Since a surprising amount of comments don't seem to realize: I didn't ask for Guilty Gear to be simplified, the developers said the new GG would be more simple. I discussed ways this could happen/things that could change in the game because of this, while hopefully still keeping everything we love about GG.
@@AzazelTheMisanthrope I think some simplifications can be healthy for the game, but it just depends on what changes. I think developers often miss the mark and over simplify, or simplify in a way that makes the decision space smaller
I remember having this argument waaaaay back in the day on the SRK forums. Melty Blood had comparatively easy execution combos compared to other games back in the day. People were heralding that game as the end of days (considering the state of FGs at the time, this seemed like an insane statement to make) and saying hard execution was an absolute necessity to separate the scrubs from the pros. This is way before SF4 was even a twinkle in Ono's eye. Even that game got roasted by OGs because of the game catering to casuals, which is pretty crazy to think about considering its technical legacy now. If you make a game that's fun to play, people will play it. Marvel 2 was a game made to appeal to casual audiences (2 button dash, simplified supers, removing 2 buttons, auto combos) and that game became one of the most celebrated of all time despite all of that. Simplifying a game doesn't make it bad, making a bad game nobody wants to play does.
I kind of want to address this autocombo talk bc people keep bringing up points like "this game had it" or "it's suboptimal". First, autocombos are becoming a larger part of games, imo it is no longer fair to say "they're always suboptimal". Second, one of the defining characteristics of GG is that you can't get a confirm, especially a confirm into KD off every hit. This increases the speed and decision-making of the game. If you implemented an autocombo system that could alter this defining characteristic. Additionally, let's pretend your autocombo only activates from c.S. That still means you are reducing decisions (such as should I do a burst safe route, do I need to use a crouch confirm, etc) and reducing combo variety. It will be fine if it actually turns out that the autocombo system is suboptimal, but based on recent ASW games I'd say that is not going to be the case. They just have no place in the game imo.
@@massterwushu9699 DBFZ, BBTag, and Granblue Versus all feature autocombos prominently (coincidentally the last 3 ASW games released). I'm not going to obey your ridiculous request, but the days of statements like "you can choose not to use them if you wish" or "they are always suboptimal" being true are now behind us.
Colin Case and point. Auto combos have never been optimal, and never will be. You just seem to dislike the idea of auto combos. I’m all for it, as long as they are implemented fairly. All of this gate-keeping hurts the FGC more than accessibility ever will.
Maximilian Dood made a good point though and has said this throughout the years, "simplifying fighting games has no historical proof of bringing in more players. People don't play fighting games because of how difficult it is. They play it because of the roster and the content within the game."
Max's comment is true but also misguided. First, lowering the skill floor doesn't necessarily lower the skill ceiling, it just makes it easier for players to reach a point of autonomous play. But the biggest thing that adjusting low-level accessibility does is help curb the absolutely abysmal player retention rates that fighting games have. Where top games in other genres are able to build on their playerbases over the years, fighting games consistently lose 70-90% of their players within the first two months. The exceptions are platform fighters, i.e. smash, rivals of aether, brawlhalla. Games with simple, accessible input but a lot of depth at high level. This should tell us something. Speaking of depth, far too often people confuse breadth with depth. Complexity doesn't make something deep, it makes them complex. It's not more skillful to open three doors with three keys than it is to open them with one key: you just have to have more keys. Chess is very simple to get into and nobody would ever argue that it has a low skill ceiling. Complaints about autocombos are also weird because they are almost always EXTREMELY suboptimal, and usually also add some level of creative or strategic elemant to the game. Choosing to use a certain button in a string or in neutral to access the normal during the second or third button press is a strategic choice you don't have in games without auto combos, for the most part. It's fair to say that some forms of simplification haven't worked out, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. People tend to get so offended at the concept that they ignore the context.
@@warpticon I don't agree with the Platform Fighters deal. Games like Rivals of Aether and Slap City have lost 90% of their playerbase. You can just check the Steamcharts for it. Rivals of Aether peaked at 2k but now gets around 200something players at peak time, which puts around the same place as most "dead" fighting games on steam. Slap City had a peak of 700something players and now only gets around 80 players tops a day. And those are basically 2nd and 3rd place on the "FGC" sphere of the Platform Fighters genre. The notable exceptions for its Smash and Brawlhalla. And from the point of view of someone outside of that scene, There doesn't really seem to have a crossover between Brawlhalla players and other Platform fighters. Also I'd wager that Brawlhalla success has more to do with the fact that its F2P than anything else.
@@warpticon Where is it written that autocombos are almost always suboptimal? At one point in time I'd agree that was true, however it is becoming less true over time. Additionally, I don't see how an autocombo system can fit within GG as one of the hallmarks of GG is that you don't get a confirm off of every hit; you especially don't get a confirm into KD off every f.S hit (generally speaking). It seems to me an autocombo system could alter this hallmark quite a bit. Additionally, you mention chess as having a low skill ceiling, but to me the comparison is not so good as one reason some people play FG is because of the ability to show off impressive execution/combo skill. Simplifying the gamw harms this playerbase (and reduces player creativity) in order to bring in new players that may or may not even exist. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Finally, I'm all for having some simple fighting games that ostensibly (but not really) bring in new players, but why must literally every single game be that way? Why can there not be a game that appeals to a different playerbase?
Colin There are. But those games don’t sell and devs need to eat. Waiting for a match in Rev 2 is painful. Where’s the support ? Lets vote with our wallet. I love complexity in my fighting games , but I also wanna be able to play online 6 months later. Lets not act like we have all the answers to what is, in many ways, a social/generational and very nuanced issue. All we can do is play what we like, and avoid what we don’t.
I don't know why people are surprised about the developers simplifying Guilty Gear when they ALREADY did it before. For example, Guilty Gear Xrd is a MUCH simpler game compared to Guilty Gear XX Accent Core Plus R, but XRD STILL ended up being one of the deepest 2D fighting games out there, so I think we should wait and see some more gameplay before we jump to conclusions. In addition, just because a game has easy execution and auto combos DOESN'T necessarily mean a game is lacking in depth. Especially when we have clear examples of this like Persona 4 Arena, which is a game that had auto combos and easy execution, but also had TONS OF DEPTH. I'm glad that someone finally put a video like this up, since almost every other video on this title is announcing doom and gloom on it. Definitely deserved a like from me my guy.
I mean, I can't really blame people for being concerned. The message from Daiske stated an overhaul of the system without being specific. We could either have another Xrd or, worst case scenario, be playing something completely different. I don't believe in the worst case scenario, but like I said, I can't blame people for getting concerned.
I wouldn't say Persona 4 is deep but rather it has deep characters, compared to other fighting games. Plus Persona 4 came out a long time ago and we've had BBTAG since then which is far worse offender. Not only did they simplify the mechanics of Blazblue but they also simplified the characters. Compare that to a game like SFxT which tried its best to keep the feel of SFIV characters while only making execution easier.
@Kid_Muscle_ if you ever get the chance, give kof xiii a try sometime. that game is so responsive & just feels amazing to play. i think everyone who's stuck with gg this long is pretty worried about the future & at times i really feel like i might just quit playing games altogether if the next one isn't good but it's also worth looking at games like 3s that still have a thriving playerbase 20 years in. there will always be people out there who can appreciate a good game. the xrd series is really the first time we've ever had a gg that you could play decently online so there's really no reason to stop playing it if things go in a direction that isn't as fun.
@@BlueLightningSky What? deep characters totally INCREASE THE DEPTH OF A GAME. I'll use Jacko O from Guilty Gear as an example, since this is a comment section for a Guilty Gear video. Her gameplay revolves around the summoning of three types of Servants that gravitate their way towards the opponent attacking them when in range. These Servants begin at the base level of 1 where their attacks are weak and have short range, but throughout the round there will be opportunities to level them up to their max level of 3. At level 3 the Servants have increased range, damage, and some Servants even attack multiple times in a single strike. Utilizing their various attacks and special abilities combined with Jack-O's own make for a formidable pressure game that can overwhelm the opponent. The point of me saying all of this is that Jack-O had mechanics available SPECIFICALLY to her, and learning how to beat her giving ALL the scenarios she can replicate with her servants is a daunting task, and since learning the match up is obviously required to win, helped to give the game MORE DEPTH. In regards to Persona 4 Arena specifically, that game didn't just have character depth, but also A BUNCH OF SYSTEM mechanics, such as "instant blocking" which rewards good defense in reading your opponent correctly by either giving you better punishes or a way to get out of an opponents pressure. "Ailments," which is when you and your opponent can inflict ailments (also known as status effects) on each other during the match. Most ailments last for approximately 4 in-game seconds, and can be removed if the character with a status effect hits the opponent with an attack. You can be afflicted by up to 3 ailments at the same time so watch out! If a 4th ailment is added, then the oldest ailment disappears. Then there's "Cross up Guard", which is where certain characters can easily perform very ambiguous crossups with their personas. As a small aid against this, for 2 frames after the opponent passes to the other side of you, you are allowed to block their attacks holding either towards them or away from them. I could go on and on but this comment is long enough already, so hopefully you get the point. Persona 4 ARENA DID have DEPTH despite it's easy execution and auto combos.
I feel like this was the same issue with BBTAG before it was even launched. People saw easy combos/limited normals and figured it was going to be a very basic and shallow game but it ended up having so many systems with a ton of decision making that it can be quite overwhelming for most people. It's probably one of the best examples i've seen of being simple with a ton of depth. Sajam also mentioned about how offense focused DBFZ is with limited defensive options but seeing someone like Go1 block crazy things makes it all the more impressive. My take on stuff like this is that some games are just for some people and others aren't. I personally hate DBFZ because of those reasons while others love the game. It doesn't mean they need to change it for me as there are a ton of other fighting games to choose from. On the other hand I also had the same issue with GGxrd when it first came out with stuff like Milia/Zato/Ino setplay that felt so overwhelming. In later balance patches they toned some of that down and gave the player more defensive options in rev/rev2 to the point where i was more interested in playing it.
This talk about fundemental vs going ham reminds me of the Tekken top 8 at this year's evo, the contrast between the Knee vs Arslan match and Nobi vs Lowhigh is amazing, one match was all about poking and making miniscule adjustments to beat the other player's option while the other was just the definition of Unga play. shoutouts to the wall gods helping Nobi out.
You know BBCF has Abyss mode. That shit tricked bunch of my friends with 0 fighting game experience to try it and do cool shit. Cool shit and single-player content always better than simplifying the game when it comes to attract new players.
I think that's why dbfz worked. As much as I hate some autocombo stuff at least it gives the new player an illusion of doing cool shit, even if it's really not helping them play better. At the very least it builds interest and invests the player to learn more.
I think what fighting games need now that they're getting way more accessible and way larger viewership is to have a lower entry floor, but a higher skill ceiling. Think about it: UNIST is praised for having one of the best tutorials in the game, with simple combos and mechanics you can pick up and learn in the span of two or three hours. Then you slowly begin to learn more about the game and you start learning how to OS, what a fuzzy is, dash blocking, frame advantages, etc. This is what I want Guilty Gear to become: a game that is very welcoming to newer players, but also still very mechanically intensive at the highest levels of play.
Fuzzy guards and option selects are kinda lame though. You're not really making a substantial gameplay decision at that point. These are just my opinions of course, so I may be wrong
@@Cheezmonka Fuzzy guards and option selects in UNIST is so beyond necessary due to how fast things go and most characters having like, 3 different flavors of mixups. If you put Carmine in a game without fuzzy guards he'd be an easy top tier. Like, my main games right now are samsho and unist. Samsho's as traditional a fighting game gets without fuzzies or option selects or even throw techs, and I can quite confidently say fuzzy guards and option selects doesnt make anything lame in unist once you take into consideration the level of bullshit that wouldnt fly in traditional fighting games the game lets you do.
Late as I am, this video brings up an important point about fighting games and what it means for them to be "simple" or "complicated". In terms of Guilty Gear Xrd: Rev 2, I think that the main issue with the game is how impossible it is to teach to new players. For context, my friend and I started Street Fighter V and Rev 2 within a month of each-other, in the spring of 2019. For all purposes, we're both novices. In the year it has been since we started, we've managed to become exceptionally good at Street Fighter and feel like we could both enter local tournaments and do pretty well. We still have more to learn, but we're both far beyond the beginner stages. For Guilty Gear, as fun as it is for my friend and I, we are barely beyond the beginner stages. Every couple of weeks, we discover another mechanic that was hidden in plain sight, adding another layer onto an oppressively massive selection of options, few of which we can actually put into practice or use. Is this comparison fair to Guilty Gear? Not necessarily, since it is built to be MUCH more complex than Street Fighter. That said, it's not Guilty Gear's complexity that is holding us back by now, but rather the lack of direction the game tends to give its newer players. It's not that we're overwhelmed by the number of options, but rather we're stuck trying to figure out what to do with them all. We initially praised the game's tutorials for their straightforward explanations of the basics, but it does an extremely poor job going beyond those. It took us almost a full month to figure out that faultless defense existed at the start, and that's a key mechanic that completely changed the way we played. The extra tutorials beyond basic movement range from extremely informative to completely useless. Some teach you incredibly important mechanics while others give you an over-complicated summary of basic mechanics anyone who has ever played a fighting game should know. The bottom line is that Guilty Gear doesn't need to necessarily be "simplified". What it needs to attract new players is a better-organized section of tutorials that aren't organized by difficulty but rather organized by content. A mechanics glossary would also be extremely appreciated. I really enjoy Guilty Gear and what it manages to accomplish, but its difficulty curve is an utter brick wall, and the game itself does a poor job of getting the player past it. Online tutorials do a better job, but they still aren't perfect, especially since trying to cover everything the game has to offer in a video or a wall of text just doesn't translate as well as an actual tutorial complete with demonstrations and a place to practice under relaxed conditions. Complete that with more single-player offerings and some good marketing, and Guilty Gear has the potential to reach a much larger audience. I hope that by "simplifying" Guilty Gear, they just mean that they want to make it easier to get down to brass tacks on how the game operates. Even if I STILL don't know all of Guilty Gear's mechanics, I don't want them to be removed. I just want them to be better-explained.
