[Butta]

I wonder if I will ever be amazed by a fighter the way I was playing Soul Caliber on the DreamCast. It seems to me that fighting games have lost their luster since and offer very little to impress me the way Soul Caliber did back in the day. When SC was released on DC it was a massive upgrade over the version available in the arcade. Even looking at VF5 for PS3, I can't help be feel underwhelmed by the overall presentation and gameplay.

Soul Caliber was probably the last perfect fighter ever released on a console and still manages to impress today!

This genre needs to be reinvented!!!

[Bad_Boy]

VF5 wasnt developed from ground up for PS3 hardware, I'd wait until a couple more come out before calling it game over on fighting games. We still havent seen what the "real" tekken 6 will look like, or the next gen soul caliburs.

[V3]

In term of being impressive that had to go to VF3 on Model 3 for its time. It was so far ahead of everyone for years to come. Unlike VF4 and VF5 which nothing special.

[Rockster]

Two words. Diminishing Returns.

[Nesh]

Yep that too. But I think they could make a difference by making a few drastic changes that go beyond just static detail. Its the same games under a different skin for a decade. Its getting "tiredsome"

[Naboomagnoli]

Personally I think Street Fighter 2 was the last 'perfect' beat em up. Once characters started getting too many moves, button bashing became a perfectly valid method of winning 2 player bouts.

[tuna]

Originally Posted by Naboomagnoli

Personally I think Street Fighter 2 was the last 'perfect' beat em up. Once characters started getting too many moves, button bashing became a perfectly valid method of winning 2 player bouts.

Is there any game in particular you think this method is valid, or do you think it applies for all fighting games?

[Arwin]

I think fighting games need to make a next step. One great step they can make is physics. Looking forward to it.

[Beafy]

Originally Posted by Arwin

I think fighting games need to make a next step. One great step they can make is physics. Looking forward to it.

I respectfully disagree. Right now fighting games are highly fine-tuned clockwork machines, where knowing every frame of animation gives you advantages. It's really a easy to learn, hard to master system. As soon as you add physics to the mix, the whole scenario gets decidedly more "non-deterministic", and button-mashing becomes much more powerful...
Anyway, that discussion came up a couple of months ago regarding Super Smash Brothers I believe... Maybe you can find the thread.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Beafy

I respectfully disagree. Right now fighting games are highly fine-tuned clockwork machines, where knowing every frame of animation gives you advantages. It's really a easy to learn, hard to master system.

I think to be impressive again, open physics based combat is needed. As long as fighters still use canned animation sequences, even if it makes for a better fighter game, they won't have any 'Wow factor'. Looking at VF5 vids, they look the same to all the existing fighters but with tarted up graphics. And even those aren't too hot, because for example the cloth dynamics are canned and unrealistic. Perhaps better dynamic tweening between different sets of motions could be implemented somehow, but I doubt it given the requirements of the fighting engine.

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by Beafy

I respectfully disagree. Right now fighting games are highly fine-tuned clockwork machines, where knowing every frame of animation gives you advantages. It's really a easy to learn, hard to master system. As soon as you add physics to the mix, the whole scenario gets decidedly more "non-deterministic", and button-mashing becomes much more powerful...

Sure, I'm not saying VF5 is going to go away. But it's a closed system. In itself, it has reached its limits. To move forward, a next step is needed. And physics based doesn't mean worse, automatically, or people would never have moved from SF2 to VF5, etc.

Anyway, that discussion came up a couple of months ago regarding Super Smash Brothers I believe... Maybe you can find the thread.

I was in that thread, or at least a recent fighting game thread.

[ban25]

Originally Posted by Beafy

I respectfully disagree. Right now fighting games are highly fine-tuned clockwork machines, where knowing every frame of animation gives you advantages. It's really a easy to learn, hard to master system. As soon as you add physics to the mix, the whole scenario gets decidedly more "non-deterministic", and button-mashing becomes much more powerful...
Anyway, that discussion came up a couple of months ago regarding Super Smash Brothers I believe... Maybe you can find the thread.

Exactly. These are games of skill, timing, and strategy.

[ban25]

Originally Posted by Arwin

Sure, I'm not saying VF5 is going to go away. But it's a closed system. In itself, it has reached its limits. To move forward, a next step is needed. And physics based doesn't mean worse, automatically, or people would never have moved from SF2 to VF5, etc.

