> engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY." So that means that a "game" is
> BETTER if it's more fun to play, right? RIGHT! That's the whole purpose of a
> game! I dunno where this whole idea of a game being better cuz it takes more
> skill to play came from. Games are better if they are more fun to
> play......and I'm sorry for not being a "hardcore" SFer but MvsC is just more
> fun to play. It brings people, who are both good and bad at the game,
together.
See supra above my comments on the "illusion of competition".
> And it's as fair as any other Capcom game: if you know what you're doing, no
> scrub will ever defeat you. So stop the whining about the learning curve being
> so small, okay? That's irrelevant. I admit that A3 takes more skill to learn
> and to play, but so what? The game isn't as fun as MvsC. There isn't ever as
> much competition, and the game just gets boring after a while.
See supra above my comments on the "illusion of competition."
[snip]
Dale
Kid Vid
>>> Skill is defined as 1) applied knowledge, 2) manual dexterity, and 3)
mind games
>Onaje Everett wrote extensively about
>"The Three Components of Skill" (thunder rumbles in the background...). The
way
>that this is presented is as if it were equivalent to the laws of physics,
>carved in stone for any "real" fighting game to adhere to for respect in
its
>system. I beg to differ. While true, in SF you can need to be skilled at
>these components to make any real progress (yeah EX2!), your error comes
when
>you suggest that the absence of one or more of them puts a game in the
>"mindless" category. My reasons why it ain't so.
>SFA will go in the center, because it requires "great skill" in all three
>components, ergo it rises above the depths of masherdom to the realm of
true
>fighters. Marvel games, according to you, would go in the space of Applied
>Knowledge and (to a lesser extent) Mind Games. The fact that its missing
the
>Manual Dexterity component (to a greater extent than SFA) is one of the
things
>for which you shoot it down. With me so far?
Marvel games...I'm assuming Marvel Super heroes plus theVS games? If so,
then I'm pretty sure Manual Dexterity is required for each of
those...especially since Akuma is my guy and doing the demon isn't for
everyone.
> < why VF1 & Tekken are games of skill snipped>
Didn't catch the first part...did he call VF & Tekken mindless games? If
so, I'll disagree with that...Tekken (well #3 at least) is the bomb.
>My point is that your focus is all wrong. What works in one game is not
What do you mean "what works"? What makes a game popular? Or what makes it
a classic fighting game?
>necessarily so in others. Skill in Applied Knowledge is required in every
>game, for high level success.
>I'm sure even a Time Killer's expert could dominate an arcade after enough
>practice and learning. Some games just aren't worth learning. If Valle
put in
>SFA practice time into Marvel before he played you, are you saying that it
>would be impossible for him to excel because of the game's lower "skill"
>ceiling? Hmmm. Jordan left basketball for baseball. Just because he
didn't
>excel has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the national pastime.
Didn't understand that question, nor what the comment after it had to do
with the subject at hand. So is a "skill ceiling" the culmination of those
3 points that can be generated by a game? Like MvC, it requires less
dexterity than MvS, so it has a smaller skill ceiling? If so, then it
would be easier for someone to reach the same "skill ceiling" if the game's
ceiling is low. Thus, a true master at the game cannot shine, for there are
dozens on his level in his area.
I don't see where you say anything against Applied Knowledge. AK had
nothing to do with MJ's failure as a baseball player. It was more along the
lines of Manual Dexterity. ;)
>Also, since Tekken players must account for 3D positioning, side and rear
>options, okizeme (anti-rise strategies), countering counters (chickens),
WAY
>more moves and combos to remember, as well an abundance of mid-level hits,
is
>SF any less of a game in comparison (having "less" knowledge to apply)? Of
>course not.
I agree Tekken is a game of skill, with a skill ceiling of that possibly
higher than SF. The major difference coming in the "Applied knowledge"
area. It's just that the skill floor is so much raised (by the "manual
dexterity" area) than at SF that it gives the apppearance of scrubbiness
when someone wins with someone like Eddy.
>Manual Dexterity, while very important in game balance, is far less
important
>than you describe it. The complexity of some titles may discourage casual
>players, which is probably why Tekken rakes in more dough - the
accessability
>of the game in the player's early stages encourages him to increase his
Applied
>Knowledge base. What's wrong with that?