Faultless Defense is one of the first things the mission mode teaches you, did you play the basic tutorial and think that that was all there was? That's the only way I can see you not knowing about FD for a full month while also actively trying to learn
@@NeoBoneGirl Lad, this post is over a year old and Strive has been out for a long time now. Even so, the initial tutorial covers movement, gatlings, and Roman Cancels. Faultless Defense is covered under "Missions" and it's there where Xrd's tutorials start to fall apart. For one, "Mission" modes in most fighting games are either combos or challenges, not advanced tutorials. Second, the way these challenges are laid out is extremely awkward and unintuitive. Faultless Defense isn't in there until you scroll down, and most of what the first few missions cover is in the tutorial itself. Now, I'm not going to say I wasn't a moron for not opening up missions to see what they were, but when you have an entire tutorial section, call it "Tutorial", and it doesn't cover most of the basic fundamentals of the game, that's a big problem. As an aside, I'm kinda split on how Strive handles things. It's a simpler game so it's much easier to approach, but a lot of the unique movement and character-specific mechanics from the past are gone, which is both what makes GG complicated but also what makes it interesting. The only character who I've really enjoyed playing in Strive is Happy Chaos, though, in fairness, he's probably the most-interesting fighting game character I've ever seen. I'd argue the faults and strengths of both games balance each-other out, though I'm curious as to how they'll continue to evolve Strive moving forward.
@@blooper5li I guess this comment was pre-Strive, because I was very confused as to why you would be upset at Xrd's way of teaching you the game when Strive is actually literally the exact same thing. I think Xrd does it fine because the last thing a casual wants to see is a big, long ass tutorial that they feel like they have to get through before ever playing the game. That's definitely going to make them drop it. If you give them the bare basics of how to play, and then tell them "Hey, if you want to learn more, check out mission mode." I think it's much smoother because people who are interested in learning will go right away, and casuals who don't care can just hop online and mash and have fun. I don't think there's much of a better way to do it in the games, and you kinda have to rely on the community making it known that mission mode is where you really learn the game, along with having good other resources.
I think the problem comes when you take something that's "hard" and you make it so easy that you CAN'T fail. For example in SFV it's impossible to mess up the "Daigo Parry" because all you have to do is mash Ryu's vskill. I think that's people's concern. Removing 1 frame links were not a problem because even with a 3 frame input buffer you still can mess up combo's, but with mashing auto combo's you can't. You CAN'T fail with DBFZ auto combo's. We don't want it simplified to the point that every hint of complexity is removed from the game or we feel so limited that it's hard to express ourselves and if every character plays the same or if there is no variety between how player 'A' plays a character vs how player 'B' plays that same character. Some complexity is indeed GOOD in a fighting game. In Guilty Gear two players can play Sol and both of those players can play Sol in different ways. It's still Sol and there are still his moves but the freedom that Guilty Gear provides means the way you play Sol and the way I play Sol are different and that's good. I don't want to lose that.
I mean auto combos are not even close to being the "best option" though, it does incredibly low damage compared to even the simplest manual combo. Some players in Dragon Ball end up stopping an auto combo mid string in order to hit confirm or use it at the end of a combo in order to make it more guaranteed, but the full auto combo is never the best option. I don't see a problem with having a mechanic where you can't fail if that mechanic ends up being a very poor option. Even Tekken has auto combos. Some people even use them. But the fact it's never a good option compared to normal play means that they don't break anything.
I'm so sick of auto combos = no freedom stances people take. It's a load of bullshit, but people refuse to admit that autocombos come out because they are mashing. Stop mashing and you will get what you want 24/7 People complain how no skill players can fight against them while they have zero skill to deal with a 3 hit scaled combo string that can be blocked in the same way every single time. I also hear so much about how certain moves being hidden in autocombos is bad when we've had moves with prerequisite conditions since a concept of a rekka and stances were made. It's the dumbest hill for FGC members to die on.
I think the most critical element to having fighting games with really high skill ceilings and complicated mechanics, and making those mechanics more accessible to newer players, is making sure that those mechanics are still actually FUN to use at a lower skill level, and making them not so convoluted that an ordinary player wouldn't even want to use them much less learn to use them efficiently in order to play at a higher level. If the mechanics are fun then they'll learn how to use them more efficiently on their own without even really needing an indepth tutorial to teach them. That's why people love Smash across so many different skill levels.
Adding to your point: parrying in 3rd Strike was immediately fun. Every level of player could do it and have fun with it, and top players' use of it was proportionally much more impressive and skill-demanding.
You’re stance on playstyles and losing to strategies that are “stupid or not good” really helped my mentality. I’m definitely guilty of looking down on certain playstyles, so thanks for helping me see how important a diverse range of viable playstyles is to a successful fighting game.
3rd strike is a great example of this. At its core it's a very simple game compared to something like gg, even to sfv but strong universal mechanics level out a lot of options and give broad variety to options.
In my humble opinion Arcsys should keep simplification to a minimum. Simplification isn't what's going to bring in new players and spectators, they have to do that themselves through the promotion of the game online and at events. Nobody picks up a fighting game based on how simple it is. Unique Gameplay Mechanics ✅ Characters ✅ Visuals ✅ Music ✅✅ Guilty Gear already has everything it needs to bring in a huge audience, all it needs is the same push that Tekken got these last 2 years. But they'll have to figure that out themselves, and I can assure, simplification wasn't it.
dorite Mal lol for me they need more servers(Arc needs to hire more ppl tho) or even better crossplay(ik ots hard to do but the game has one of the "lesser" amount of players compared to Tekken and Sf) which in turn helps a lot on spreading the fan base and availability of players online(i got this situation where me and another guy tried to create a lobby and the connection was acting up).
U are right sadly they really watered it down I haven’t played the game yet but It is much less fun the spectate And I attribute it to the lack of of combo variety/complexity Seeing the same moves used over and over again in the same positions feels boring and the old games had that really exciting rhythm to them that made spectating them exciting even if you didn’t know what was happening The newest game doesn’t have that excitement It feels soulless
I think xrd had it pretty good, the training and missions teach you everything you'd ever need to know about fighting game mechanics for 90% of the total games in the genre. Guilty gear has a high skill cap but also a decent entry level where its super fun. I'm trash a guilty gear but still love playing and I don't feel like it needs to get simpler. Even just the great character designs play a big part in this imo.
Whenever I’d play fgs casually with my friends we always went with GG. It is a game where doing enough stuff to have fun with is very easy. Doesn’t matter if it’s super complex or technical to play at an intermediate level, what matters is if a beginner has enough access to enough tools to feel like they’re playing a complete game, and if the pacing of a match feels good without knowing optimal combos or punishes.
Here's the part where I shill Tekken, a fighting game with a distinct lack of overly complex system mechanics, but is still INFINITELY deep, stemming from the simple fact that its a 3D game. While Tekken 7 was simplified in some areas (like the throw system), it was made more complex in others (like the addition of rage drives). Although, if you make a game where the decision tree for most characters is insanely wide, like in Tekken, that eventually will become a liability, because as we've seen in Tekken, people will gravitate towards characters that narrow their decision tree as much as possible, to limit their chances of making mistakes. Hence why Dragunov and Jack were top tier in Season 1 despite being relatively unimpressive on paper. If having the decision tree be as wide as possible were actually as good as you make it seem, Knee would still be playing Bryan. Chanel would have switched permanently back to Julia the moment she was released.
Sheesh, you hit it right on the head. This is why a lot of us guys are playing Geese now lol. Even though people say Akuma is strong, they don't play him nearly as much as Geese because Geese is the easier character. Akuma got me to buy Tekken 7 but once I learned the execution with him was hard, Geese was the next best thing lol.
FACT! we tried to clip that block string Go=1 sat through in evo Winners Finals, we couldn't fit the whole sequence in the clip. GG definitely has a lot of redundant things (FD/IB, Blitz, DA, yrc/prc, p.HD level tension meter system, weight class VS hitboxes) that could be "fixed" and it would still be "Guilty Gear". In any FG, simplifying the low end of the skill ceiling is ok, as long as the top end of the is still promising. I don't care about "hur dur autocombos on every button, i wanna footies/fundamentals and zero frame link babies first combos", what's more important is game being fun to play, and having a reason to keep playing the game 5, 10, 20 years later.
I agree with you mostly. Trimming some of the fat from GG would be beneficial. I can see why an oki heavy game would have characters that have different wake up timings. However, when every character has two different wake up timings depending on which move you ended your combo with seems redundant. At that point why not just give everyone the ability to tech roll and delay wakeup?
Simplifying fighting games do not contribute in bringing in more casual players. If you want to have a broader appeal, producing ANY side content (cinematic story mode, alternative game modes, more characters, customization, etc.) will do MUCH more for your franchise than anything you can change in the game mechanics. Worse, reducing the amount of game mechanics will alienate your already established fanbase. In the case of Guilty Gear, Xrd was "dumbed down" enough already. Mechanics were reduced, barrier to entry was lowered, execution was easier. And we lost some things in the process, like FRC's, which were never fully replaced in terms of mechanics. Was Guilty Gear more popular because of it? I'd wager that no, it wasn't. At least it had a super good tutorial. Like for example, taking your game assets and making a sidescrolling beat-em-up as an alternative game mode, how awesome would that be? You'd get to learn how to control and play your character in a completely non-threatening environment. An other example is the platformer game modes in the Smash series. Look at the Mortal Kombat series, the broad appeal comes from the cinematic story mode and alternative game modes, not the hardcore competitive versus aspect. This is what other fighting games need to work on. Extra content. The broader your appeal, the more players you'll suck in towards the competitive side. Those who want to be competitive will learn what they need.
Agreed with this. I'm a casual who likes tournament level play and learns execution/systems, but what I adore about a fighting game overall (while I'm learning) is it feeling like a complete, $60 robust creative package. A piece of art with a ton of creativity put into it. Imagine a fighting game Game of the Year. I was drawn to Blazblue, GG, and became an Arc System Works fan because they explore these sorts of things, and even if they don't hit the mark of their creative vision (many people call Blazblue's story a clusterfuck), I resonate with their philosophy in making the fighting game fun in a variety of ways, which continues to attract me - even minor things like being able to walk around in the main menu in DBFZ and Cross Tag - DBFZ presenting the "traditional" menu as Instant Transmission/teleport locations. In the context of richness of content, imagine, possibly, if Dead or Alive Xtreme was just a sub-mode in the main Dead or Alive fighting game.
producing all those expensive modes will only amount in making your game budget emptier. How about making the decision of putting core features first and then "maybe" add all those things later to entertain when your players are bored and want something different from the usual versus mode. they need to be easy to implement to be feasable and not compromise the main production of the game. The spoiled presumption of casuals that need all this spectacle to be entertained by a fighting game it's just BS. that should tell you that these people are not really interested in what makes a fighting game good, they just want a momentary treat to feel satisfied before going the the next big thing. they don't want to waste time learning...
Simplifying doesn't necessarily come at the cost of depth. In Tekken 7, breaking basic throws was simplified to just having to press a punch button, regardless of whether it was a 1 or 2 throw. However, command throws still need to be broken the old fashioned way. So in the end, high level players still needed to learn to recognise the 1 and 2 (and 1+2) throw animations to break throws consistently. The skill ceiling here is still the same; only the floor has been lowered a bit. It's the same shit with auto-combos; because of their lackluster dmg you'll still need to learn how to do proper ones at a higher level anyway. It will allow beginners to focus on other, arguably more important fundamentals. (Tekken doesn't have this problem as much because combos are already relatively easy to do, and always have been)
In my opinion, it's not really about simplifying fighting games. It's about making them clear, making them intuitive and connected in a way where if your mind isn't actively fighting against its human and basic instincts for you to do something you intend to do in the game. The difference is that you don't necessarily need to make it easy to do combos or make supers or do maneuvers per ce, you just need to make them clear and intuitive how they're done, ideally both on a mental and on a physical level. That's why I agree with making fighting games more accessible on principle, but strongly disagree with how it's done in BBTAG and DBFZ with the auto combos and auto-tracking. In those games, especially DBFZ, they proper, most effective way to play in general is to "abuse" the auto-tracking of auto combos both to open up while grounded but also to extend air combos, which is ridiculous for anyone who isn't used to the system. I think Persona 4 Arena did it better in this regard, they just need to make the damage less prohibitively tiny in comparison. I think a good example of making something clearer and not necessarily simpler, is found not even in a fighting game but in Monster Hunter World. The combo routes and moves for a given weapon, let's say the hammer, are pretty much similar as in former titles in terms of difficulty of use, but with some cornerstones changes that make the combat much more fluid and seamless. It's easier to get used to using weapons in World, not because the buttons and combos as such are much simpler to use, but rather because within context, how they're designed with the new expansive world in mind, they make much more sense together. It's easy to understand when to use what and how, and to expand on that as you play, but it isn't necessarily so if you simplify the hammer down to one kind of pounding attack.
I’m what you all would consider “casual” or a “beginner” and I think simpler games are waaay more accessible. That said, even these “simpler” games take a lot of practice for someone new. Fighting games are really hard, and I think experienced players trying to encourage newbies would matter more than just making games simpler.
The casuals complain about the game being "hard" but when a guy expirienced in the game wants to teach them they say " what a pain" and thats the problem
The problem with simplifying GG is that the intricacies of what makes it so appealing to begin with. Deep system mechanics, and very unique character specific mechanics on top of the core stuff.
I'd also argue that the large number of decisions and the quick execution is exactly WHY GG players like their game, and that it shouldn't - nor need it be - dumbed down. Because *players* are habitual by nature. *Players* will tend to stick to one or two of these options more than the others, and the game becomes less about playing the matchup and more about playing the patterns you find *in the other players.* This is exactly why Tekken has it's dynamic - sure, everyone knows how to throw a Phoenix Fist, but different players explore the breadth of the characters' movesets in different ways, so my Paul is different than your Paul, who's different than someone else's Paul. You layer this with the character customization factor, and suddenly we have two, distinctively different and yet, distinctively recognizable Pauls.
I can see *either* reducing the options pool *or* reducing the pace; but doing both at once is not good, and THAT'S the contention Strive has got going on.
The things that have to be addressed in guilty gear is: Different wake up timings, no this is not face-up or face-down difference that must be different timings, it is that each character have a different wake up timing. Weights, each character fits in one of 5 weight tier that changes how you can combo those characters, really 5 tiers plus wonky hurtboxes make you having to learn a different combo for each character, this is nightmare. No more floaty dashes, yeah those are an aberration. This is it for system change, balance changes would have a HUGE list to make Xrd an even better game. Lastly buff Potemkin!
You have to learn different combos for different character? So the characters play... different? Oh, who would have thought! Yeah, better make all the characters play the same.