What does Street Fighter 2 have to do with crappy physics middleware?

[blakjedi]

Additional physics particularly useful for clothing and environmental interactions (water, fire, wood).

Beyond that applying physics to fighting models would remove the skill and playability that make them fun.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by ban25

Exactly. These are games of skill, timing, and strategy.

But so are physics based fighters (ie. real life combat!). There's an assumption that something different can't be good, without anything different of that sort ever having been produced. The fact that a future fighter might play very differently can't be assumed to mean it'll be no fun, in the same way BG: DA is different from Diablo II as an action RPG, so is no fun. Or the same way GT2 played very differently from Outrun, so can't be any fun as a racer. I dare say something where you have to consider shifting weight and player balance, tied in with sixaxis motion control, could be very engaging and prevent button-mashers from ever doing well.

[ban25]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I dare say something where you have to consider shifting weight and player balance, tied in with sixaxis motion control, could be very engaging and prevent button-mashers from ever doing well.

Well, let me first ask if you have any real experience with fighters on at least a semi-competitive level? If not, then we shouldn't even be having this conversation. So, fighters like Tekken and VF both factor player weight into float and stun effects. Tekken, I believe, has various weight classes, while in VF each character has a different weight. Few, if any, serious players would ever consider using a gamepad like the SIXAXIS, so the argument there is simply bogus.

It looks to me like you're trying to solve a problem that does not really exist.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by ban25

Well, let me first ask if you have any real experience with fighters on at least a semi-competitive level? If not, then we shouldn't even be having this conversation. So, fighters like Tekken and VF both factor player weight into float and stun effects. Tekken, I believe, has various weight classes, while in VF each character has a different weight. Few, if any, serious players would ever consider using a gamepad like the SIXAXIS, so the argument there is simply bogus.

I'm somewhat shocked at this response. It strikes me as totally lacking vision, and coming from the elitest hardcore fighter fan rather than general gamer. Not everyone is a semi-professional or serious player. Why would you refuse them the right to offer opinions on what they would like to see in a fighting game?

Now if you'll excuse my lack of professional status, I exercise my privalege to express ideas as to what would be a fun game for people to play. We're talking about a different class of fighter game that works on different principles, so can't be compared to existing fighter games. The logic some have expressed here is 'These games are good; that game is different; therefore that game is bad' and it's bogus! That logic would see FFXII and Rogue Galaxy with turn based combat, just because existing fans of RPGs are used to turn-based combat and won't try anything different!

Open physics gameplay could add lots of small detail like dodging, feigning, overbalancing, which is adaptable and fluid, and is evident to even beginner players. It would also put button mashes at a disadvantage. That might not be something the elitest experts appreciate, but in these games played by gamers for fun against their buddies, you get characters where a player just mashes buttons and wins 8 times out of 10 with no skill at all. A physics combat game could get round that very effectively, and be more intuitive to play, and allow for more creative combat, than the current canned animation methods. The result will be different, better in some respects and worse in others. Elitest hardcore fighters will probably complain like stink at how a company creating such a game isn't pandering to their arrogant demands, but the result is certainly something that would satify the OP's desire for a leap in fighters that can amaze once again.

It looks to me like you're trying to solve a problem that does not really exist.

The problem is that new fighting games aren't doing anything to amaze, as per the original post (did you even read that post?), being the same game each time with improved graphics. The existing gameplay mechanics ties them to the same canned animation systems, and the genre has stalled. Hence the original posters point that the genre needs to be reinvented. Now if you want to argue your case, explain what VF5 has done to amaze us all. And in case you don't appreciate this, changing the timing from a 1,2,AB+4 Double Yoghurt Punch to be 3 and 2 frames instead of 3 and 3 frames, no matter how much that might thrill the competition scene, isn't likely to amaze the masses, which is what this thread is about. How do us casuals get amazed, and attracted into buying fighting games, where at the moment we see Fighter n where n is getting ever larger and think to ourselves 'same thing I played in Fighter 3 so why should I buy the same basic game again?'

[Crayon]

I see and agree with both sides of this argument. The traditional fighting game needs to stick around, but the genre needs to grow as well. Look towards Def Jam, Power Stone or Virtual On... prototypes for the future of fighting games.