Like I said, that raises the skill floor...when you just come into a game.
But in Tekken's case, luckily the skill ceiling is waay up there, although
it's about a 50% to 75% chance a button smasher can take damage off an
expert in Tekken whereas that WON'T happen in SF for the skill floor is so
far away from the ceiling.
>Mind Games. This by far is the key to the success of a good fighting
engine.
>Options, options, options. No need for debate here. Notice why this is so
>important though - it's the only one of the three that involves a human
>opponent (the source of fun in fighters). The single, universal skill
worth
>hanging on to in your Trilogy of Components is that of Mind Games. And
even
>that is heavily used, by the "experts" in MvC!
You're not saying just keep Mind Games are you? Otherwise all the fighting
games in the future would become Rock, Paper, Scissors!
Hey, I like all the VS, it's just the skill ceiling may not be as high as on
some other games. But I feel the difference is far enough from the floor
that it provides a decent spread among players in the area. The problem
comes in when the skill ceiling is close to or even ON the skill floor.
Let's see...a game that falls into this area...Time Killers? Martial
Champions? I'm not saying they went the way of the dinosaur because of
this, but they are examples of games with low skill ceilings. My thoughts
are that each of those three items are valid when determining the skill
needed for a game. 1.) knowing it's innards, 2) knowing how to work the
stick, and 3) knowing your opponent... That's how I dominate my competition.
I present them with a patern (using #1 and #2), and see how they adapt.
Once they adapt, I adapt. (#3). My two favorite lines I like to hear when
I enter a new arcade are "I can figure you out," and "I've never been beaten
like THAT before" when it comes from the local champion.
I just can't wait for Rock Paper Scissors 2 comes out! I hear the secret
character is blowtorch!!!
>
>Shauno!
"Fell how weak you truly are!" -Kid Vid
Viscant
>
>>Manual Dexterity component (to a greater extent than SFA) is one of the
>things
>>for which you shoot it down. With me so far?
>
>
>Marvel games...I'm assuming Marvel Super heroes plus theVS games? If so,
>then I'm pretty sure Manual Dexterity is required for each of
>those...especially since Akuma is my guy and doing the demon isn't for
>everyone.
>
Hm. Come on dude, you say you like Tekken. The demon should be *EASY* for
you. It's just button pushing! =p But seriously, in Marvel there are no
moves as difficult as 720s, Somersault Justice moves or even any normal super
motion. The demon is maybe the hardest motion in the entire marvel series
(maybe the Eternal Slumber is a tad more awkward), but it's just button
pressing. Even I, a marvel lover, do not contest that manual dexterity is
considerably less important in Marvel.
>>necessarily so in others. Skill in Applied Knowledge is required in every
>>game, for high level success.
>>I'm sure even a Time Killer's expert could dominate an arcade after enough
>>practice and learning. Some games just aren't worth learning. If Valle
>put in
>>SFA practice time into Marvel before he played you, are you saying that it
>>would be impossible for him to excel because of the game's lower "skill"
>>ceiling? Hmmm. Jordan left basketball for baseball. Just because he
>didn't
>>excel has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the national pastime.
>
>
>Didn't understand that question, nor what the comment after it had to do
>with the subject at hand. So is a "skill ceiling" the culmination of those
>3 points that can be generated by a game? Like MvC, it requires less
>dexterity than MvS, so it has a smaller skill ceiling? If so, then it
>would be easier for someone to reach the same "skill ceiling" if the game's
>ceiling is low. Thus, a true master at the game cannot shine, for there are
>dozens on his level in his area.
>
Not entirely true. Basically, the way I see the Marvel skill ceiling is this
way: Basically, from the floor to what people *SUPPOSE* the ceiling to be is
not very high at all. I compare this type of learning curve to a Tekken game.
Not very hard to get to an intermediate-upper level, but still you aren't there
yet. Not by a long shot. Still, I myself am not quite sure where the Marvel
ceiling is, but I know that it has yet to be reached. It may be fairly close,
but I'm appalled at even where well respected posters have put the Marvel
ceiling. It is no where near as high as Alpha, but it nowhere's near as low as
some have put it.
