• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fighting Games Weekly | Jan 27 - Feb 2 | The Power of Gamers

R

Retro_

Unconfirmed Member
I can't believe people took that anime post seriously. It's like the history of my posts regarding tolerance meant absolutely nothing.

Miyazaki doesn't believe in post history or search functions

He goes to the fucking library
 

The Light

Member
I like Andy's 2001 design more as you can see that he is a ninja.. However the XIII design is a nice throwback to fatal fury 2.
 

Vice

Member
Fighting games are alot more limited I feel. Like I understand some of the arguments about the potential to expand but I think you guys are really underestimating how narrow the focus of fighting games are. In fact you comparing them to games as vastly different as Bungie and Respawn's new efforts demonstrates that to me.
Bungie and Respawn are examples. Media is filled with "from the makers of X" to push new IPs. Using an exosting brand to promote a new brand is a common form of marketing especially in media. It lets companies appeal to noatalgia, which gains support automatically, while appearing original. It's something that's underused in gaming lately.
 

Dahbomb

Member
What do you think makes a fighting game successful?

Of what you consider the most successful fighting game brands this generation, explain why they were so successful?
Here is my list of what makes a fighting game successful:

*Character recognition: If your fighting game has characters that are already recognizable (ie. part of an established IP) then your fighting game is already off to a great start compared to most brand new fighting games. This even some what includes new IPs which use recognizable characters like your standard shoto, a Bruce Lee type character or an anime type character. Tropes/caricatures also fall into this.. as much as people like to hate on them they are easier to get into.

Games that do it right:

Smash
MVC franchise
Street Fighter franchise (starting out)
Injustice
BlazBlue


Game that does it wrong:

Skullgirls (the game needed more "safe" characters to be more successful)



*Playability: Probably the most important part about a fighting game. This is hard to describe or put into words but its basically how good the game feels when you play it and how good YOU feel when you play it. It's why people prefer a Marvel game over an Injustice game... when Haggar hits you with the Pipe you feel that shit. Its also why a lot of people seem to prefer Soul Calibur over the other 3D games... because the moves flow well as well as the movement. This includes game play flow... people generally don't like very slow, very methodical games they want something happening.

Games that do it right:

MVC
Soul Calibur
Smash

Games that do it wrong:

Vanilla SFxT
Day 1 Skullgirls (with the bad IPS, combo flow)



*Accessibility: Wasn't as big of a factor before this generation but moving forward this is going to become more and more important. And like Enzo said, it's not just the controls its also the platforms the game is available on and how well the game eases you into the mechanics even if the mechanics are quite in depth. This is why something like TvC wasn't as successful despite having many of the right attributes to be a successful game... it wasn't on the right platform.

Games that do it right:

Skullgirls (great tutorial system, available on many consoles including PC)
Injustice (gets you into the game with the single player, widely available on many platforms)

Games that do it wrong:

TvC (only available on Wii)
Dissidia Final Fantasy (available on a platform that no one really plays fighting game seriously on)


*Depth/Balance: I put these into one category mostly because normally I don't put much worth in equating balance and success. Some of the most successful fighting games of all time have also been some of the more imbalanced ones. However... going forward balance is going to become more of an issue because your average player is going to demand it and not just your average players but spectators too. There are people who are usually on the fence for a game and they usually watch a few high level videos to see if they want to buy. If they see the same tactics/character spam they will be discouraged from buying a game. This has become more prevalent in the age of streaming.

Depth is obvious... its what keeps people playing the game. You need a lot of other stuff to get people to buy your game but to keep them invested you need some meat on the bones.


Games that do it right:

Virtua Fighter
The newer Tekken games
SF4


Games that do it wrong:

Any fighting game that isn't being played competitively. Even the more imbalanced games have a ton of depth to them which keeps pros playing.

Good examples would be the Naruto Ninja Storm games or Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects.


*Marketing : This one is pretty obvious. If your game isn't advertised well or if people don't know about it then its not going to reach its sales potential. So many games ride or die on their marketing these days. You can make a piece of turd sell a million these days with the right marketing (like Aliens Colonial Marines). Its why Capcom games do better than ASW games and its also why NRS games sell a ton... they are marketed better than their competition.


Games that do it right:

All NRS games
The 3 big Capcom games this generation (SF4, SFxT, MVC3... SFxT managed to sell over a million despite being shunned by the community... marketing and other factors played into it selling well)


Game that does it wrong:

Skullgirls (indie game so understandable)



*Visual appeal : A game has to look good, plain and simple. This includes the art style, the animations, the effects, character designs and the overall visual design. Some of the most successful fighting games of all time were also some of the best looking games of their time (SF2, Tekken 3, Soul Calibur 1 etc.). Visual flair alone can make a bystander want to try out a game.