@@TheSaival You did not get it, I play with the same character, but against each different character I can't do same combo or do same oki, every character you fight against you have to have a full list of what you do that does and don't work. Look at this main problem, you have some combos that you learn on combo training, that's supposed to be your bread and butter basic grasp on the character, but even the combos presented on that mode you can't hit all other characters, even if they have almost same weight. Like many Venom's normal combos can't hit Ky and vice versa. So when I play against a character I must have in mind all breachs in my combos because they are not granted to hit. The this can be tracked all down to 5 different weights and different wake up timings plus some wonky hitboxes.
The age old statement always rings true, "complexity does not equal depth". Does weight, get up times etc mean you can create different meaningful combos or oki setups or in some way enhance the options available, or is it just something that means you have to go in the lab to practice the execution after finding the only good answer online? I'm not a GG player so I genuinely don't know, but adding complexity that does nothing to enhance the depth of the game just adds a barrier against people who want to learn the game.
Wakeup timings actually do change Oki for characters. Also matters whether it's face up or face down knockdown, and people will call you out for not doing the real shit. At least from dizzy perspective, what setups you can and can't use is dependent on characters and timings.
xLuminary Yeah, the thing is - should it be SO wide? I personally like the varied wakeup time, but dislike that every single character is specific. Dizzy is a perfect example IMO; it’s a fun part of her design to adapt your oki based on character, but I think it’d be nice if there were three categories of wakeup speed. For example, characters have uniform fast/medium/slow wakeup speeds, and K ice fish might work on mid/slow wakeup but not on fast. I think this is better than ‘it doesn’t work on Sin and Slayer and Pot, but does for everyone else’. Maintain the idea but make it just a BIT more uniform. That’s my two cents.
Falcon4242 I personally can’t stand autocombos and I think they’re boring. But you’re right on the meaningless barrier. The thing is, if a player isn’t dedicated enough to get passed that barrier; then I highly doubt they’re enthusiastic to improve in general.
@@HighLanderPonyYT haha that's what I do with my fighting games. Thankfully GG is fun enough to make me comeback after a while even if all I do is dojo training occasionally and playing the arcade modes
As someone who isn’t amazing at fighting games. guilty gears input timing is the source of most difficulty rather than the complexity of its mechanics.
I want to agree because I love the game but you can't tell me with a straight face that a character like Zato is balanced compared to someone like Jam. I'm not saying Jam is terrible or anything but Zato has so much control and potential for offensive with amazing range and setups including semi infinite blockstrings with Eddie, all Jam can do is run up and press buttons with limited range or throw out dragonkick specials.
@@TheSp0rki well i agree . It's just about being creative. For Example , i use Axl for close combat , and people often say to me "your crazy". But as long as you have and idea of what you want to do , its your game. There are no de-balances between characters, that's just an excuse to not improve in the game
@@berserkerf0x574 sure any character can beat any other through creative play like Sajam discussed, Guilty Gear facilitates that because of how many options there are even for limited characters like Jam. My only point is some characters have way more options and Zato is a good example of that.
@@TheSp0rki well... i don't know about that . I'm into most of the characters of GG and i never felt limited against zato or characters with wide options. But then again , i just love the mecanics of the game , so i'll give it to you
I think sometimes a little bit of complexity makes a game more accessible because it obscures the math, so it becomes less about memorizing heaps of frame data rather than just interacting with what you see happening on the screen in front of you. SFV, for example, is a relatively simple game, but partially because of that, I've felt like just getting moderately competent at it was more like doing homework than than playing a game.
personally i learned sfv by hitting my head against the wall repeatedly to find out what works and what doesn't. when not sure, look up a specific move's frame data then back to trial and error. arguably slower but makes me not want to kms
@@MallowJam SFV doesn't make you need a PH.D in learning its frame data since there isn't a lot of moves each character can do. Tekken 7 on the other hand. Learning while playing doesn't work. You have to get your butt in that lab, and learn the frame data to progress to a high level.
@@tyrenace6597 oof that sucks. i can do some research and test things out in the lab, but when it starts feeling like homework instead of having fun experimenting that's my limit(and also why i don't get to play at a high level on anything but smash)
@@MallowJam Thing is Tekken 7 competitive scene is now increasing because it is fun game. I bet you, the competitive scene would increase even more. If they added frame data to the training mode. Harada doesn't see it that way though. He thinks it will deter casuals from playing the game.
I dknt mind simplifying inputs like as follows Ggxxac+r Ino has a move that is half-circle forward+forward and in revelator rev 2 it got simplified to just a quarter circle, a VERY welcome change
I disagree. Simplifying mechanics won't bring players. It's a fallacy to think or say so. People will buy the game because it looks sick, because they like the characters, the ost, etc. ArcSys needs to focus on making it look sick and to be fun to play, and before any smartass try to say otherwise, YES it is possible for hard/complex games to be fun to be played.
Also, I am more concerned about how addressing the some of the mechanics in the game or simplifying the mechanics would effect the overall **feel** of the game. Guilty Gear isn't just fast paced with a lot of different decision trees. It has a lot of attention put into every character and how every character **feels** and homogenization can hurt how distinctive characters can be. Finally getting through the last bit of Potemkin's health pool and killing him without getting Potemkin Buster'd in the process is definitely one of the most satisfying feelings in the game, and landing even a stray counter hit on Chipp while he is zipping around and subsequently removing a quarter of his health as a result is also extremely satisfying. If the characters were over homogenized and Guts and Weight were more simplified, the differences between fighting Potemkin and fighting (insert heavy character) and fighting Milia or fighting Fillia from Skullgirls would feel less distinctive; it could potentially detract from quality all of the characters. Those really niche, over-complicated mechanics and systems in game are part of what makes the characters so identifiable, well-crafted, and fun. Even though all of the characters have access to the same series of universal mechanics they all still feel like uniquely designed characters. As chool and as high skill (and equally well crafted) of a game as DBFZ is, all of the characters have the same health, have similar damage outputs, and have access to all of the same mechanics; they all move around the screen the same way and at similar speeds and do similar combos in a lot of situations. This, to me, makes the game much less interesting to play at a casual level. I can play the game and then get my fill of it, and not have the desire to come back to it anymore since it doesn't really satisfy as an artistic medium. Its a great competitive game and has a fun singular player mode, but it is lacking in charm and succeeds largely because of its IP in spite of its difficulty. Even Soul Calibur gave players a R/P/S rubber guard mechanic in an effort to simplify its game mechanics and I don't think its simplification really added to the quality of the game. But I have a lot of faith in Arc System Works and their ability to retain the fidelity of their franchise even through simplification. They aren't Bethesda.
This is probably one of the most well thought out comments on here. My fear for the new GG really comes down to me being afraid of simplification detracting from that sense of uniqueness. I like playing Zato who has his own flight mechanic and rules with Eddie which force me to approach the game differently with my gameplay differently and gives me more time to invest into learning the character. In addition to that I'm afraid that be simplification can mean more hand holding and focus on factors that make multiple rounds of GG feel different. Part of me wants to be optimistic and say that developers can make a great compromise and create something accessible and nuanced, not that I didn't the xrd wasn't. But part of me fears that we'll get a product more inline with DBFZ which has nuance and difficulties but not on the same scale.
@@G0dbeast Ya, I often feel like people forget that what makes Guilty Gear so great is how it blends its character design with its game design. If you have ever seen any anime ever; all of the characters play almost exactly how they look that they would. I feel like Daisuke is dedicated to balance characters more around being really chool to look at and fun to play, rather than being balanced as a cast. Having a diverse series of core mechanics (and perhaps a little convolution) is really the only way to justify and "balance" characters as deranged in design as having endless projectiles or minions, or characters who have omnipresence.
Hit the nail right on the head. Guilty Gear is ArcSystem's CROWN FUCKING JEWEL. I think I remember someone saying that "a GG character is like a standard fighting game boss." There is so much depth and care put into every character, that its ridiculous on not only a gameplay perspective, but an artistic one as well. What Daisuke did in The Missing Link was never really seen before in fighting games at the time. He not only wanted to make a hardcore fighting game, he wanted to tell a story and build an interesting and fleshed out world.(the main character is his OOC for crying out loud!) I wouldn't mind if this new Guilty Gear trimmed some of the fat of the older games. My only worry is that Arc is going to make it feel like all of their other games.
Sometimes, you wanna feel that mental gratification from playing a game of chess.... Other times, you may just wanna play a game of monopoly with your buddies.
Complexity does not equate to depth. What you're looking for is depth, with the simplest mechanics possible. Depth also leads to character expression, which players value in a fighting game. The secret sauce is a simple and intuitive set of rules, with a large amount of meaningful options to respond to the opponent and multiple strategies to approach a problem the gameplay presents.
If you ask me dumbing down fighting games for the perspective hope that a phantom audience of casuals, isn't the smartest idea. If you want it to be more accessible make a better single player experience, better tutorials/character specifics, combo challenges, and have plenty of room for them to grow. If you lower the peak of what a player can do, the casuals will still get their asses kicked by pros and leave after a week. The pros on the other hand will get bored and find a more challenging game. In regards to DBFZ, I don't mind it being a fighting game for people who just start out, but I don't want every fighting game to be it/on its level. I go back to this day and watch matches from BBCF or combo movies and discover new things all the time. Just like the saying goes with Dark Souls, git good.
I'd like to see Tekken simplified in terms of hitboxes and tracking. It doesn't need less depth, it just needs to be more obvious what the properties of a move are and how it can be countered. It's difficult to tell in what direction you're supposed to sidestep a move, and hitboxes can be obnoxious when it's not clear how hard or easy they are to connect. The "email harada" meme is based around these jank instances where hitboxes connect, or fail to connect, in blatantly ridiculous, seemingly rule breaking ways.
People are jumping to conclusions too quickly. We need to see actual gameplay, but people hear about simplification and already think that the game will be trash. Like if the game will become one-button mash fest, than yeah, it is bad, but Guilty Gear has so many systems on top of the fact that every character plays like they are from different games, with characters like Venom and Zato.
I think that making lower level plays easier to understand and more enjoyable is more important for newcomers, than simplification of mechanics for higher level play. I think this is a reason why Smash games tend to be really popular among casual players. Though with the way that most fighting games are designed, that can be kind of difficult without inclusion of things like autocombos.
I've already dealt with a bunch of "beginner friendly fighting games" throughout 2018-2019. Theres already been 3 games: BBTAG, DBFZ, and later GBFV. We have that new game Samurai Shodown that's as simple as it can get with not much combo potential, HUGE DAMAGE SCALES, but a lot more in the defensive strategy. Overall, whether it's easy inputs to auto combos. I love GG just as it is so I wouldnt like it being simplified just for the sake of beginner audience (I mean cmon, we have a stylish mode for that purpose. Yet theres a catch from which damage is nerfed so beginners will at some point take it up a noch and have better potential). Although it's a good way to bring in more people but we should all try and adapt. I like to progress on a game that's pretty technical. I enjoy labbing and creating different combo routes and that's been my dream since the day I started playing FG's. GGXRD was my first which is surprising due to how technical it is and of course, it was fun But if people really want something to be less overwhelming, then maybe GG 2020 will give a more in depth tutorial? Better yet *EVEN MORE* because they've done a pretty well job with tutorials in mission mode (even though I never finished it or even touched it). If that's not enough, then idk what else.
IMO, DBFZ issue is not in its auto combos, but more in its weird pace set (ie block simulator style, having almost all specials safes and offense running possibly for dozen of seconds). IMO again, the way MK11 is handling pressure with a reward for the player that knows where the gap is, and when to punish it, while having a braindead easy flashy (yet not full invincible) come back mechaninic is really smart way to please everyone, from casual to top player.
@@containeduniverse Argument(s) ? To me, it's sure not the most subtile come back mechanic (XD), and it may have some scaling issues, yet at least it's not invincible on frame 1 and can be easily broken by meaties.
I'm hoping for a solid adaptation of the DBFZ auto combo system with all the special moves still intact, DP, half circle forward and back motions kept in tact. Please, keep the motion specials cause I feel only qcf and qcf motions simplify it way too much and limits moves. Keep Roman cancel and blitz. Remove danger time and include auto combos dbfz style.
@@superbrightshinystuff3425 I'm with you. Let's ne honest, DBFZ started out as BB stylish mode and as the pros worked it more, it became its own beast. That's why I like the autocombo system. Simple for newbies, but has depth for the pros. If they add that to GG, trim down some of the current mechanics and keep runs, dashes, RCs and Blitz, it can give the game new life while still being its insane anime self.
Part of what I love about Guilty Gear is how accessible it is despite how complicated it is. I'm kinda crap at it on any advanced level but I would never consider simplifying it.
I love that Guilty Gear has all these crazy mechanics though. I'd be ok with removing a lot of the stuff in regards to weight classes and varying wake up timings, but stuff like Blitz Shield, Roman Cancels, Danger Times all thrown together in one game are a part of what makes me like Guilty Gear so much. There's just *so* much stuff to mess around with. Trimming this stuff won't make it a bad game, but it does take away something I get enjoyment out of.
I agree with most of what you said except for Danger Time. That mechanic is just too random and punishing which isn't really good for the competitive side of things IMO
When GGxrd sign first came out I tried to find a character I can play with and executed their combos and setup naturally. Out of every single character the only one I manage to get the hang of was Chipp. So I legit only play Chipp. I didn't even buy Rev 2 cause I dont wanna be stuck with one character again. Never meant anyone who can random select in GG and know how to play with anyone character at a decent level. Making characters more accessible to play sounds like a good thing to me.
If you make every character easy and simple, there won’t be variety or player diversity. Some players get respect just for being able to play a hard character. Johnny is super hard to play. He’s cheap, but he’s respectable due to his difficulty
GG Xrd is already simplified GG, and I love it. It's still really complicated though. Most people in the comments could not even explain what each roman cancel does, and for the people who know what the colors mean, most people cannot explain when to use YRC on their own characters and why except obvious situations like Ky YRC'ing after charged hado. YRC is actually so complicated it's basically impossible to manage, because all the different ways it can be used it's impossible to tell a person "just adjust when they have meter." I love GG, it's my favorite fighting game, but if it goes through another simplification I still think it will be the deepest and most fun fighting game on the market.
Even if Dragon Ball FighterZ is more simple than MvC, I still have respect for it. I picked it up like 2 weeks ago, & I just straight up can't execute anything (because I suck). I can't jump out of ground combos to save my dash for later to save my life. & I spent an hour on base Goku's combo challenge just on the Kaioken, because I just can't get the inputs down. GO1 is a monster for doing what he did
No problem, just keep practicing and soon things will come easier. Once you pick up on the execution and start understanding the game mechanics you'll be able to identify and understand things a lot easier. I started getting into fighting games with BlazBlue series and it also took me at least a week or two to be able to get decent at inputs. Just keep practicing and watching guides and your execution will definitely get better.
