The Gradual Simplification of Fighting Games

[M2Dave]

Sonic Fox opened a can of worms a couple of days ago when they tweeted that Guilty Gear Strive feels "limited", alluding to initial concerns that the game had been simplified in contrast to previous Guilty Gear games that were more demanding to play. I cannot opine on the nuances because I never played Guilty Gear to make any educated comparisons, but the reality is that developers have been gradually simplifying fighting games since the 1990s in order to attract a wider audience and expand sales. To play devil's advocate, it is possible to remove depth from certain gameplay elements and implement depth to certain others. For example, developers simplified throw escapes and okizeme options in Tekken 7, yet they introduced new layers of depth with rage arts, rage drives, armor moves, wall bounces, etc.

The question is, or questions rather, which audience do developers appease? The casual gamers who are responsible for the vast majority of the sales? Or the competitive players who are the most vocal on social media? Or perhaps both? But is appeasing both even feasible? How does this conversation correlate to Mortal Kombat 11 and the new project? Or is this conversation senseless in the first place because the market makes these decisions for developers?

Tom and I will discuss these topics and more on a podcast. Please let us know what you think. We want to consider as many diverse opinions as possible.

 

[xWildx]

Fighting games have, and always will be, a niche genre. The issue here is corporate greed (which is fair, all developers and publishers want to make money), and the insistence of making games easier to pick and play for the casual audience. Funny thing is, if the game is pretty/flashy enough, the casual audience is going to put out the cash for it regardless.

That being said, I also feel like a lot of it has to do with player retention and the fact that, compared to older titles, people as a whole are simply busier in life now than they were before. People don’t have as much time to put hours upon hours into a game anymore, just to be competitive (unless that’s their job, such as pro players or children). Developers realize this and have adapted to such, simplifying games (and this can be seen across multiple genres) so that the guy who works a full time job, gets off then goes out Ubering for a few hours, can finally get home, play for an hour or two, and feel competitive.

And I get it, but I do feel like developers need to find a better balance of casual/competitive gameplay. I feel like MK11 (and most recent FG titles) have simply been an experiment. We may have damn near hit the wall of simplicity, and may see deeper games in the future as a result. One can hope, anyway.

 

[Marlow]

My questions when this topic comes up:

1. How do you actually define or quantify depth?

2. Is gradually simplifying fighting games something that is actually happening on a grand scale, or is it just something that developers say to try and make their game sound more newbie approachable, and critics of the game use to criticize the game?

the reality is that developers have been gradually simplifying fighting games since the 1990s

I'm not doubting that this could be true, but I think there should be some kind of support for a statement like this instead of just throwing it out as accepted fact. Maybe it's too much work/time for the discussion you're looking to have, but I think specifically explaining what you mean by depth and then showing examples supporting your thesis that fighting games are being made with less depth would be a worthwhile thing to talk about. Otherwise I feel a discussion on a topic like this ends up feeling too vague or subjective to have any real value, outside of simple entertainment value.

 

[Juggs]

The funny thing is, NRS seemed to do the exact opposite with MK11. The competitive/tournament mode had far more limitations than the casual ones. On the surface that makes sense, considering the more limited a game is the easier it is to balance. But the problem is competitive players don’t want to be limited anymore than casual players do. You shouldn’t have to cut off access to half of your game in order to make it “competitive”. The problem is NRS trying to essentially make the game competitive for us. Again, on the surface that makes sense, but it never seems to end up working out.

I think they should instead make every character be ridiculous, with tons of options and depth, but also make the characters able to be effective on the basic level so casuals can enjoy the game as well. NRS thinks competitive players want a controlled game, when what a lot of us really want is a chaotic game that WE can control.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Wrenchfarm]

I think it's not always easy to tell what is "dumbed down" and what is smart design. I remember when people said SF3 was dumbed down because parries killed the fireball game. They couldn't even see all the cool nuances of the parry system because they were too focused on what they used to use.

I don't know, it's a tricky topic. There are definitely examples of dumbed down mechanics you can point to. Some maybe negative (FBs in MK11, X-factor in MvC3, etc) but there are also others I think are positive but I'm sure have their detractors.

The elimination of 1-frame links in SFV is an example I always think of. I think that is a good change because 1-frame execution is too difficult for the vast majority of people to do even semi-reliably. It is a big turn off to know that the higher levels of play will almost certainly be out of reach because of a physical constraint. Of course people who worked and worked and worked to develop that exacting muscle memory to make 1-frame links consistently want to be rewarded for their effort and don't like seeing the value on that part of the game erode. I understand the arguments both ways.