[ban25]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Open physics gameplay could add lots of small detail like dodging, feigning, overbalancing, which is adaptable and fluid, and is evident to even beginner players. It would also put button mashes at a disadvantage. That might not be something the elitest experts appreciate, but in these games played by gamers for fun against their buddies, you get characters where a player just mashes buttons and wins 8 times out of 10 with no skill at all. A physics combat game could get round that very effectively, and be more intuitive to play, and allow for more creative combat, than the current canned animation methods.

Do you have any real examples of how changing the physics model will improve gameplay? Dodging and feigning are already implemented in VF and have nothing to do with the physics model you are using. Have you ever worked with Havok or Novodex? Have you ever used the SIXAXIS controller? I assume that by writing the above post, the answer to both questions is 'No'.

[ban25]

Originally Posted by Crayon

I see and agree with both sides of this argument. The traditional fighting game needs to stick around, but the genre needs to grow as well. Look towards Def Jam, Power Stone or Virtual On... prototypes for the future of fighting games.

I agree, I think there are other franchises out there that will appeal to the novice player who's mostly interested in beating his friend up -- Super Smash Bros. or Power Stone come to mind. There are also games like MK or Tao Feng (???, the Xbox fighter) that may prove interesting to such an audience.

[Rolf N]

All those different fighting games cover a spectrum of gaming tastes, and while I don't see anything that would satisfy my own personal taste, I don't think this is a decline of the genre. Rather you just have to wait until "your" fighting game comes out.

I like 'em chaotic. Smash Bros is pretty much the only fighting franchise that works for me. I enjoyed grinding through Soul Calibur 2's single player campagin, but I actually suck at the game (I can do just two or three of Talim's combos with any reliability).

[Naboomagnoli]

Personally I think discussing new concepts for the fighter genre is completely valid, whether its' use of physics, elements of procedural motion or ragdoll, creating more interactive environments etc. It's just as valid as discussing new ideas for first person shooters, sports games, possible uses for the Wiimote/Sixaxis etc. There has been a rather hostile tone towards any suggestions in this thread thus far (proof perhaps that violent games incite more aggressive behaviour? ), presumably because people who adore modern fighters are defending their corner. I do however think Shifty was well within his rights to suggest a fix to the button mashing issue found in a number of fighters - btw Tekken 5 and Soul Calibur II suffered this more than VF4, Tekken 3 (minus Eddy) and Soul Blade - because there isn't really another genre I can think of where subtracting any attempt at skill from your play can occasionally increase your chances of winning. It may not be a problem for every single fighting game, but it does tend to rear its' ugly head alarmingly often. It may not be a problem for "masters" of the game, but that therefore limits the problem to a minority of the population of gamers.

One point to consider is why this is the case. Most fighting games tend to be arcade titles at heart, if not straight ports from the arcade version. It's probably a lot easier to get people to put more money in if they are able to get some enjoyment out of it on their very first go - making button mashing a possibility allows first-timers to get a few rounds into the game or put up a decent fight against someone who has played a few times and knows a couple of characters fairly well. More coins are inserted because more people can have fun from the off, get fairly far and think "I could get further than this".

Anyway regarding new fighting game ideas, I think we have sufficient processing power to get a proper bar-room brawl faithfully realised, with pushing, shoving, throwing of chairs, grabbing of enemies and pushing them along the bar, drinks going in their face as they slide along.. since the Sixaxis was mentioned, I could see that being well suited to shoving (especially into oncoming bad guys). I've also always thought that blocking in fighting games looks a bit rubbish compared to use of procedural blocking movements. Consider the fighting in the Matrix, or lightsabre fights; in neither case do the combatants block by holding a more or less fixed pose of holding sabre / fists close to the face or body. Similarly, in lightsabre fights nobody gets hit until the last swing of the sword; only Assassin's Creed has currently realised that lethal weapons actually kill you.
Personally, I'm praying for a new Bushido Blade and for it to be as perfect as it is in my head..

[Crayon]

Originally Posted by ban25

I agree, I think there are other franchises out there that will appeal to the novice player who's mostly interested in beating his friend up -- Super Smash Bros. or Power Stone come to mind. There are also games like MK or Tao Feng (???, the Xbox fighter) that may prove interesting to such an audience.

No, I'm not talking about CRAP for people who don't know any better.

I'm talking about genuine re-imagining of fighiting game mechanics. Virtual On is every bit as consistant, responsive as a "proper" fighting game. I haven't played much Smash Bros, but I've observed good players and I'd say the same for it.