I think the idea of high combo execution is dumb. If you lower the combo execution it would incentivise to learn other areas of the games not just sitting there grinding out a combo for 4% more damage.
I think there should be options. If you don’t want to do the most optimal combos and force yourself to learn 1f links, it shouldn’t hamper your damage output or oki all too much, but I feel that reducing the skill ceiling for players who are execution heavy isn’t the way to go either if that’s the route they please (i.e Sako’s evil ryu in USF4). If a player wants to invest their time into learning different scenarios to eke out that extra 4%, that should be their prerogative
High combo execution is a risk in itself so it's actually balanced. If I want the most possible damage but the chance of me messing it up and possibly putting myself in a bad situation is what the philosophy of risk and reward is. Also when a game has high execution combos they also generally have low execution combos and that means there are a lot of combos and a variety of options so people can be creative. By having one way to get the best damage that's also easy to do is stale and in no way promotes room for growth. Also if someone can hit you with their high execution combo that means they must be doing alright in those other areas like neutral, punishing, and hit confirming to get the hit in the first place so I don't think you need to worry yourself about them having time to focus on other areas besides combos.
Based Kaneki stop watching Twitter combo vids and start doing your own shit that you know you can do safely and consistently. That high execution is there to reward the mad lads who put in the time to master it, but no matter how good your combos are they aren’t going to be the thing that wins the match. The problem isn’t the high executions for 4% more the issues is your mentality of requiring that 4% more.
callmesugoi I agree. Like Fighterz every character can do the simple jc combo that they can compete with, but there’s also different more complicated combos that do more damage. Compared to unist where a bnb execution is more along the lines of a TOD in fighterz
But is combo execution really that much of a problem in GG specifically? It's kind of character dependent. Characters like Sol or Slayer have really nasty combos that are pretty easy to do.
people need to accept it. it does not sell enough for arksyss to profit, so much so that they make their money on selling you upgrades. please god give the games normal fucking names.
I think people have nothing to worry about. if they're happy with dragon ball next GG will be toward that. I think if they keep the variation and the system but with less complicated input thatd be a wet dream.
Complexity is not the same as depth. MMA is not a very complicated itself, all it is just fighting. Throwing a punch is very simple. Doesn't mean that there can't be high-level skill involved. People get obsessed with making things more complicated than they need to be because it makes themselves feel more sophisticated. It's the chopstick effect, just because chopsticks are more difficult to use than utensils doesn't make them better than utensils.
Bro i don't get why people don't like auto combos, as long as it is the worst combo option for any situation and you can get way more dmg with a real combo then why not? It makes the game not only casual friendly but more enticing for casuals to become better, they have somewhere to start, it looks cool, and it makes them want more so in the end auto combos are a really good feature to make a fighting game more succesful, Maximillian dood has a video on this topic check it out. Plus i want to be petty and kill with auto combos for the extra salt.
I don't think Strive is attempting to simplify, it's trying to "balance" itself towards other fighting games, because they're zeroing in to a common ground so that, maybe by 2030, we can have an "everyone vs. everyone" dream game before we're all too old to play anymore.
I dont have too much concern about simplifying controls or auto-combos, as long as it's A COMBO i can do and it STAYS consistent regardless on situational hit/counter-hit state and how high or low of height elevation of opponent can be air juggled. Followed up what annoys the shit out of me is when comboing your opponent in G.G is their character-weight-difference+hurtbox-size of juggling your opponent puts me in situation my opponent "slips" out of my reach of hitbox and at that point makes certain combos wont work, thus taking away a lot of options for certain match-ups.
YRC & blitz shouldn't be removed; simplifying a fighting game by taking away options for a player's actions is a *terrible* idea. Stuff like guts & weight? I could give a rat's ass if those were thrown out.
I remembered reading in a recent interview that Daisuke said his intentions on the system changes were to make it easier for the audience to watch, rather than to simplify the game for casuals. This still makes me worried about the smell of the game, but does that change your opinion?
I will grant you that simplified fighting games can be problematic, but I'd much rather there be a fighting game that isn't bloated with vast amounts of degeneracy and unfairness. Dante's half screen air normals that lead to ToD combos and/or nasty mixups isn't well designed, and if I lost to it and said it was stupid, I'd be justified in saying so, and I'd walk away from the game, like I did with MVC3. If my opponent thinks its stupid for me to be able to read him like a book at shimmy out of throw range, he has 0 justification for calling it stupid, because he was the one being predictable, while I used a fair strategy to beat him. Allowing people to go "unga bunga" wild and win while also allowing calculating players to win is going against the very conceit of fighting games.
I think the issue here is that you've determined the "unga" player is not calculated. Calculated doesn't mean slow. You can play very fast and very calculated. Take a game like smash melee for instance, that game is super fast especially if you play a character like fox or falco which would be considered "unga" but those players have to be very calculated in every move they make especially since those characters can be punished so hard if they make an error (and that's if the error doesn't lead to a self destruct) . On the flip side a slow jigglypuff player has to play calculated too even though that character is much slower. Also like in a real fight there are many strategies, so having one strategy trump all and saying the safest play should be the most rewarding limits creativity and self expression. That's usually why players or fighters need to know how to adapt and if you can't adapt that doesn't mean it's bad game design, that's error on your part. Also Dante really isn't that bad. He's no Virgil who also isn't unbeatable and he can be pretty linear especially since he has pretty slow projectiles that don't have the most durability and his teleport can be grabbed or punished and it always goes in the same place so it's not really a mixup. He's very good, but he isn't the character that can be accused of carrying the player. Besides it's marvel so "unfair" or "cheap" is the name of the game, so if it wasn't Dante that made you drop it was definitely gonna be one of the other 49 characters and hundreds of team combinations that would because everyone can do something that's "cheap". That's just probably not your style of game as a whole and that's fine.
Stealthblazer Games It didn’t, Its just like MKX but people took MkX for granted. Everyone complained about High damage combos and Look at were we at now.🤣
More games should follow Tekken's example. Build a simple system and create the depth on the characters. The number one thing I hate about DBFZ is how there are very few interesting characters both on mechanics and on flavor. Look at how Tekken has a wide range of characters with different skill floors but look at how DBFZ gives everyone a QCF. It's the same problem I have with SFV. Remember how different Juri felt to play in SFIV not just thematically but how your hands we're doing different motions? Tekken leaves their legacy characters alone for the most part and has slowly introduced easier characters. This is my biggest fear with GG and based on what they did to the BBCF characters in BBTAG, I am worried. They remove the character complexity and make them easier to play for the sake of getting more people to play them. I don't mind that Kazumi is disgustingly easy because Heihachi is still there. But I can't say the same about DBFZ. On release the most interesting character was 21 and arguably that still remains the same. If you want a new player to learn the game give them a character that they can learn the game with. Give them a training character that has a low skill floor so they can say who do I learn next? It's ok if not everyone can learn a character, I mean it's not OK if you're the company and wants to cash in on players but it's ok if you are the designer.
Bbtag was twice as fast as most games with its own unique mechanics. You can’t port characters from 5 different games into one game without changes. End the cycle of cross tag prejudice.
Rename Roman Cancels. To a person learning the game, it doesn't help that something with the same name does 3 different things. YRC's in spirit has always seemed odd to me. I spend a quarter of my meter to give me and my opponent the same advantage? Nah, man. I'm never using that.
The real problem with low player count (the reason they want to dumb down it) it's the connection system. They need to develop a system as good as p2p but with more security (approved by sony, microsoft and nintendo) this way you could get universal crossplay, fighting games are the best candidates for this since they are so easy to run in any hardware + locked on 60 fps.
I just want them to reboot the plot. I love the characters but the biggest obstacle to a casual audience is that the plot is fucking nonsense and there isn't a single GG game you can just jump into and actually understand what's going on. Gotta watch a 3 hour video that explains the lore. The Xrd story mode doesn't even have gameplay and it's harder for new players than Mortal Kombat's.
I feel like there are successful examples of mechanic simplifications that make Fighting Games more accessible while remaining highly technical and skill based. Dragon Ball FighterZ is an example of both accessible and technical. Smash Ultimate is far more simplified compared to Melee.
Yeah, when I read that ArcSys message, I thought "Oh... oh no." Even though I consider Xrd to be a bit too hard (or maybe too fast) for me to properly learn/play, I don't want it to go in any other direction. (Except for YRC, I don't want to see that thing ever again.) Unless that direction is BBCF, I guess. Cause for some reason, as much as I prefer GG in pretty much every other aspect, I'd rather just play Centralfiction? I guess it seems simpler, on the surface (depending on what character you pick, heh) But this talk made me realize that there's nothing to worry about, probably. The words "If a game goes from this to this, we're still good" were as if someone smacked me on the noggin. Cause it's so true. To me, as long as the control scheme, movesets/universal mechanics (for the most part), and the pace of the game are the same (among other smaller things), I'll be satisfied. It's still all up in the air, of course, but there shouldn't be any reason to panic. Worst case scenario, we just won't like it, and won't play it. Damn, Sajam, you're pretty good at this talking thing
I guess it seems simpler, on the surface (depending on what character you pick, heh) I disagree with this statement . I feel that BlazBlue Central Fiction is arguably just as complex as Guilty Gear Xrd Revelator, with the game like GG has a legacy skill, meaning if you haven't stuck with the game since the original back in 2008, you have a MASSIVE hill to climb in learning frame data for each character's normals, gatlings, and overall mobility options that can be used on offense and neutral.Then there are the game's plentiful system mechanics, such as having four ways to block based on specific scenarios for example, and that's not even going into the Drive mechanic, which is a UNIQUE action for EACH character, which there are over 35 of, which most of the cast plays VASTLY DIFFERENT from each other. BlazBlue was HUGE in japan, with it being popular in many Japanese arcades. With many veterans like Dogura (one of the best players in Guilty Gear) and Fenrich (arguably the best BB player, and currently one the best in DBFZ) representing the series for a long time . Sadly, The series just never took off over here in the west. Finally, in case in anyone reading this doesn't know, BB TAG and mainline BlazBlue games are two SEPARATE things all together, with BBTAG having it's own set of rules with the system mechanics, and SIMPLIFYING ALL of the characters, though the latter may change with this new update. It's for these reasons that you can't approach BlazBlue Central Fiction in the same way that you would BBTAG. Just my two cents.
Do words "seems" and "on the surface" not mean what I think they do? I'm perfectly aware of how hard BlazBlue is. I'm just saying that at a first glance, CF might look not as complex as Rev2. I'm not saying CF is easy, or easier compared to Rev2. Just that it may appear that way. A false impression. dang, i thought that was clear enough
It's not about the cancel window. And I know what FRCs are, and and how tight they are, don't worry. I just don't like how frequent YRCs are. It seems like every action is cancelled using it. I know why that's a thing, and I totally understand it. I just don't like it. Also, I never stated that BlazBlue IS easy. Just that it may seem like it, at a glance.
Fighting games are worse when they allow full time yolo though. I'd rather have a game that allows nothing as an option (like fantasy strike, although i don't like that game itself) than one that allows full braindead yolo. It's a pretty common problem, you can't play the same against somebody who knows how to play in comparison to someone who doesn't give a single f about the game and just "wants to have some fun" and mashes button like a moron.
@@Esdrei2011 At the cost of also being able to be hit while grounded, of course. Tekken's okizeme is really cool because of this, as well as the wake-up attacks the grounded player can do.
Since a surprising amount of comments don't seem to realize: I didn't ask for Guilty Gear to be simplified, the developers said the new GG would be more simple. I discussed ways this could happen/things that could change in the game because of this, while hopefully still keeping everything we love about GG.
I think most people are worried because GG doesn't really need to be simplified any more at all.
@@AzazelTheMisanthrope I think some simplifications can be healthy for the game, but it just depends on what changes. I think developers often miss the mark and over simplify, or simplify in a way that makes the decision space smaller
@@SupermanSajam I think you're being too pragmatic on the issue.
It'll be more simple because they'll take out Leo and Danger Time
Being too pragmatic is a problem? Why would you tell him that? That doesnt make any sense
I remember having this argument waaaaay back in the day on the SRK forums. Melty Blood had comparatively easy execution combos compared to other games back in the day. People were heralding that game as the end of days (considering the state of FGs at the time, this seemed like an insane statement to make) and saying hard execution was an absolute necessity to separate the scrubs from the pros. This is way before SF4 was even a twinkle in Ono's eye. Even that game got roasted by OGs because of the game catering to casuals, which is pretty crazy to think about considering its technical legacy now.
If you make a game that's fun to play, people will play it. Marvel 2 was a game made to appeal to casual audiences (2 button dash, simplified supers, removing 2 buttons, auto combos) and that game became one of the most celebrated of all time despite all of that. Simplifying a game doesn't make it bad, making a bad game nobody wants to play does.
@James Chris Auto combos were optional and it went from 6 to 4 buttons.
I kind of want to address this autocombo talk bc people keep bringing up points like "this game had it" or "it's suboptimal".
First, autocombos are becoming a larger part of games, imo it is no longer fair to say "they're always suboptimal".
Second, one of the defining characteristics of GG is that you can't get a confirm, especially a confirm into KD off every hit. This increases the speed and decision-making of the game. If you implemented an autocombo system that could alter this defining characteristic. Additionally, let's pretend your autocombo only activates from c.S. That still means you are reducing decisions (such as should I do a burst safe route, do I need to use a crouch confirm, etc) and reducing combo variety.
It will be fine if it actually turns out that the autocombo system is suboptimal, but based on recent ASW games I'd say that is not going to be the case. They just have no place in the game imo.
Colin
Which game has optimal auto combos?!
Name the character, combo and damage output?
@@massterwushu9699 DBFZ, BBTag, and Granblue Versus all feature autocombos prominently (coincidentally the last 3 ASW games released). I'm not going to obey your ridiculous request, but the days of statements like "you can choose not to use them if you wish" or "they are always suboptimal" being true are now behind us.
Colin
Case and point. Auto combos have never been optimal, and never will be.
You just seem to dislike the idea of auto combos. I’m all for it, as long as they are implemented fairly.
All of this gate-keeping hurts the FGC more than accessibility ever will.
Just simplify the amount of belts
Well they did that to Ky.
nerf the zippers
No
How could you say something so controversial and yet so brave
You shut your mouth that’s sacrilege
Maximilian Dood made a good point though and has said this throughout the years, "simplifying fighting games has no historical proof of bringing in more players. People don't play fighting games because of how difficult it is. They play it because of the roster and the content within the game."