I do think Strive has brought a lot of fake old heads out of the woodworks looking for clout. Old GG was a very niche game and even Xrd had a much smaller active player population than most titles. But now every msg board you go to is filled to the rafters with these "very wise" guys nodding their heads and tsking "the old games were so much better...." You cagey mother fuckers, why didn't you play them then? So I take a lot of these complaints with a handful of salt.

 

[Second Saint]

Is it that time of year again? Time for the mystical, nebulous depth and the supposed lack thereof.

At least half the people I've talked to about depth are really talking about arbitrary execution barriers. There is no less depth to a one button command grab than a 632146 Light+medium+heavy command grab. The only difference is that not everyone will be able use it at maximum efficiency. It's absolutely astounding to me how often talks about depth in fighting games devolve into this kind of gatekeeping nonsense.

When talking about GG: Strive, one of the complaints about how it was too simplified is just that they added a dash button instead of having to press 66 or 44. It makes it a little easier to air dash and made some charge moves a little better because they can be charged and backdash at the same time.

I don't consider this to have any reflection on depth. Depth has to deal with how many mind games you can play and the layers to each one.

Another common complaint is the wall break mechanic, which prevents extended corner pressure by causing a wall splat after a certain amount of damage has been inflicted near the wall, which you can then break. If broken with a super, it causes a hard knockdown and you can continue pressure. If not broken with a super, it mostly just resets neutral. This actually does create the question of whether or not you should cause a wall splat based on the amount of resources you have and the likelihood to kill. Your pressure is better at the wall, but they'll survive a wallbreak and you don't have the meter to super, so cut your combo short to retain the better pressure and not cause a wall splat. If anything this seems to have added depth to me, not gotten rid of it, since corner pressure and setups and combos are still there, but there is an added layer of how to properly combo on someone in the corner based on your resources and their health.

 

[xenogorgeous]

When you have the casuals players, that respond directly for the 98% of the sales profit, and are the majority of the target audience , against the real competitive scene, where only represent 2% of the total sales, yeah, no argument here, period .....

they (Developers and Franchise owners) will certainly try to appeal and please the casual, noobs and the non professional players on detriment of the competitive scene .... and if this means to make gameplay execution more easy going and friendly, and to prejudice deepness, they will do , and give a big fuck off to the FGC Scene without bat an eye, hehe

 

[Gooberking]

I don't really know that I believe FG's can ever really be all that shallow given another person that can adapt to your behavior is involved. Some games might have more junk in the way of getting to that point. That might be more entertaining for some, or complicated to educate in, but I don't know that any of that translates into depth.

I don't think there is anything wrong with any kind of game, or think there is some way of truth for a way a fighter should be made. I tend to like "shallow" and "boring" games from the sounds of it.

 

[Metin]

i am not a GG player but i am indeed a dedicated MK and SF player. So imo;

- SF4 and MK9 are the best in terms of fun factor, i mean combo creativity, game speed, satisfying roster etc. But there are major balance issues, bugs, glitches etc. Which makes competitive matches too limited between high tier characters mostly.

- MK11 and SF5 looks better in terms of balance but the fun factor is limited, i got so bored by MK11's combos and slow gameplay, SF5 has started like a shit but getting better day by day but still has less potential than SF4 imo.

don't know about you guys but i would like to have creativity instead of boring balanced game, we can have both if the companies gonna spend enough effort to do that instead of considering money all the time at the first place.

 

[Vslayer]

Companies who make FGs have one purpose, and one only, and it's the same as any other company: to make money. Because of that, they'll try to appeal to competitive players and casuals alike, but the trade off is when you try to please everyone one group will always be left displeased and that group will always be the smaller one, aka, us. So by not choosing whether to make a game for casuals or a game for competitive play, they compromise to a middle ground that feels clunky (for us) but guarantees more sales.

I don't think this will change anytime soon and it'll probably get skewed even more towards the casual side.

 

[Juxtapose]

Fighting games have, and always will be, a niche genre.

While that's certainly true now and has been for some time, that actually wasn't the case back in the early to mid-90's. At that time, when the arcade scene and console ports of them were the thing, fighting games were thee genre. The main games and knock-off clones were everywhere, media was cashing in on them, and fighting games were console-system sellers.

As I recall, it was ultimatley the rise and popularity of first person shooters along with the decline of arcades that knocked fighting games down, becoming the niche we now know.

 

[M2Dave]

I'm not doubting that this could be true, but I think there should be some kind of support for a statement like this instead of just throwing it out as accepted fact.

Certain strategies and gameplay elements that casual gamers deem frustrating and/or difficult have either been simplified or removed entirely from various fighting games.