>
>>Mind Games. This by far is the key to the success of a good fighting
>engine.
>>Options, options, options. No need for debate here. Notice why this is so
>>important though - it's the only one of the three that involves a human
>>opponent (the source of fun in fighters). The single, universal skill
>worth
>>hanging on to in your Trilogy of Components is that of Mind Games. And
>even
>>that is heavily used, by the "experts" in MvC!
>
>
>You're not saying just keep Mind Games are you? Otherwise all the fighting
>games in the future would become Rock, Paper, Scissors!
Mind games are by far the most important part of video gaming to me anyways.
Think about it, manual dexterity can be virtually perfected; when two masters
play each other, faster hands doesn't seem to matter too much. Applied
knowledge shouldn't matter in a great duel, as both players should know
everything practical about the matchup and thereby would know how to exploit it
through experience and common sense. I see those two as important elements of
skill, but mainly checkpoints on the way to true mastery. Only when one can
successfully learn to manipulate the opponent almost as skillfully as one
manipulates his own character will one truly become a master. =)
I am a primary supporter of of the Marvel games, but by the criterion here,
they do not match up. I think maybe Marvel's manual dexterity tries to come
from the speed that is necessary to detect some of the fairly quick attacks.
D.D.Ss always get in? Well, they don't have to. It doesn't stack up
quantitatively, but it takes a different kind of manual dexterity to deal with
the speed, and many SF players never chose to learn or were never able to learn
to deal with this aspect of the game.
--Viscant, The Icy Rose
"Put him on ice..."
JB Gainz
>ceiling is, but I know that it has yet to be reached. It may be fairly
>close,
>but I'm appalled at even where well respected posters have put the Marvel
>ceiling. It is no where near as high as Alpha, but it nowhere's near as low
>as
>some have put it.
>
Actually, I think SF games have become so easy to learn that anyone who knows
fireball motions can become average players in a short period of time. This is
just my opinion, so I could be wrong. I have found in my experience that..
Marvel's average players learning curve is higher than SFs, because not
everyone learned scrubby chain combos. SF players for instance have no need
for them.. with the exclusion of V-ism. But when people got down the finger
dexterity to perform chains the difference between average player and master is
hard to differentiate. SF is the other way around.. almost anyone can play SF,
but to be a true master you have to know way more than the average guy.. I have
yet to become a master of the alpha series, but am pretty good at SF2 and SF3.
I think Tekken has the biggest difference between master and average Tekken
player, because your average Tekken player does not no much about the game.
Counters, Chickening, and Chicken glitches are just not known terms to the
average Tekken player, but masters know them well. Because mastering Tekken
takes like months of dedication, not many people actually reach Tekken master.
I myself have yet to meet someone who knows as much as me, but I know there are
better Tekken players out there.
Kid Vid
>>Marvel games...I'm assuming Marvel Super heroes plus theVS games? If so,
>>then I'm pretty sure Manual Dexterity is required for each of
>>those...especially since Akuma is my guy and doing the demon isn't for
>>everyone.
>>
>
for
>you. It's just button pushing! =p But seriously, in Marvel there are no
>moves as difficult as 720s, Somersault Justice moves or even any normal
super
>motion. The demon is maybe the hardest motion in the entire marvel series
>(maybe the Eternal Slumber is a tad more awkward), but it's just button
>pressing. Even I, a marvel lover, do not contest that manual dexterity is
>considerably less important in Marvel.
You forget that guys like us have already mastered the motions inherent in
SF, so we enter new SF games not exactly on the "Dexterity floor". But
let's see how easily the demon is done in a combo with someone new to the
game.
>>Didn't understand that question, nor what the comment after it had to do
>>with the subject at hand. So is a "skill ceiling" the culmination of
those
>>3 points that can be generated by a game? Like MvC, it requires less
>>dexterity than MvS, so it has a smaller skill ceiling? If so, then it
>>would be easier for someone to reach the same "skill ceiling" if the
game's
>>ceiling is low. Thus, a true master at the game cannot shine, for there
are
>>dozens on his level in his area.