Max's comment is true but also misguided. First, lowering the skill floor doesn't necessarily lower the skill ceiling, it just makes it easier for players to reach a point of autonomous play. But the biggest thing that adjusting low-level accessibility does is help curb the absolutely abysmal player retention rates that fighting games have.
Where top games in other genres are able to build on their playerbases over the years, fighting games consistently lose 70-90% of their players within the first two months. The exceptions are platform fighters, i.e. smash, rivals of aether, brawlhalla. Games with simple, accessible input but a lot of depth at high level. This should tell us something.
Speaking of depth, far too often people confuse breadth with depth. Complexity doesn't make something deep, it makes them complex. It's not more skillful to open three doors with three keys than it is to open them with one key: you just have to have more keys. Chess is very simple to get into and nobody would ever argue that it has a low skill ceiling.
Complaints about autocombos are also weird because they are almost always EXTREMELY suboptimal, and usually also add some level of creative or strategic elemant to the game. Choosing to use a certain button in a string or in neutral to access the normal during the second or third button press is a strategic choice you don't have in games without auto combos, for the most part.
It's fair to say that some forms of simplification haven't worked out, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. People tend to get so offended at the concept that they ignore the context.
@@warpticon I don't agree with the Platform Fighters deal.
Games like Rivals of Aether and Slap City have lost 90% of their playerbase. You can just check the Steamcharts for it. Rivals of Aether peaked at 2k but now gets around 200something players at peak time, which puts around the same place as most "dead" fighting games on steam. Slap City had a peak of 700something players and now only gets around 80 players tops a day. And those are basically 2nd and 3rd place on the "FGC" sphere of the Platform Fighters genre.
The notable exceptions for its Smash and Brawlhalla. And from the point of view of someone outside of that scene, There doesn't really seem to have a crossover between Brawlhalla players and other Platform fighters. Also I'd wager that Brawlhalla success has more to do with the fact that its F2P than anything else.
@@warpticon Where is it written that autocombos are almost always suboptimal? At one point in time I'd agree that was true, however it is becoming less true over time. Additionally, I don't see how an autocombo system can fit within GG as one of the hallmarks of GG is that you don't get a confirm off of every hit; you especially don't get a confirm into KD off every f.S hit (generally speaking). It seems to me an autocombo system could alter this hallmark quite a bit.
Additionally, you mention chess as having a low skill ceiling, but to me the comparison is not so good as one reason some people play FG is because of the ability to show off impressive execution/combo skill. Simplifying the gamw harms this playerbase (and reduces player creativity) in order to bring in new players that may or may not even exist. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Finally, I'm all for having some simple fighting games that ostensibly (but not really) bring in new players, but why must literally every single game be that way? Why can there not be a game that appeals to a different playerbase?
Colin
There are. But those games don’t sell and devs need to eat.
Waiting for a match in Rev 2 is painful. Where’s the support ? Lets vote with our wallet. I love complexity in my fighting games , but I also wanna be able to play online 6 months later.
Lets not act like we have all the answers to what is, in many ways, a social/generational and very nuanced issue.
All we can do is play what we like, and avoid what we don’t.
warpticon
I 100% agree with this.
If the “FGC” were really craving complexity in Fighting games , Xrd would’ve sold millions of copies.
I don't know why people are surprised about the developers simplifying Guilty Gear when they ALREADY did it before. For example, Guilty Gear Xrd is a MUCH simpler game compared to Guilty Gear XX Accent Core Plus R, but XRD STILL ended up being one of the deepest 2D fighting games out there, so I think we should wait and see some more gameplay before we jump to conclusions. In addition, just because a game has easy execution and auto combos DOESN'T necessarily mean a game is lacking in depth. Especially when we have clear examples of this like Persona 4 Arena, which is a game that had auto combos and easy execution, but also had TONS OF DEPTH. I'm glad that someone finally put a video like this up, since almost every other video on this title is announcing doom and gloom on it. Definitely deserved a like from me my guy.
I mean, I can't really blame people for being concerned. The message from Daiske stated an overhaul of the system without being specific. We could either have another Xrd or, worst case scenario, be playing something completely different. I don't believe in the worst case scenario, but like I said, I can't blame people for getting concerned.
I wouldn't say Persona 4 is deep but rather it has deep characters, compared to other fighting games. Plus Persona 4 came out a long time ago and we've had BBTAG since then which is far worse offender. Not only did they simplify the mechanics of Blazblue but they also simplified the characters. Compare that to a game like SFxT which tried its best to keep the feel of SFIV characters while only making execution easier.
@Kid_Muscle_ if you ever get the chance, give kof xiii a try sometime. that game is so responsive & just feels amazing to play. i think everyone who's stuck with gg this long is pretty worried about the future & at times i really feel like i might just quit playing games altogether if the next one isn't good but it's also worth looking at games like 3s that still have a thriving playerbase 20 years in. there will always be people out there who can appreciate a good game.
the xrd series is really the first time we've ever had a gg that you could play decently online so there's really no reason to stop playing it if things go in a direction that isn't as fun.
@@BlueLightningSky What? deep characters totally INCREASE THE DEPTH OF A GAME. I'll use Jacko O from Guilty Gear as an example, since this is a comment section for a Guilty Gear video. Her gameplay revolves around the summoning of three types of Servants that gravitate their way towards the opponent attacking them when in range. These Servants begin at the base level of 1 where their attacks are weak and have short range, but throughout the round there will be opportunities to level them up to their max level of 3. At level 3 the Servants have increased range, damage, and some Servants even attack multiple times in a single strike. Utilizing their various attacks and special abilities combined with Jack-O's own make for a formidable pressure game that can overwhelm the opponent. The point of me saying all of this is that Jack-O had mechanics available SPECIFICALLY to her, and learning how to beat her giving ALL the scenarios she can replicate with her servants is a daunting task, and since learning the match up is obviously required to win, helped to give the game MORE DEPTH. In regards to Persona 4 Arena specifically, that game didn't just have character depth, but also A BUNCH OF SYSTEM mechanics, such as "instant blocking" which rewards good defense in reading your opponent correctly by either giving you better punishes or a way to get out of an opponents pressure. "Ailments," which is when you and your opponent can inflict ailments (also known as status effects) on each other during the match. Most ailments last for approximately 4 in-game seconds, and can be removed if the character with a status effect hits the opponent with an attack. You can be afflicted by up to 3 ailments at the same time so watch out! If a 4th ailment is added, then the oldest ailment disappears. Then there's "Cross up Guard", which is where certain characters can easily perform very ambiguous crossups with their personas. As a small aid against this, for 2 frames after the opponent passes to the other side of you, you are allowed to block their attacks holding either towards them or away from them. I could go on and on but this comment is long enough already, so hopefully you get the point. Persona 4 ARENA DID have DEPTH despite it's easy execution and auto combos.
I feel like this was the same issue with BBTAG before it was even launched. People saw easy combos/limited normals and figured it was going to be a very basic and shallow game but it ended up having so many systems with a ton of decision making that it can be quite overwhelming for most people. It's probably one of the best examples i've seen of being simple with a ton of depth. Sajam also mentioned about how offense focused DBFZ is with limited defensive options but seeing someone like Go1 block crazy things makes it all the more impressive. My take on stuff like this is that some games are just for some people and others aren't. I personally hate DBFZ because of those reasons while others love the game. It doesn't mean they need to change it for me as there are a ton of other fighting games to choose from. On the other hand I also had the same issue with GGxrd when it first came out with stuff like Milia/Zato/Ino setplay that felt so overwhelming. In later balance patches they toned some of that down and gave the player more defensive options in rev/rev2 to the point where i was more interested in playing it.
This talk about fundemental vs going ham reminds me of the Tekken top 8 at this year's evo, the contrast between the Knee vs Arslan match and Nobi vs Lowhigh is amazing, one match was all about poking and making miniscule adjustments to beat the other player's option while the other was just the definition of Unga play.
shoutouts to the wall gods helping Nobi out.
Bro is a time traveler, He saw Tekken 8 matches before it came out.
You know BBCF has Abyss mode. That shit tricked bunch of my friends with 0 fighting game experience to try it and do cool shit.
Cool shit and single-player content always better than simplifying the game when it comes to attract new players.
yes. they also like things like color-edit and custom soundtrack options. lots of customizable options. Fighting games lack these things.
I think that's why dbfz worked. As much as I hate some autocombo stuff at least it gives the new player an illusion of doing cool shit, even if it's really not helping them play better. At the very least it builds interest and invests the player to learn more.
@@QuantumFishFTW Yes, and don't forget raid. Raid or any fun coop in fact will take FGs a long way.
I think what fighting games need now that they're getting way more accessible and way larger viewership is to have a lower entry floor, but a higher skill ceiling. Think about it: UNIST is praised for having one of the best tutorials in the game, with simple combos and mechanics you can pick up and learn in the span of two or three hours. Then you slowly begin to learn more about the game and you start learning how to OS, what a fuzzy is, dash blocking, frame advantages, etc. This is what I want Guilty Gear to become: a game that is very welcoming to newer players, but also still very mechanically intensive at the highest levels of play.
I dunno man, when I hear terms like fuzzy guard and safe jumps, I just wanna quit. :P
That was what I was thinking.
Fuzzy guards and option selects are kinda lame though. You're not really making a substantial gameplay decision at that point. These are just my opinions of course, so I may be wrong
@@Cheezmonka Fuzzy guards and option selects in UNIST is so beyond necessary due to how fast things go and most characters having like, 3 different flavors of mixups. If you put Carmine in a game without fuzzy guards he'd be an easy top tier. Like, my main games right now are samsho and unist. Samsho's as traditional a fighting game gets without fuzzies or option selects or even throw techs, and I can quite confidently say fuzzy guards and option selects doesnt make anything lame in unist once you take into consideration the level of bullshit that wouldnt fly in traditional fighting games the game lets you do.
Late as I am, this video brings up an important point about fighting games and what it means for them to be "simple" or "complicated". In terms of Guilty Gear Xrd: Rev 2, I think that the main issue with the game is how impossible it is to teach to new players. For context, my friend and I started Street Fighter V and Rev 2 within a month of each-other, in the spring of 2019. For all purposes, we're both novices. In the year it has been since we started, we've managed to become exceptionally good at Street Fighter and feel like we could both enter local tournaments and do pretty well. We still have more to learn, but we're both far beyond the beginner stages. For Guilty Gear, as fun as it is for my friend and I, we are barely beyond the beginner stages. Every couple of weeks, we discover another mechanic that was hidden in plain sight, adding another layer onto an oppressively massive selection of options, few of which we can actually put into practice or use. Is this comparison fair to Guilty Gear? Not necessarily, since it is built to be MUCH more complex than Street Fighter. That said, it's not Guilty Gear's complexity that is holding us back by now, but rather the lack of direction the game tends to give its newer players. It's not that we're overwhelmed by the number of options, but rather we're stuck trying to figure out what to do with them all. We initially praised the game's tutorials for their straightforward explanations of the basics, but it does an extremely poor job going beyond those. It took us almost a full month to figure out that faultless defense existed at the start, and that's a key mechanic that completely changed the way we played. The extra tutorials beyond basic movement range from extremely informative to completely useless. Some teach you incredibly important mechanics while others give you an over-complicated summary of basic mechanics anyone who has ever played a fighting game should know.
The bottom line is that Guilty Gear doesn't need to necessarily be "simplified". What it needs to attract new players is a better-organized section of tutorials that aren't organized by difficulty but rather organized by content. A mechanics glossary would also be extremely appreciated. I really enjoy Guilty Gear and what it manages to accomplish, but its difficulty curve is an utter brick wall, and the game itself does a poor job of getting the player past it. Online tutorials do a better job, but they still aren't perfect, especially since trying to cover everything the game has to offer in a video or a wall of text just doesn't translate as well as an actual tutorial complete with demonstrations and a place to practice under relaxed conditions. Complete that with more single-player offerings and some good marketing, and Guilty Gear has the potential to reach a much larger audience. I hope that by "simplifying" Guilty Gear, they just mean that they want to make it easier to get down to brass tacks on how the game operates. Even if I STILL don't know all of Guilty Gear's mechanics, I don't want them to be removed. I just want them to be better-explained.
I am very late but I agree with absolutely everything in this post. Thank you.
I agree as well
Faultless Defense is one of the first things the mission mode teaches you, did you play the basic tutorial and think that that was all there was? That's the only way I can see you not knowing about FD for a full month while also actively trying to learn
@@NeoBoneGirl Lad, this post is over a year old and Strive has been out for a long time now. Even so, the initial tutorial covers movement, gatlings, and Roman Cancels. Faultless Defense is covered under "Missions" and it's there where Xrd's tutorials start to fall apart. For one, "Mission" modes in most fighting games are either combos or challenges, not advanced tutorials. Second, the way these challenges are laid out is extremely awkward and unintuitive. Faultless Defense isn't in there until you scroll down, and most of what the first few missions cover is in the tutorial itself. Now, I'm not going to say I wasn't a moron for not opening up missions to see what they were, but when you have an entire tutorial section, call it "Tutorial", and it doesn't cover most of the basic fundamentals of the game, that's a big problem.
As an aside, I'm kinda split on how Strive handles things. It's a simpler game so it's much easier to approach, but a lot of the unique movement and character-specific mechanics from the past are gone, which is both what makes GG complicated but also what makes it interesting. The only character who I've really enjoyed playing in Strive is Happy Chaos, though, in fairness, he's probably the most-interesting fighting game character I've ever seen. I'd argue the faults and strengths of both games balance each-other out, though I'm curious as to how they'll continue to evolve Strive moving forward.
@@blooper5li I guess this comment was pre-Strive, because I was very confused as to why you would be upset at Xrd's way of teaching you the game when Strive is actually literally the exact same thing. I think Xrd does it fine because the last thing a casual wants to see is a big, long ass tutorial that they feel like they have to get through before ever playing the game. That's definitely going to make them drop it. If you give them the bare basics of how to play, and then tell them "Hey, if you want to learn more, check out mission mode." I think it's much smoother because people who are interested in learning will go right away, and casuals who don't care can just hop online and mash and have fun. I don't think there's much of a better way to do it in the games, and you kinda have to rely on the community making it known that mission mode is where you really learn the game, along with having good other resources.
I think the problem comes when you take something that's "hard" and you make it so easy that you CAN'T fail. For example in SFV it's impossible to mess up the "Daigo Parry" because all you have to do is mash Ryu's vskill. I think that's people's concern.