For Tekken 7, the universal 1+3 throw can also be escaped by pressing "2". In previous games, you had to escape 1+3 and 2+4 throws with 1 and 2 respectively. The escape window is also five frames longer for all throws. Moreover, the way in which you stand up from the ground has been altered too. Standing up (i.e., quick rising) used to have a set of vulnerability frames during which you were punishable. Likewise, tech and back rolling used to have vulnerability frames. These okizeme properties have been simplified in order to limit frustration levels for casual players.

For Street Fighter 5, one frame links have been removed so that combos are easier to execute. Option selects have been removed so that offense is easier to initiate. I doubt that you will find one person in the Capcom community who will argue that Street Fighter 5 is more difficult to play than Street Fighter 4, which, by the way, exhibited its own simplifications such as shortcuts for dragon punches by tapping d/f twice.

For Mortal Kombat 11, do I even have to address this one? LOL. The game limits combos, okizeme, offense, and zoning in favor of a simple (and boring in my opinion) meta that regresses into strike/throw/jump kick/low poke. Custom moves fail to provide any substantial depth (as in differentiating characters and causing dramatic changes in match ups) because a character's base moves determine his or her efficiency. I could rant about Mortal Kombat 11 for much, much longer, but I am sure that you get the point.

 

[Marlow]

i mean combo creativity

What is combo creativity? I see brought up a lot and it always feels vague to me. I mean, I wish MK11 had a few more launching strings or at least a little more depth to their combos other than String ~ one launcher ~ extender ~ Ender, but for the most part combos in MK11 feel pretty much on par with how NRS combos always work. The only difference I see is that there's not the crazy damage + restand stuff like in MK9 and MKX, and that instead of hitting 14-16 buttons to get 35% damage you press 8-10 buttons to get 30% damage. The combos might be simpler in MK11, but they still look and feel fine to me.

I guess what I'm really asking is: When people say they want more combo creativity, what do they actually mean? Just more combo routes? More buttons to press during a combo?

 

[Marlow]

For Mortal Kombat 11, do I even have to address this one?

Yes, please.

1. Why is limiting combos the same as taking away depth? Most combos in MK11 you have the same choices as in other games: Go with the most damage, go with screen position, or go for a harder knockdown.

2. How does MK11 limit offense?

3. A meta of strike/throw/jump kick/low poke is a fairly vague meta, one which could easily apply to almost any fighting game. And I'm not sure that's even an accurate description of the MK11 meta.

4. Who cares about the amount of depth custom moves give? Main thing is, it gives people just a bit more customization over the character they choose to main.

I'd say MK11 tries to add depth in other ways: Flawless blocking, plethora of wakeup and defensive options, breakaway. They don't all work perfectly, but those are clearly attempts at adding more depth to a game. Personally I think MK11 has more depth than MKX. Can't say for MK9, never played it.

 

[NaughtySenpai]

How have fighting games been simplified since the 90's?

Honestly every Tekken game before Tekken 7 has been more daunting than the last one.
Compare SF3/SF4 to SF2/SF Alpha, the former being way more complicated than the latter. The Alpha/Zero series being a ton more complicated than SF2.

MK9 and MKX also have tons more mechanics than MK1-UMK3.

Every Guilty Gear up to Xrd and Strive got more convoluted and expansive, to the point people didn't want to even get started.

Honestly imo, simplification in fighting games is a very, very recent trend that has taken hold mostly in franchises that were loaded with so many mechanics that it really needed some cleaning up.
The problem is that often times they didn't do the simplification in a good way and every new franchise coming out is trying to have a simple game with varying dregrees of success.

Imo a good example for simplification are Tekken 7 and Guilty Gear. Both games give you powerful combos and options right out the gate with minimal work put in, but also offer you optimized, difficult execution stuff that lets you get out a bit more damage.
Then again Tekken is still bloated with shitty moves that gatekeep newcomers and I don't know yet what the problem with GG is but I love that game (Though I'm a Sol player and that character seems the most complete in the whole roster).

 

[Marlow]

When I think of depth, I think of a game that has options or gives a layer choices. For example, something like a breaker in MKX compared to breakaway in MK11. In MKX it's a simple choice, you're in a combo you want to get out of just break. There's not much to the choice other than the player getting hit simply making a choice, a choice that has little risk or downside. Almost no thought required. Same thing for the offensive player while they're mashing out their combo, there's not a lot for them to do. Whether the opponent is going to break or not is not that big a deal, either way most of the time you simply mash out the same combo.