Games that do it right:

Tekken 3
Soul Calibur
Street Fighter 2
Mortal Kombat 1/2

Game that does it wrong:

MK9 (ugly looking characters, wonky animations)


*Identity : Enzo sort of had a category for "novelty" and "identity" but IMO it's the same thing. Put into simple terms... it's how one fighting game separates itself from the rest. Many people have played a SF game in their life time... a game that looks and plays like SF isn't going to turn many heads. Pure clones tend to do badly... like PSASBR. Identity can come from novel mechanics, an interesting visual design/theme, different control scheme, different fighting conditions (like ring out to win in Smash), different fighting format (1v1, 2v2, 3v3) etc. When you are a franchise you have an identity and you have to stick with that identity. Like for Killer Instinct... the thing that identified KI among all other fighting games was the combo breaker system which is why they chose to highlight it in the new game and even flesh it out some. I also feel that identity is important within a game series to prevent franchise fatigue (like X Factor differentiates MVC3 from MVC2 or Focus Attack differentiates SF4 from other SF games).


Game that does it right:

Smash Bros.


Game that does it wrong:

PSASBR



*Support : This is going to become more and more important going forward as people will expect it. Even in the SF2 era... Capcom supported SF2 with many expansions. It keeps games alive and interesting over years. The community also has to support a game too to keep it alive. People see the effort of a community's support and they want to be part of it so they get into a game that way (ie. MVC2/Smash effect).


Games that do it right:

All NRS games
SF4


Games that do it wrong:

MVC franchise (MVC3 actually ended up being the best supported MVC game of all time because it got one expansion at least)



As to your final question... I will just give you one answer to it and that is Street Fighter 4. It checks yes in pretty much all my categories and here's why:

*Character recognition: Uses many characters from SF2 (unlike SF3 which used many weird/unique characters and forgot to use many of the older ones).

*Accessibility: Available on all major platforms. Tutorial modes need more fleshing out though especially going forward.

*Marketing: Game was obviously marketed and it was marketed well enough. Even got a great song to go along with the original release!

*Playability: Ultra and supers look nice and hit hard. Stuff like how counter hits work (character reels back and you FEEL the hit). Stuff like Guile smacking you in the face with b+ HP is satisfying. Game has fast walk speed and fast normals. Camera is zoomed in closer to the characters so you are more into the action.

*Visual appeal: A bit lacking in this area but the game is animated near flawlessly. Effects are very nice even if the character art leaves you dismayed at times.

*Identity: It retains the SF formula but one ups on it by adding Focus Attack and Ultra which are novel mechanics that separate this SF from the other SF in the eyes of your average player.

*Depth/Balance : Pretty obvious here... depth is pretty high and balance just keeps getting better.

*Support : Fighting game with the most expansions/big updates this generation... probably the most supported Capcom game this generation as well. Supported the most by the fighting game community.


If MVC3 had support it would be a close second to SF4 this generation in terms of being a successful fighting game franchise. Another example would be Smash Brawl IF it was like Project M when it launched (ie. had better balance, playability and support).
 

Beckx

Member
Bungie and Respawn are examples. Media is filled with "from the makers of X" to push new IPs. Using an exosting brand to promote a new brand is a common form of marketing especially in media. It lets companies appeal to noatalgia, which gains support automatically, while appearing original. It's something that's underused in gaming lately.

Wait what

How teh hell did we get so many pages when nothing happened last week.

This all started with your avatar. Thanks, smedwicks.
 

Vice

Member
Wait what
Not counting direct sequels the only games I can think of are Titanfall, the next Bungie game, Dota 2 and smallers Kickstarter games that use "created by" to great success. I can't think of any big companies that use nostalgia in that way outside of those I mentioned.
 



This shit is fucking hilarious
 
I just came back from watching Peyton Manning's Broncos get annihilated in the Super Bowl. Can we get the EVO tourney season started already so I can get my mind off the subject. Not just that, Capcom needs to release USF4 tomorrow so I can start grinding again because I'm so fucking depressed right now.
 

Kalamari

Member
I can't wait for the EVO announcement, actually. I have a feeling Markman's "buckle your seatbelts" comment will finally make sense.
 

enzo_gt

tagged by Blackace
I think next week's thread title should be EVO-related TBH. The Bungie title is weird. Or I don't get it.

Also, I wonder if Project M has a chance because they'll already be using Gamecubes (assuming Nintendo doesn't stop Melee this year). I really do expect the same amount of games as last year, if not more. Maybe SG in the mix just because of the support the community showed last year.
 
FGW| Posted twice and have no idea what's going on.

For real though, I posted like twice and have no idea what's happening in these threads
 
I think next week's thread title should be EVO-related TBH. The Bungie title is weird. Or I don't get it.
Whenever I see people in here talk about what they want from a new IP or breakout fighter I can only think that they want to be swept off their feet by some prince like Bungie, Valve or Sony with major marketing dollars, brands and tournament pots. What they don't get is just how impossibly high the bar is set and how precarious a genre this is to support in the first place.

It's kinda ridiculous and because I never really bothered to quote these sorts of posts I can understand why I'll be viewed this way. Someone up above mentioned why LoL, CoD or WoW are mentioned in here and I'd say this is a part of that.
 
I think next week's thread title should be EVO-related TBH. The Bungie title is weird. Or I don't get it.

Also, I wonder if Project M has a chance because they'll already be using Gamecubes (assuming Nintendo doesn't stop Melee this year). I really do expect the same amount of games as last year, if not more. Maybe SG in the mix just because of the support the community showed last year.

Would Nintendo and/or EVO actually allow a mod as an official game given Nintendo's hardline stance on you know
 
Top Bottom