Removing 1 frame links were not a problem because even with a 3 frame input buffer you still can mess up combo's, but with mashing auto combo's you can't. You CAN'T fail with DBFZ auto combo's.
We don't want it simplified to the point that every hint of complexity is removed from the game or we feel so limited that it's hard to express ourselves and if every character plays the same or if there is no variety between how player 'A' plays a character vs how player 'B' plays that same character. Some complexity is indeed GOOD in a fighting game.
In Guilty Gear two players can play Sol and both of those players can play Sol in different ways. It's still Sol and there are still his moves but the freedom that Guilty Gear provides means the way you play Sol and the way I play Sol are different and that's good. I don't want to lose that.
You won't.
I mean auto combos are not even close to being the "best option" though, it does incredibly low damage compared to even the simplest manual combo. Some players in Dragon Ball end up stopping an auto combo mid string in order to hit confirm or use it at the end of a combo in order to make it more guaranteed, but the full auto combo is never the best option. I don't see a problem with having a mechanic where you can't fail if that mechanic ends up being a very poor option.
Even Tekken has auto combos. Some people even use them. But the fact it's never a good option compared to normal play means that they don't break anything.
I'm so sick of auto combos = no freedom stances people take.
It's a load of bullshit, but people refuse to admit that autocombos come out because they are mashing. Stop mashing and you will get what you want 24/7
People complain how no skill players can fight against them while they have zero skill to deal with a 3 hit scaled combo string that can be blocked in the same way every single time.
I also hear so much about how certain moves being hidden in autocombos is bad when we've had moves with prerequisite conditions since a concept of a rekka and stances were made.
It's the dumbest hill for FGC members to die on.
this ain't it chief
@@dreadedsage8630
Hopefully.
I think the most critical element to having fighting games with really high skill ceilings and complicated mechanics, and making those mechanics more accessible to newer players, is making sure that those mechanics are still actually FUN to use at a lower skill level, and making them not so convoluted that an ordinary player wouldn't even want to use them much less learn to use them efficiently in order to play at a higher level.
If the mechanics are fun then they'll learn how to use them more efficiently on their own without even really needing an indepth tutorial to teach them. That's why people love Smash across so many different skill levels.
Adding to your point: parrying in 3rd Strike was immediately fun.
Every level of player could do it and have fun with it, and top players' use of it was proportionally much more impressive and skill-demanding.
You’re stance on playstyles and losing to strategies that are “stupid or not good” really helped my mentality. I’m definitely guilty of looking down on certain playstyles, so thanks for helping me see how important a diverse range of viable playstyles is to a successful fighting game.
3rd strike is a great example of this. At its core it's a very simple game compared to something like gg, even to sfv but strong universal mechanics level out a lot of options and give broad variety to options.
I can’t tell if this aged good or bad
Good
In my humble opinion Arcsys should keep simplification to a minimum. Simplification isn't what's going to bring in new players and spectators, they have to do that themselves through the promotion of the game online and at events. Nobody picks up a fighting game based on how simple it is.
Unique Gameplay Mechanics ✅
Characters ✅
Visuals ✅
Music ✅✅
Guilty Gear already has everything it needs to bring in a huge audience, all it needs is the same push that Tekken got these last 2 years. But they'll have to figure that out themselves, and I can assure, simplification wasn't it.
True.
dorite Mal lol for me they need more servers(Arc needs to hire more ppl tho) or even better crossplay(ik ots hard to do but the game has one of the "lesser" amount of players compared to Tekken and Sf) which in turn helps a lot on spreading the fan base and availability of players online(i got this situation where me and another guy tried to create a lobby and the connection was acting up).
facts actually
U are right sadly they really watered it down
I haven’t played the game yet but It is much less fun the spectate
And I attribute it to the lack of of combo variety/complexity
Seeing the same moves used over and over again in the same positions feels boring and the old games had that really exciting rhythm to them that made spectating them exciting even if you didn’t know what was happening
The newest game doesn’t have that excitement
It feels soulless
I think xrd had it pretty good, the training and missions teach you everything you'd ever need to know about fighting game mechanics for 90% of the total games in the genre. Guilty gear has a high skill cap but also a decent entry level where its super fun. I'm trash a guilty gear but still love playing and I don't feel like it needs to get simpler. Even just the great character designs play a big part in this imo.
Whenever I’d play fgs casually with my friends we always went with GG. It is a game where doing enough stuff to have fun with is very easy. Doesn’t matter if it’s super complex or technical to play at an intermediate level, what matters is if a beginner has enough access to enough tools to feel like they’re playing a complete game, and if the pacing of a match feels good without knowing optimal combos or punishes.
fax
If it is fun for me to play, I'll play it. Nuff said.
Here's the part where I shill Tekken, a fighting game with a distinct lack of overly complex system mechanics, but is still INFINITELY deep, stemming from the simple fact that its a 3D game. While Tekken 7 was simplified in some areas (like the throw system), it was made more complex in others (like the addition of rage drives).
Although, if you make a game where the decision tree for most characters is insanely wide, like in Tekken, that eventually will become a liability, because as we've seen in Tekken, people will gravitate towards characters that narrow their decision tree as much as possible, to limit their chances of making mistakes. Hence why Dragunov and Jack were top tier in Season 1 despite being relatively unimpressive on paper. If having the decision tree be as wide as possible were actually as good as you make it seem, Knee would still be playing Bryan. Chanel would have switched permanently back to Julia the moment she was released.
Sheesh, you hit it right on the head. This is why a lot of us guys are playing Geese now lol. Even though people say Akuma is strong, they don't play him nearly as much as Geese because Geese is the easier character. Akuma got me to buy Tekken 7 but once I learned the execution with him was hard, Geese was the next best thing lol.
FACT! we tried to clip that block string Go=1 sat through in evo Winners Finals, we couldn't fit the whole sequence in the clip.
GG definitely has a lot of redundant things (FD/IB, Blitz, DA, yrc/prc, p.HD level tension meter system, weight class VS hitboxes) that could be "fixed" and it would still be "Guilty Gear".
In any FG, simplifying the low end of the skill ceiling is ok, as long as the top end of the is still promising. I don't care about "hur dur autocombos on every button, i wanna footies/fundamentals and zero frame link babies first combos", what's more important is game being fun to play, and having a reason to keep playing the game 5, 10, 20 years later.
Blitz is so good though
The weight classes and hit boxes seem weird/ I'd agree that they could be reworked
I agree with you mostly. Trimming some of the fat from GG would be beneficial. I can see why an oki heavy game would have characters that have different wake up timings. However, when every character has two different wake up timings depending on which move you ended your combo with seems redundant. At that point why not just give everyone the ability to tech roll and delay wakeup?
This^
The subscription segways though
Best parts of his videos
I don't think people are worried about GG being simplified, they're worried about it being simplified down to SFVs level.
Aw man I liken SFV :(
Simplifying fighting games do not contribute in bringing in more casual players. If you want to have a broader appeal, producing ANY side content (cinematic story mode, alternative game modes, more characters, customization, etc.) will do MUCH more for your franchise than anything you can change in the game mechanics. Worse, reducing the amount of game mechanics will alienate your already established fanbase.
In the case of Guilty Gear, Xrd was "dumbed down" enough already. Mechanics were reduced, barrier to entry was lowered, execution was easier. And we lost some things in the process, like FRC's, which were never fully replaced in terms of mechanics. Was Guilty Gear more popular because of it? I'd wager that no, it wasn't. At least it had a super good tutorial.
Like for example, taking your game assets and making a sidescrolling beat-em-up as an alternative game mode, how awesome would that be? You'd get to learn how to control and play your character in a completely non-threatening environment. An other example is the platformer game modes in the Smash series.
Look at the Mortal Kombat series, the broad appeal comes from the cinematic story mode and alternative game modes, not the hardcore competitive versus aspect. This is what other fighting games need to work on. Extra content. The broader your appeal, the more players you'll suck in towards the competitive side. Those who want to be competitive will learn what they need.
Agreed with this.
I'm a casual who likes tournament level play and learns execution/systems,
but what I adore about a fighting game overall (while I'm learning) is it feeling like a complete, $60 robust creative package. A piece of art with a ton of creativity put into it.
Imagine a fighting game Game of the Year.
I was drawn to Blazblue, GG, and became an Arc System Works fan because they explore these sorts of things, and even if they don't hit the mark of their creative vision (many people call Blazblue's story a clusterfuck), I resonate with their philosophy in making the fighting game fun in a variety of ways, which continues to attract me - even minor things like being able to walk around in the main menu in DBFZ and Cross Tag - DBFZ presenting the "traditional" menu as Instant Transmission/teleport locations.
In the context of richness of content, imagine, possibly, if Dead or Alive Xtreme was just a sub-mode in the main Dead or Alive fighting game.
producing all those expensive modes will only amount in making your game budget emptier. How about making the decision of putting core features first and then "maybe" add all those things later to entertain when your players are bored and want something different from the usual versus mode. they need to be easy to implement to be feasable and not compromise the main production of the game. The spoiled presumption of casuals that need all this spectacle to be entertained by a fighting game it's just BS. that should tell you that these people are not really interested in what makes a fighting game good, they just want a momentary treat to feel satisfied before going the the next big thing. they don't want to waste time learning...
Simplifying doesn't necessarily come at the cost of depth. In Tekken 7, breaking basic throws was simplified to just having to press a punch button, regardless of whether it was a 1 or 2 throw. However, command throws still need to be broken the old fashioned way. So in the end, high level players still needed to learn to recognise the 1 and 2 (and 1+2) throw animations to break throws consistently.
The skill ceiling here is still the same; only the floor has been lowered a bit. It's the same shit with auto-combos; because of their lackluster dmg you'll still need to learn how to do proper ones at a higher level anyway. It will allow beginners to focus on other, arguably more important fundamentals. (Tekken doesn't have this problem as much because combos are already relatively easy to do, and always have been)
All I want in life is for EX, Gold, and Shadow characters to return.
In my opinion, it's not really about simplifying fighting games. It's about making them clear, making them intuitive and connected in a way where if your mind isn't actively fighting against its human and basic instincts for you to do something you intend to do in the game. The difference is that you don't necessarily need to make it easy to do combos or make supers or do maneuvers per ce, you just need to make them clear and intuitive how they're done, ideally both on a mental and on a physical level.
That's why I agree with making fighting games more accessible on principle, but strongly disagree with how it's done in BBTAG and DBFZ with the auto combos and auto-tracking. In those games, especially DBFZ, they proper, most effective way to play in general is to "abuse" the auto-tracking of auto combos both to open up while grounded but also to extend air combos, which is ridiculous for anyone who isn't used to the system. I think Persona 4 Arena did it better in this regard, they just need to make the damage less prohibitively tiny in comparison.
I think a good example of making something clearer and not necessarily simpler, is found not even in a fighting game but in Monster Hunter World. The combo routes and moves for a given weapon, let's say the hammer, are pretty much similar as in former titles in terms of difficulty of use, but with some cornerstones changes that make the combat much more fluid and seamless. It's easier to get used to using weapons in World, not because the buttons and combos as such are much simpler to use, but rather because within context, how they're designed with the new expansive world in mind, they make much more sense together. It's easy to understand when to use what and how, and to expand on that as you play, but it isn't necessarily so if you simplify the hammer down to one kind of pounding attack.
fax
I can't believe TFH changed my view so much. It's possible to make a simple yet deep game.
I’m what you all would consider “casual” or a “beginner” and I think simpler games are waaay more accessible. That said, even these “simpler” games take a lot of practice for someone new. Fighting games are really hard, and I think experienced players trying to encourage newbies would matter more than just making games simpler.
GG XRD has been doing that for 5 years or more. But some people just don't understand that Matthew.
The casuals complain about the game being "hard" but when a guy expirienced in the game wants to teach them they say " what a pain" and thats the problem
yea
The problem with simplifying GG is that the intricacies of what makes it so appealing to begin with. Deep system mechanics, and very unique character specific mechanics on top of the core stuff.
I'd also argue that the large number of decisions and the quick execution is exactly WHY GG players like their game, and that it shouldn't - nor need it be - dumbed down. Because *players* are habitual by nature. *Players* will tend to stick to one or two of these options more than the others, and the game becomes less about playing the matchup and more about playing the patterns you find *in the other players.*
This is exactly why Tekken has it's dynamic - sure, everyone knows how to throw a Phoenix Fist, but different players explore the breadth of the characters' movesets in different ways, so my Paul is different than your Paul, who's different than someone else's Paul. You layer this with the character customization factor, and suddenly we have two, distinctively different and yet, distinctively recognizable Pauls.
I can see *either* reducing the options pool *or* reducing the pace; but doing both at once is not good, and THAT'S the contention Strive has got going on.
The things that have to be addressed in guilty gear is:
Different wake up timings, no this is not face-up or face-down difference that must be different timings, it is that each character have a different wake up timing.
Weights, each character fits in one of 5 weight tier that changes how you can combo those characters, really 5 tiers plus wonky hurtboxes make you having to learn a different combo for each character, this is nightmare.
No more floaty dashes, yeah those are an aberration.
This is it for system change, balance changes would have a HUGE list to make Xrd an even better game.
Lastly buff Potemkin!
You have to learn different combos for different character? So the characters play... different? Oh, who would have thought! Yeah, better make all the characters play the same.
@@TheSaival You did not get it, I play with the same character, but against each different character I can't do same combo or do same oki, every character you fight against you have to have a full list of what you do that does and don't work.
Look at this main problem, you have some combos that you learn on combo training, that's supposed to be your bread and butter basic grasp on the character, but even the combos presented on that mode you can't hit all other characters, even if they have almost same weight. Like many Venom's normal combos can't hit Ky and vice versa.
So when I play against a character I must have in mind all breachs in my combos because they are not granted to hit.
The this can be tracked all down to 5 different weights and different wake up timings plus some wonky hitboxes.
The age old statement always rings true, "complexity does not equal depth". Does weight, get up times etc mean you can create different meaningful combos or oki setups or in some way enhance the options available, or is it just something that means you have to go in the lab to practice the execution after finding the only good answer online? I'm not a GG player so I genuinely don't know, but adding complexity that does nothing to enhance the depth of the game just adds a barrier against people who want to learn the game.
Wakeup timings actually do change Oki for characters. Also matters whether it's face up or face down knockdown, and people will call you out for not doing the real shit.