In MK11 though, you have something like breakaway which causes both the defensive player and offensive player to make more choices. The defensive player can break away, but it costs them both defensive bars, meaning they can't beat out strings that previously had gaps, they don't have access to wakeup attacks, and they won't be able to break out of another combo for another 10-20 seconds or however long it takes to get both bars back. The offensive player needs to make a read now whether to go with a higher damage combo and risk the opponent breaking away, or keeping things unbreakable, or anticipating a break and implementing a D2 or armor breaker if needed.

Unfortunately the actual execution of the breakaway mechanic in MK11 doesn't work so well in the real world, with some characters not having the correct options to make the mechanic really work like it was supposed to. But still, the concept behind the breakaway system in MK11 has much more depth than Breakers do in MKX, at least in my opinion.


I think the same can be said for a number of other mechanics in MK11 as well. I feel like MK11 has more situations where you need to make a choice based on an informed read, as opposed to MKX where it's a fairly heavy flow chart game.

 

[Metin]

What is combo creativity? I see brought up a lot and it always feels vague to me. I mean, I wish MK11 had a few more launching strings or at least a little more depth to their combos other than String ~ one launcher ~ extender ~ Ender, but for the most part combos in MK11 feel pretty much on par with how NRS combos always work. The only difference I see is that there's not the crazy damage + restand stuff like in MK9 and MKX, and that instead of hitting 14-16 buttons to get 35% damage you press 8-10 buttons to get 30% damage. The combos might be simpler in MK11, but they still look and feel fine to me.

I guess what I'm really asking is: When people say they want more combo creativity, what do they actually mean? Just more combo routes? More buttons to press during a combo?

Please Marlow don't do this to me or the community. What is combo creativity? Do you really asking this, ok i am gonna keep it simple;

Pick MKX or MK9 Scorpion and see what you can do without meter, try to do the same with MK11 Scorpion. Also you mentioned that MK11 has no crazy damage? C'mon dude; just kb throw dealing %30 damage and yes i absolutely like to have %30 damage by 8-10 buttons combos. Also just kbd2,4 into Fatal Blow deals %50 and it is working for every character. Crazy damages are absolutely there but you don't need to press that much buttons as you mentioned. Also combo creativity is not only about launchers, also depends on how you can end your combo, this is so important to think about your next movement, i mean, what do you want? Keep on pressure? Dealing the best damage? Or do you need more space to play far range game? Reset? American Reset? Hard Knockdown? Etc. Pick one and decide how to end your combos. Didn't mentioned antiair, air to air combos, the most important thing is from one simple succesful hit to how many hits? You can see what is combo creativity while testing this method.

 

[Marlow]

Also combo creativity is not only about launchers, also depends on how you can end your combo

This still applies in MK11 though. Depending on which variation of Raiden I play, I can still choose to end with damage, or corner carry, or ending a combo into something like B2 to set up a better 50/50, or going for more space to set up projectiles.

Didn't mentioned antiair, air to air combos, the most important thing is from one simple succesful hit to how many hits?

Again, still exists in MK11.

Please Marlow don't do this to me or the community. What is combo creativity? Do you really asking this

I'm just trying to get some clarity, because again this is something that people just take for granted as being true and say all the time. I think combos in MK11 are slightly less flashy than in some prior games, which cosmetically isn't as appealing, but I don't think they're actually that much less creative.

 

[Wrenchfarm]

Whenever this conversation comes up, I always want to ask specifically which games we are talking about. "Fighting games have been getting dumbed down since the 90s" Jesus, the genre as we recognize it today started in the 90s. What, did they make one good one and decide all the rest would be dumber and dumber from that point on? And if so, which mythical game was the pinnacle of depth and expression? Are we sitting here acting like it's SF2? KoF 94? Virtua Fighter?

Really this conversation is always a cloak for "the new game changed things in a way I don't like."

 

[Juxtapose]

What is combo creativity?

I think Killer Instinct is an exceptional example of this. Once you do an opener and enter the system, you can truly construct the combo, and end it, however you want. And if you make your combos too predictable, you can get easily broken. Unless that's what you want because you're baiting for a Counter Breaker.

You and I both play Jago, and our combos will likely be very different from one another, it one of the best examples of self expression I've seen in a fighting game.

Outside of Lockout moments, there are no "optimal" combos in the game simply because there can't be, the system is so robust.

In Mortal Kombat 11, most characters will ultimately try and do one very specific kombo string that's the same very time for optimal damage. It certainly works, is consistent, and gets the job done, but it's not creative since it's always the same over and over again.