>>
>
>Not entirely true. Basically, the way I see the Marvel skill ceiling is
this
>way: Basically, from the floor to what people *SUPPOSE* the ceiling to be
is
>not very high at all. I compare this type of learning curve to a Tekken
game.
>Not very hard to get to an intermediate-upper level, but still you aren't
there
>yet. Not by a long shot. Still, I myself am not quite sure where the
Marvel
>ceiling is, but I know that it has yet to be reached. It may be fairly
close,
>but I'm appalled at even where well respected posters have put the Marvel
>ceiling. It is no where near as high as Alpha, but it nowhere's near as
low as
>some have put it.
See, the problem with later VS games is that using the 3 categories, all of
us come into the next game on such a high skill, so without realizing it, we
only have a little ways to go to reach the ceiling. This is probably why
most people put it as a low ceiling, for they are alreay so high up. The
only thing missing is Applied Knowledge, which can be gained by the interet
by a quick faq. Even though I came in not on the skill floor, I still like
the VS games. Question is...would you want to come in on the skill floor?
>>You're not saying just keep Mind Games are you? Otherwise all the
fighting
>>games in the future would become Rock, Paper, Scissors!
>
>Mind games are by far the most important part of video gaming to me
anyways.
>Think about it, manual dexterity can be virtually perfected; when two
masters
>play each other, faster hands doesn't seem to matter too much. Applied
>knowledge shouldn't matter in a great duel, as both players should know
>everything practical about the matchup and thereby would know how to
exploit it
>through experience and common sense. I see those two as important elements
of
>skill, but mainly checkpoints on the way to true mastery. Only when one
can
>successfully learn to manipulate the opponent almost as skillfully as one
>manipulates his own character will one truly become a master. =)
Oh, I agree that Mind games are THE most important aspect in determining
skill. Hard to say which others were next. I remember when I first tried
Soul Calibur, there were these two guys fighting each other...They looked
like they pretty well knew the game. I jumped in and picked Kilik. By
mainly dodging, hitting, and throwing, I went 5-0. How did I do this?
Largest % due to mind games...but I'd hafta say that the next in line was
manual dexterity...I think that being able to pull off something is more
important than knowing how to pull off something.
Of course I wasn't a master at Calibur the first time I played it, but I
knew how to win. Now months later, I've aquired some knowledge concerning
the game, and I have the largest win streak on the machine along with the
fastest time. I've scared off all the usual competiton. When all three
come together, it's a wicked thing to see.
>I am a primary supporter of of the Marvel games, but by the criterion here,
>they do not match up. I think maybe Marvel's manual dexterity tries to
come
>from the speed that is necessary to detect some of the fairly quick
attacks.
>D.D.Ss always get in? Well, they don't have to. It doesn't stack up
>quantitatively, but it takes a different kind of manual dexterity to deal
with
>the speed, and many SF players never chose to learn or were never able to
learn
>to deal with this aspect of the game.
So is the question "Is skill required in VS games"? I of course say yes,
but as we are SF players from the old school, we jump into them at a higher
level than most.
dar...@eisa.net.au
>Sure u can argue that certain characters (Chun-Li, Strider, Wolverine, etc.)
>dominate the game, but the same goes for any fighting game (maybe excluding
>KOF97 which was pretty balanced overall if u knew how to play it). If you get
>bored with playing as the dominant characters, then get some guts and pick Jin
>or Morrigan or someone else.....after all, it would take more SKILL to win with
>them, right? And since u love skill so much......
Just to jump in on this point, not really all that relevant to this
thread, but if you say that Kof97 is a balanced game in terms of
characters, you have no idea what you're talking about. Orochi
Yashiro, Iori, Leona, 'Infinite' Terry and Joe, 'Insane priority,
tickmaster' Benimaru, any of these ring a bell? There are more, but
compare any of these to Yuri for example and tell me about balanced
again.
>Now I made you look stupid didn't I? That's okay, I'm sure 500 guys who just
>want to "go along with the crowd" and conform to popular belief will flame me
>for this post, just so they look good.
>
>O well. That's the way the world works.
>
>By the way, I like the religion related quote.
Luche