At least from dizzy perspective, what setups you can and can't use is dependent on characters and timings.
xLuminary Yeah, the thing is - should it be SO wide? I personally like the varied wakeup time, but dislike that every single character is specific.
Dizzy is a perfect example IMO; it’s a fun part of her design to adapt your oki based on character, but I think it’d be nice if there were three categories of wakeup speed. For example, characters have uniform fast/medium/slow wakeup speeds, and K ice fish might work on mid/slow wakeup but not on fast. I think this is better than ‘it doesn’t work on Sin and Slayer and Pot, but does for everyone else’.
Maintain the idea but make it just a BIT more uniform. That’s my two cents.
Falcon4242 I personally can’t stand autocombos and I think they’re boring. But you’re right on the meaningless barrier. The thing is, if a player isn’t dedicated enough to get passed that barrier; then I highly doubt they’re enthusiastic to improve in general.
Yeah, I don't like that stuff either. If you need to consult a Wiki just to be able to play to a reasonable level there's something amiss.
@@xLuminary
I'd rather control the wake up timing myself instead of it being some predictable statistic. Make it cost tension.
This will be my 1st guilty gear game, can't wait to play it.
Same
Me too
Will be my third, can't wait to play some singleplayer then let it collect dust.
@@HighLanderPonyYT haha that's what I do with my fighting games. Thankfully GG is fun enough to make me comeback after a while even if all I do is dojo training occasionally and playing the arcade modes
As someone who isn’t amazing at fighting games. guilty gears input timing is the source of most difficulty rather than the complexity of its mechanics.
Guilty Gear Xrd Rev 2 has really good balance though
I want to agree because I love the game but you can't tell me with a straight face that a character like Zato is balanced compared to someone like Jam. I'm not saying Jam is terrible or anything but Zato has so much control and potential for offensive with amazing range and setups including semi infinite blockstrings with Eddie, all Jam can do is run up and press buttons with limited range or throw out dragonkick specials.
@@TheSp0rki well i agree . It's just about being creative. For Example , i use Axl for close combat , and people often say to me "your crazy". But as long as you have and idea of what you want to do , its your game. There are no de-balances between characters, that's just an excuse to not improve in the game
So basically , Jam could beat the @#$@ out of Zato, if you get creative
@@berserkerf0x574 sure any character can beat any other through creative play like Sajam discussed, Guilty Gear facilitates that because of how many options there are even for limited characters like Jam. My only point is some characters have way more options and Zato is a good example of that.
@@TheSp0rki well... i don't know about that . I'm into most of the characters of GG and i never felt limited against zato or characters with wide options. But then again , i just love the mecanics of the game , so i'll give it to you
I think sometimes a little bit of complexity makes a game more accessible because it obscures the math, so it becomes less about memorizing heaps of frame data rather than just interacting with what you see happening on the screen in front of you. SFV, for example, is a relatively simple game, but partially because of that, I've felt like just getting moderately competent at it was more like doing homework than than playing a game.
personally i learned sfv by hitting my head against the wall repeatedly to find out what works and what doesn't. when not sure, look up a specific move's frame data then back to trial and error. arguably slower but makes me not want to kms
@@MallowJam SFV doesn't make you need a PH.D in learning its frame data since there isn't a lot of moves each character can do. Tekken 7 on the other hand. Learning while playing doesn't work. You have to get your butt in that lab, and learn the frame data to progress to a high level.
@@tyrenace6597 oof that sucks. i can do some research and test things out in the lab, but when it starts feeling like homework instead of having fun experimenting that's my limit(and also why i don't get to play at a high level on anything but smash)
@@MallowJam Thing is Tekken 7 competitive scene is now increasing because it is fun game.
I bet you, the competitive scene would increase even more. If they added frame data to the training mode. Harada doesn't see it that way though.
He thinks it will deter casuals from playing the game.
I dknt mind simplifying inputs like as follows
Ggxxac+r Ino has a move that is half-circle forward+forward and in revelator rev 2 it got simplified to just a quarter circle, a VERY welcome change
Sajam is like my daily podcast.
Everyone saying I want the next game to be footsies but SamSho is right there
Can´t wait for it to hit Steam tho
Sam show has 3 years of exclusivity and no netcode. It's dead on arrival.
We already have the “Simple” option for combos so we don’t need autocombos
What's the simple option for combos? Just bad combos?
@@myboy_ by pressing normals the game strings together normals and special moves automatically for you.
Sajam is brining a lot of cool content lately
Finally a good video covering this. Thank you.
A lot of people tend to believe that Execution and Depth are the same thing.
but execution CAN feel very rewarding
I disagree. Simplifying mechanics won't bring players. It's a fallacy to think or say so. People will buy the game because it looks sick, because they like the characters, the ost, etc.
ArcSys needs to focus on making it look sick and to be fun to play, and before any smartass try to say otherwise, YES it is possible for hard/complex games to be fun to be played.
Also, I am more concerned about how addressing the some of the mechanics in the game or simplifying the mechanics would effect the overall **feel** of the game. Guilty Gear isn't just fast paced with a lot of different decision trees. It has a lot of attention put into every character and how every character **feels** and homogenization can hurt how distinctive characters can be. Finally getting through the last bit of Potemkin's health pool and killing him without getting Potemkin Buster'd in the process is definitely one of the most satisfying feelings in the game, and landing even a stray counter hit on Chipp while he is zipping around and subsequently removing a quarter of his health as a result is also extremely satisfying.
If the characters were over homogenized and Guts and Weight were more simplified, the differences between fighting Potemkin and fighting (insert heavy character) and fighting Milia or fighting Fillia from Skullgirls would feel less distinctive; it could potentially detract from quality all of the characters. Those really niche, over-complicated mechanics and systems in game are part of what makes the characters so identifiable, well-crafted, and fun. Even though all of the characters have access to the same series of universal mechanics they all still feel like uniquely designed characters.
As chool and as high skill (and equally well crafted) of a game as DBFZ is, all of the characters have the same health, have similar damage outputs, and have access to all of the same mechanics; they all move around the screen the same way and at similar speeds and do similar combos in a lot of situations. This, to me, makes the game much less interesting to play at a casual level. I can play the game and then get my fill of it, and not have the desire to come back to it anymore since it doesn't really satisfy as an artistic medium. Its a great competitive game and has a fun singular player mode, but it is lacking in charm and succeeds largely because of its IP in spite of its difficulty. Even Soul Calibur gave players a R/P/S rubber guard mechanic in an effort to simplify its game mechanics and I don't think its simplification really added to the quality of the game.
But I have a lot of faith in Arc System Works and their ability to retain the fidelity of their franchise even through simplification. They aren't Bethesda.
This is probably one of the most well thought out comments on here. My fear for the new GG really comes down to me being afraid of simplification detracting from that sense of uniqueness. I like playing Zato who has his own flight mechanic and rules with Eddie which force me to approach the game differently with my gameplay differently and gives me more time to invest into learning the character. In addition to that I'm afraid that be simplification can mean more hand holding and focus on factors that make multiple rounds of GG feel different. Part of me wants to be optimistic and say that developers can make a great compromise and create something accessible and nuanced, not that I didn't the xrd wasn't. But part of me fears that we'll get a product more inline with DBFZ which has nuance and difficulties but not on the same scale.
@@G0dbeast Ya, I often feel like people forget that what makes Guilty Gear so great is how it blends its character design with its game design. If you have ever seen any anime ever; all of the characters play almost exactly how they look that they would. I feel like Daisuke is dedicated to balance characters more around being really chool to look at and fun to play, rather than being balanced as a cast. Having a diverse series of core mechanics (and perhaps a little convolution) is really the only way to justify and "balance" characters as deranged in design as having endless projectiles or minions, or characters who have omnipresence.
Hit the nail right on the head.
Guilty Gear is ArcSystem's CROWN FUCKING JEWEL. I think I remember someone saying that "a GG character is like a standard fighting game boss." There is so much depth and care put into every character, that its ridiculous on not only a gameplay perspective, but an artistic one as well. What Daisuke did in The Missing Link was never really seen before in fighting games at the time. He not only wanted to make a hardcore fighting game, he wanted to tell a story and build an interesting and fleshed out world.(the main character is his OOC for crying out loud!)
I wouldn't mind if this new Guilty Gear trimmed some of the fat of the older games. My only worry is that Arc is going to make it feel like all of their other games.
Sometimes, you wanna feel that mental gratification from playing a game of chess....
Other times, you may just wanna play a game of monopoly with your buddies.
Sajam: only footises wont make a fighting game good
Footsies: The Game: Hold my foot
Complexity does not equate to depth. What you're looking for is depth, with the simplest mechanics possible. Depth also leads to character expression, which players value in a fighting game. The secret sauce is a simple and intuitive set of rules, with a large amount of meaningful options to respond to the opponent and multiple strategies to approach a problem the gameplay presents.
I remember James Chen saying learning Guilty Gear is like going to college
Guilty gear is only 40 bucks at most so really it's a cheaper alternative
If you ask me dumbing down fighting games for the perspective hope that a phantom audience of casuals, isn't the smartest idea. If you want it to be more accessible make a better single player experience, better tutorials/character specifics, combo challenges, and have plenty of room for them to grow.
If you lower the peak of what a player can do, the casuals will still get their asses kicked by pros and leave after a week. The pros on the other hand will get bored and find a more challenging game.
In regards to DBFZ, I don't mind it being a fighting game for people who just start out, but I don't want every fighting game to be it/on its level. I go back to this day and watch matches from BBCF or combo movies and discover new things all the time.
Just like the saying goes with Dark Souls, git good.
I'd like to see Tekken simplified in terms of hitboxes and tracking. It doesn't need less depth, it just needs to be more obvious what the properties of a move are and how it can be countered. It's difficult to tell in what direction you're supposed to sidestep a move, and hitboxes can be obnoxious when it's not clear how hard or easy they are to connect. The "email harada" meme is based around these jank instances where hitboxes connect, or fail to connect, in blatantly ridiculous, seemingly rule breaking ways.
People are jumping to conclusions too quickly. We need to see actual gameplay, but people hear about simplification and already think that the game will be trash. Like if the game will become one-button mash fest, than yeah, it is bad, but Guilty Gear has so many systems on top of the fact that every character plays like they are from different games, with characters like Venom and Zato.
Another truism is that people many times mistake bloat for intentional complexity.
I think that making lower level plays easier to understand and more enjoyable is more important for newcomers, than simplification of mechanics for higher level play. I think this is a reason why Smash games tend to be really popular among casual players. Though with the way that most fighting games are designed, that can be kind of difficult without inclusion of things like autocombos.
I've already dealt with a bunch of "beginner friendly fighting games" throughout 2018-2019. Theres already been 3 games: BBTAG, DBFZ, and later GBFV. We have that new game Samurai Shodown that's as simple as it can get with not much combo potential, HUGE DAMAGE SCALES, but a lot more in the defensive strategy. Overall, whether it's easy inputs to auto combos. I love GG just as it is so I wouldnt like it being simplified just for the sake of beginner audience (I mean cmon, we have a stylish mode for that purpose. Yet theres a catch from which damage is nerfed so beginners will at some point take it up a noch and have better potential). Although it's a good way to bring in more people but we should all try and adapt. I like to progress on a game that's pretty technical. I enjoy labbing and creating different combo routes and that's been my dream since the day I started playing FG's. GGXRD was my first which is surprising due to how technical it is and of course, it was fun
But if people really want something to be less overwhelming, then maybe GG 2020 will give a more in depth tutorial? Better yet *EVEN MORE* because they've done a pretty well job with tutorials in mission mode (even though I never finished it or even touched it). If that's not enough, then idk what else.
Im with you all the way
this video is very interesting to watch in hindsight
edit:
ps. i honestly think the worst thing about strive is the effect it had in the community
I agree so much with this, having both defensive strategies and degeneracy is good.
*Especially degeneracy.*
IMO, DBFZ issue is not in its auto combos, but more in its weird pace set (ie block simulator style, having almost all specials safes and offense running possibly for dozen of seconds).
IMO again, the way MK11 is handling pressure with a reward for the player that knows where the gap is, and when to punish it, while having a braindead easy flashy (yet not full invincible) come back mechaninic is really smart way to please everyone, from casual to top player.
Fatal blow is a bad mechanic.
@@containeduniverse Argument(s) ?
To me, it's sure not the most subtile come back mechanic (XD), and it may have some scaling issues, yet at least it's not invincible on frame 1 and can be easily broken by meaties.
I don't think I'm the only one coming back here after the new gameplay, am I ?
They CAN NOT and WILL NOT go BBTag’s route of autocombos. I feel it’s going to be like P4A or something.
possible. maybe something completely new like the grid in unist.
I'm hoping for a solid adaptation of the DBFZ auto combo system with all the special moves still intact, DP, half circle forward and back motions kept in tact. Please, keep the motion specials cause I feel only qcf and qcf motions simplify it way too much and limits moves.
Keep Roman cancel and blitz. Remove danger time and include auto combos dbfz style.
@@brandonsellers1076 yikes dont let the combos be that simple tbh
@@superbrightshinystuff3425 I'm with you. Let's ne honest, DBFZ started out as BB stylish mode and as the pros worked it more, it became its own beast. That's why I like the autocombo system. Simple for newbies, but has depth for the pros. If they add that to GG, trim down some of the current mechanics and keep runs, dashes, RCs and Blitz, it can give the game new life while still being its insane anime self.
Glad you see the light!
I hate playing BBTag and wish it was more like real Blazblue But i stop playing King Of Fighters 14 because it was too hard.
Play something else then dude.
Took me 2 hours to do the KoF super(?) in the tutorial once... Once.
only reason why i stopped kof is because the game was dead when i got it rip
Part of what I love about Guilty Gear is how accessible it is despite how complicated it is. I'm kinda crap at it on any advanced level but I would never consider simplifying it.
I love that Guilty Gear has all these crazy mechanics though. I'd be ok with removing a lot of the stuff in regards to weight classes and varying wake up timings, but stuff like Blitz Shield, Roman Cancels, Danger Times all thrown together in one game are a part of what makes me like Guilty Gear so much. There's just *so* much stuff to mess around with. Trimming this stuff won't make it a bad game, but it does take away something I get enjoyment out of.
Danger time needs to go.
I agree with most of what you said except for Danger Time. That mechanic is just too random and punishing which isn't really good for the competitive side of things IMO
When GGxrd sign first came out I tried to find a character I can play with and executed their combos and setup naturally. Out of every single character the only one I manage to get the hang of was Chipp. So I legit only play Chipp. I didn't even buy Rev 2 cause I dont wanna be stuck with one character again. Never meant anyone who can random select in GG and know how to play with anyone character at a decent level. Making characters more accessible to play sounds like a good thing to me.