 

[Juxtapose]

When I think of depth, I think of a game that has options or gives a layer choices. For example, something like a breaker in MKX compared to breakaway in MK11. In MKX it's a simple choice, you're in a combo you want to get out of just break. There's not much to the choice other than the player getting hit simply making a choice, a choice that has little risk or downside. Almost no thought required. Same thing for the offensive player while they're mashing out their combo, there's not a lot for them to do. Whether the opponent is going to break or not is not that big a deal, either way most of the time you simply mash out the same combo.

In MK11 though, you have something like breakaway which causes both the defensive player and offensive player to make more choices. The defensive player can break away, but it costs them both defensive bars, meaning they can't beat out strings that previously had gaps, they don't have access to wakeup attacks, and they won't be able to break out of another combo for another 10-20 seconds or however long it takes to get both bars back. The offensive player needs to make a read now whether to go with a higher damage combo and risk the opponent breaking away, or keeping things unbreakable, or anticipating a break and implementing a D2 or armor breaker if needed.

Unfortunately the actual execution of the breakaway mechanic in MK11 doesn't work so well in the real world, with some characters not having the correct options to make the mechanic really work like it was supposed to. But still, the concept behind the breakaway system in MK11 has much more depth than Breakers do in MKX, at least in my opinion.


I think the same can be said for a number of other mechanics in MK11 as well. I feel like MK11 has more situations where you need to make a choice based on an informed read, as opposed to MKX where it's a fairly heavy flow chart game.

This is a very interesting way to look at things, and I do agree that Breakaways, on paper, have more depth/decision making than Combo Breakers from the previous two games. And it did seem to me that by adding Armour Breakers, they were trying to implement a counter system somewhat in the spirit of Killer Instinct's Counter Breaker.

But as you mention, the execution of the idea isn't quite there, and I think that defines competitive Mortal Kombat 11 Ultimate. Most of the game's mechanics, Kustom Variations, Breakaways, Amour Breakers, Krushing Blows, Get Up System, are actually very, very good on paper, but just weren't implemented well and executed well in the actual game.

 

[Gooberking]

I think Killer Instinct is an exceptional example of this. Once you do an opener and enter the system, you can truly construct the combo, and end it, however you want. And if you make your combos too predictable, you can get easily broken. Unless that's what you want because you're baiting for a Counter Breaker.

You and I both play Jago, and our combos will likely be very different from one another, it one of the best examples of self expression I've seen in a fighting game.

Outside of Lockout moments, there are no "optimal" combos in the game simply because there can't be, the system is so robust.

In Mortal Kombat 11, most characters will ultimately try and do one very specific kombo string that's the same very time for optimal damage. It certainly works, is consistent, and gets the job done, but it's not creative since it's always the same over and over again.

The complexity comes from the counter play and always having options. Not that your point is that creativity means complexity but I do think people are lumping them together at times.

Just being able to do lots of wild combos doesn't mean counter play exists. KI just happened to fuse them together. You can inject counter play into a lot of mechanics but it only really works if both people understand what is going on.

I sometimes think what people want is to be able to make so much noise that they never have to engauge in mental counter play

 

[Juxtapose]

The complexity comes from the counter play and always having options.

That definitely sums up Killer Instinct; you always do have options, and you're always engaging with your opponent.

Having said that, when I see people talking about complexity in combos, I always see it as them saying they're looking for either engagement in the system, or diverse options. Killer Instinct has both, of course, as the engagement we've both covered well and diversity since any character's combos will look quite different, and be structured different based on a character's combo traits, and even the same character played by two different people can and will look and function differently.

For Mortal Kombat 11, I do recall Stephanie in a pre-launch Kombat Kast stating the game is not kombo focused/heavy, that it's not designed to be a heavily offensive game. So with that, I do think it's fair to say the game does indeed have a more simplified kombo system by design. Whether that's one's cup of tea, of course, is up to them.

 

[Metin]

@Marlow yes bro, MK11 has all of them but they are still too limited in compare to other titles. i am also a Raiden player and Raiden's combo creativity without Storm Cell (if i had Sparkport) is like a Solar System without Sun.

 

[Trustful_Whale]

@Marlow yes bro, MK11 has all of them but they are still too limited in compare to other titles. i am also a Raiden player and Raiden's combo creativity without Storm Cell (if i had Sparkport) is like a Solar System without Sun.

I don't think this is exactly fair to say when it's possible to get juggles out of Lightning Rod and get weird stuff that looks pretty creative to me using his other moves.
The only problem is compared to SC/EC launchers it's not even close to as valuable, and that's the real shame of MK11; they didn't take advantage of supporting depth through the custom variation system. Not to mention the needless separation from ranked to begin with.

Kinda wack to basically undermine your game's entire basis like that, NRS.