Hello there fellow chipp bro.
If you make every character easy and simple, there won’t be variety or player diversity. Some players get respect just for being able to play a hard character. Johnny is super hard to play. He’s cheap, but he’s respectable due to his difficulty
GG Xrd is already simplified GG, and I love it. It's still really complicated though. Most people in the comments could not even explain what each roman cancel does, and for the people who know what the colors mean, most people cannot explain when to use YRC on their own characters and why except obvious situations like Ky YRC'ing after charged hado. YRC is actually so complicated it's basically impossible to manage, because all the different ways it can be used it's impossible to tell a person "just adjust when they have meter."
I love GG, it's my favorite fighting game, but if it goes through another simplification I still think it will be the deepest and most fun fighting game on the market.
Danger Time was a completely stupid mechanic, let's be honest
Guilty Gear can definitely do away with the different wakeup times. G.U.T.S. being simpler would be nice too.
A lot of what you said about lots of options on offense and defense and games surviving also explains how melee lasts.
Even if Dragon Ball FighterZ is more simple than MvC, I still have respect for it. I picked it up like 2 weeks ago, & I just straight up can't execute anything (because I suck). I can't jump out of ground combos to save my dash for later to save my life. & I spent an hour on base Goku's combo challenge just on the Kaioken, because I just can't get the inputs down. GO1 is a monster for doing what he did
No problem, just keep practicing and soon things will come easier. Once you pick up on the execution and start understanding the game mechanics you'll be able to identify and understand things a lot easier. I started getting into fighting games with BlazBlue series and it also
took me at least a week or two to be able to get decent at inputs. Just keep practicing and watching guides and your execution will definitely get better.
Man, I miss UMvC3, and i never even played it
where was the talk about simplifying guilty gear, I just listened to 20 minutes of you talking about every other game but guilty gear.
Simplicity shouldn’t ruin depth that’s all
I've never heard so many correct things in one video.
I think the idea of high combo execution is dumb. If you lower the combo execution it would incentivise to learn other areas of the games not just sitting there grinding out a combo for 4% more damage.
I think there should be options. If you don’t want to do the most optimal combos and force yourself to learn 1f links, it shouldn’t hamper your damage output or oki all too much, but I feel that reducing the skill ceiling for players who are execution heavy isn’t the way to go either if that’s the route they please (i.e Sako’s evil ryu in USF4). If a player wants to invest their time into learning different scenarios to eke out that extra 4%, that should be their prerogative
High combo execution is a risk in itself so it's actually balanced. If I want the most possible damage but the chance of me messing it up and possibly putting myself in a bad situation is what the philosophy of risk and reward is. Also when a game has high execution combos they also generally have low execution combos and that means there are a lot of combos and a variety of options so people can be creative. By having one way to get the best damage that's also easy to do is stale and in no way promotes room for growth. Also if someone can hit you with their high execution combo that means they must be doing alright in those other areas like neutral, punishing, and hit confirming to get the hit in the first place so I don't think you need to worry yourself about them having time to focus on other areas besides combos.
Based Kaneki stop watching Twitter combo vids and start doing your own shit that you know you can do safely and consistently. That high execution is there to reward the mad lads who put in the time to master it, but no matter how good your combos are they aren’t going to be the thing that wins the match. The problem isn’t the high executions for 4% more the issues is your mentality of requiring that 4% more.
callmesugoi I agree. Like Fighterz every character can do the simple jc combo that they can compete with, but there’s also different more complicated combos that do more damage. Compared to unist where a bnb execution is more along the lines of a TOD in fighterz
But is combo execution really that much of a problem in GG specifically? It's kind of character dependent. Characters like Sol or Slayer have really nasty combos that are pretty easy to do.
The answer is simple: more DLC costumes
The DoA strategy, nice
people need to accept it. it does not sell enough for arksyss to profit, so much so that they make their money on selling you upgrades. please god give the games normal fucking names.
Don't touch my YRC's bruh
Maybe he meant to say PRC's? Because removing YRC's doesn't make a lot of sense lol
I think people have nothing to worry about. if they're happy with dragon ball next GG will be toward that. I think if they keep the variation and the system but with less complicated input thatd be a wet dream.
Complexity is not the same as depth. MMA is not a very complicated itself, all it is just fighting. Throwing a punch is very simple. Doesn't mean that there can't be high-level skill involved. People get obsessed with making things more complicated than they need to be because it makes themselves feel more sophisticated. It's the chopstick effect, just because chopsticks are more difficult to use than utensils doesn't make them better than utensils.
Bro i don't get why people don't like auto combos, as long as it is the worst combo option for any situation and you can get way more dmg with a real combo then why not? It makes the game not only casual friendly but more enticing for casuals to become better, they have somewhere to start, it looks cool, and it makes them want more so in the end auto combos are a really good feature to make a fighting game more succesful, Maximillian dood has a video on this topic check it out. Plus i want to be petty and kill with auto combos for the extra salt.
*Laughs in vegito, A. Gohan and bardock*
Because it being the absolute worst option isn't the reality in most Arc games that do auto combos.
I don't think Strive is attempting to simplify, it's trying to "balance" itself towards other fighting games, because they're zeroing in to a common ground so that, maybe by 2030, we can have an "everyone vs. everyone" dream game before we're all too old to play anymore.
I dont have too much concern about simplifying controls or auto-combos, as long as it's A COMBO i can do and it STAYS consistent regardless on situational hit/counter-hit state and how high or low of height elevation of opponent can be air juggled. Followed up what annoys the shit out of me is when comboing your opponent in G.G is their character-weight-difference+hurtbox-size of juggling your opponent puts me in situation my opponent "slips" out of my reach of hitbox and at that point makes certain combos wont work, thus taking away a lot of options for certain match-ups.
DBFZ is a very simplistic fighter.
But watching G01 and Sonicfox at EVO blew my fucking mind.
YRC & blitz shouldn't be removed; simplifying a fighting game by taking away options for a player's actions is a *terrible* idea. Stuff like guts & weight? I could give a rat's ass if those were thrown out.
I need to vote with my wallet.
I remembered reading in a recent interview that Daisuke said his intentions on the system changes were to make it easier for the audience to watch, rather than to simplify the game for casuals. This still makes me worried about the smell of the game, but does that change your opinion?
6:05 so you can say you have to go Ultra Instinct huh
I will grant you that simplified fighting games can be problematic, but I'd much rather there be a fighting game that isn't bloated with vast amounts of degeneracy and unfairness. Dante's half screen air normals that lead to ToD combos and/or nasty mixups isn't well designed, and if I lost to it and said it was stupid, I'd be justified in saying so, and I'd walk away from the game, like I did with MVC3. If my opponent thinks its stupid for me to be able to read him like a book at shimmy out of throw range, he has 0 justification for calling it stupid, because he was the one being predictable, while I used a fair strategy to beat him.
Allowing people to go "unga bunga" wild and win while also allowing calculating players to win is going against the very conceit of fighting games.
I think the issue here is that you've determined the "unga" player is not calculated. Calculated doesn't mean slow. You can play very fast and very calculated. Take a game like smash melee for instance, that game is super fast especially if you play a character like fox or falco which would be considered "unga" but those players have to be very calculated in every move they make especially since those characters can be punished so hard if they make an error (and that's if the error doesn't lead to a self destruct) . On the flip side a slow jigglypuff player has to play calculated too even though that character is much slower.
Also like in a real fight there are many strategies, so having one strategy trump all and saying the safest play should be the most rewarding limits creativity and self expression. That's usually why players or fighters need to know how to adapt and if you can't adapt that doesn't mean it's bad game design, that's error on your part. Also Dante really isn't that bad. He's no Virgil who also isn't unbeatable and he can be pretty linear especially since he has pretty slow projectiles that don't have the most durability and his teleport can be grabbed or punished and it always goes in the same place so it's not really a mixup. He's very good, but he isn't the character that can be accused of carrying the player. Besides it's marvel so "unfair" or "cheap" is the name of the game, so if it wasn't Dante that made you drop it was definitely gonna be one of the other 49 characters and hundreds of team combinations that would because everyone can do something that's "cheap". That's just probably not your style of game as a whole and that's fine.
'Dante's half screen air normals'
I just hope it's fun. MK11 disappointed in that department
Stealthblazer Games
It didn’t, Its just like MKX but people took MkX for granted. Everyone complained about High damage combos and Look at were we at now.🤣
@@boiz9552 Mkx was actually fun tho
Alot of anime games often overcomplicate things than they need to be.
More games should follow Tekken's example. Build a simple system and create the depth on the characters. The number one thing I hate about DBFZ is how there are very few interesting characters both on mechanics and on flavor. Look at how Tekken has a wide range of characters with different skill floors but look at how DBFZ gives everyone a QCF. It's the same problem I have with SFV. Remember how different Juri felt to play in SFIV not just thematically but how your hands we're doing different motions? Tekken leaves their legacy characters alone for the most part and has slowly introduced easier characters. This is my biggest fear with GG and based on what they did to the BBCF characters in BBTAG, I am worried. They remove the character complexity and make them easier to play for the sake of getting more people to play them. I don't mind that Kazumi is disgustingly easy because Heihachi is still there. But I can't say the same about DBFZ. On release the most interesting character was 21 and arguably that still remains the same. If you want a new player to learn the game give them a character that they can learn the game with. Give them a training character that has a low skill floor so they can say who do I learn next? It's ok if not everyone can learn a character, I mean it's not OK if you're the company and wants to cash in on players but it's ok if you are the designer.
Bbtag was twice as fast as most games with its own unique mechanics. You can’t port characters from 5 different games into one game without changes. End the cycle of cross tag prejudice.
Rename Roman Cancels. To a person learning the game, it doesn't help that something with the same name does 3 different things. YRC's in spirit has always seemed odd to me. I spend a quarter of my meter to give me and my opponent the same advantage? Nah, man. I'm never using that.
YRC will cancel the recovery frames of projectiles and eat any of the opponent’s inputs during activation. YRC is incredibly strong as a tool.
I see what you mean. A lot of the names of these mechanics aren't very intuitive lol. What's so Roman about meter cancelling XD
The real problem with low player count (the reason they want to dumb down it) it's the connection system. They need to develop a system as good as p2p but with more security (approved by sony, microsoft and nintendo) this way you could get universal crossplay, fighting games are the best candidates for this since they are so easy to run in any hardware + locked on 60 fps.
I just want them to reboot the plot. I love the characters but the biggest obstacle to a casual audience is that the plot is fucking nonsense and there isn't a single GG game you can just jump into and actually understand what's going on. Gotta watch a 3 hour video that explains the lore. The Xrd story mode doesn't even have gameplay and it's harder for new players than Mortal Kombat's.
I feel like there are successful examples of mechanic simplifications that make Fighting Games more accessible while remaining highly technical and skill based.
Dragon Ball FighterZ is an example of both accessible and technical.
Smash Ultimate is far more simplified compared to Melee.
Yeah, when I read that ArcSys message, I thought "Oh... oh no." Even though I consider Xrd to be a bit too hard (or maybe too fast) for me to properly learn/play, I don't want it to go in any other direction. (Except for YRC, I don't want to see that thing ever again.) Unless that direction is BBCF, I guess. Cause for some reason, as much as I prefer GG in pretty much every other aspect, I'd rather just play Centralfiction? I guess it seems simpler, on the surface (depending on what character you pick, heh)
But this talk made me realize that there's nothing to worry about, probably. The words "If a game goes from this to this, we're still good" were as if someone smacked me on the noggin. Cause it's so true. To me, as long as the control scheme, movesets/universal mechanics (for the most part), and the pace of the game are the same (among other smaller things), I'll be satisfied. It's still all up in the air, of course, but there shouldn't be any reason to panic. Worst case scenario, we just won't like it, and won't play it.
Damn, Sajam, you're pretty good at this talking thing
I guess it seems simpler, on the surface (depending on what character you pick, heh)
I disagree with this statement . I feel that BlazBlue Central Fiction is arguably just as complex as Guilty Gear Xrd Revelator, with the game like GG has a legacy skill, meaning if you haven't stuck with the game since the original back in 2008, you have a MASSIVE hill to climb in learning frame data for each character's normals, gatlings, and overall mobility options that can be used on offense and neutral.Then there are the game's plentiful system mechanics, such as having four ways to block based on specific scenarios for example, and that's not even going into the Drive mechanic, which is a UNIQUE action for EACH character, which there are over 35 of, which most of the cast plays VASTLY DIFFERENT from each other. BlazBlue was HUGE in japan, with it being popular in many Japanese arcades. With many veterans like Dogura (one of the best players in Guilty Gear) and Fenrich (arguably the best BB player, and currently one the best in DBFZ) representing the series for a long time . Sadly, The series just never took off over here in the west. Finally, in case in anyone reading this doesn't know, BB TAG and mainline BlazBlue games are two SEPARATE things all together, with BBTAG having it's own set of rules with the system mechanics, and SIMPLIFYING ALL of the characters, though the latter may change with this new update. It's for these reasons that you can't approach BlazBlue Central Fiction in the same way that you would BBTAG. Just my two cents.
Yrc in Xrd can be pressed with a huge window. In older GG games Frcs were 1-2 frame links. Blazblue isnt an easy game either
Do words "seems" and "on the surface" not mean what I think they do?
I'm perfectly aware of how hard BlazBlue is. I'm just saying that at a first glance, CF might look not as complex as Rev2. I'm not saying CF is easy, or easier compared to Rev2. Just that it may appear that way. A false impression.
dang, i thought that was clear enough
It's not about the cancel window. And I know what FRCs are, and and how tight they are, don't worry.
I just don't like how frequent YRCs are. It seems like every action is cancelled using it. I know why that's a thing, and I totally understand it. I just don't like it.
Also, I never stated that BlazBlue IS easy. Just that it may seem like it, at a glance.
Fighting games are worse when they allow full time yolo though. I'd rather have a game that allows nothing as an option (like fantasy strike, although i don't like that game itself) than one that allows full braindead yolo. It's a pretty common problem, you can't play the same against somebody who knows how to play in comparison to someone who doesn't give a single f about the game and just "wants to have some fun" and mashes button like a moron.
How about hold A to wake up, that's all I want.
play tekken then, you get up when you want to get up
@@Esdrei2011 At the cost of also being able to be hit while grounded, of course. Tekken's okizeme is really cool because of this, as well as the wake-up attacks the grounded player can do.
Thank you.