The origional fighting game is rock paper scissors. Street Fighter 2 was an amazing realization of RPS the way it could only be done in a videogame. It took a few years before AM2 could deconstruct Street Fighter 2 and switch around bits and peices to make the Virtua Fighter system. There's no reason that the rules can't be radically re-arranged such as they are in Virtual On, Or Def Jam, and still have the essential qualitites that elitists prize in competition-level fighters.

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by Butta

I wonder if I will ever be amazed by a fighter the way I was playing Soul Caliber on the DreamCast. It seems to me that fighting games have lost their luster since and offer very little to impress me the way Soul Caliber did back in the day. When SC was released on DC it was a massive upgrade over the version available in the arcade. Even looking at VF5 for PS3, I can't help be feel underwhelmed by the overall presentation and gameplay.

Soul Caliber was probably the last perfect fighter ever released on a console and still manages to impress today!

This genre needs to be reinvented!!!

I 100% agree that the genre needs to be re-invented.

I don't think, for example, Tekken and VF5 need to be re-invented. But the genre itself is pretty dead, stale, and uninteresting and has experience significant declines in sales and market appeal.

I think we have seen some innovation in the market though -- just not the "classics, don't you DARE change my gameplay". e.g. Wrestling games. On the N64 I played a fighter that allowed 4 players all at once in full 3D combat, a robust grapple system, multiple "rule" formats for combat, as well create a wrestler AND totally customizable move selections and styles. Asmik made some KILLER games and they did pretty well for themselves. Games like God of War have also taken some of the concepts from fighters and old fashion brawlers and filled in the gap for those wanting some innovation in the form of combat.

But in general the genre is stale in terms of innovation and gameplay development/evolution.

Originally Posted by Arwin

I think fighting games need to make a next step. One great step they can make is physics. Looking forward to it.

Agreed. I want to see something like the Endorphine videos

Originally Posted by Beafy

I respectfully disagree. Right now fighting games are highly fine-tuned clockwork machines, where knowing every frame of animation gives you advantages.

Yes. But does that mean EVERY game should follow this same formula?

Should every fighter offer a combat system that is deterministic, unsurpising, and concretely static? Should they essentially continue on the same 2Dish formula from the old Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat days? A gameplay formular built around the strengths and limitations of platforms like the SNES and Genesis?

It's really a easy to learn, hard to master system. As soon as you add physics to the mix, the whole scenario gets decidedly more "non-deterministic", and button-mashing becomes much more powerful...

Originally Posted by ban25

Exactly. These are games of skill, timing, and strategy.

Just because a game deviates from the old formula does not mean they must abandon skill, timing, and strategy.

I could argue that a more dynamic, interactive, and flowing gameplay could open up the gameplay model to not only more styles of gameplay and intuition, but would also reward gamers to adapting to the endless variables the world provides.

This is one reason I think die hard fighter fans reject the idea. They are happy to live the limitations, bugs, and shortcomings of the current games. e.g. I walk into the fallen enemy and I do the "space walk" in place deal. Or if I hit my enemy into a thin pillar they always fall right down. Juggling is a classic example of how gameplay evolved to incorperate a limitation of the design/platforms. Why should you be able to juggle a 300lb man in the air with a series of kicks and punches? The "broken" solutions allow the designs to focus on what the systems back then did well: exacting results, hence timing and pre-canned strategy.

Now switch to a more dynamic, involving world. When your enemy flies back and hits that pole, it may break and your foe roll to the side. Or roll to the other. Or flip backwards. Or it may not break and he slide down or roll off to the side. Or it may crack and "break" his fall and he becomes dazed.

Now the game turns into a more dynamic experience -- like real life. The skill focus shifts AWAY from pre-canned memorized tactics, but into "assess and execute" style gameplay. You have to think on the fly and have a broad command of your arsenal and a good eye for dynamical gaging the status of your enemy and your distance from him.

Basically you create an entirely new gameplay dynamic that can be not only more realistic -- or over the top, depending on game design -- but gives a breath of fresh air to the genre as well as opening up new tactical and strategical approaches to the gameplay that dovetail with the "whippie!" features the new consoles offer.

As it stands, DoA4 and VF5, while nice looking games of exacting gameplay balance and design, are not fundamentally different from the games that came out in the genre in 1996. I am not saying there hasn't been innovation or evolution, but it has been minor compared to the market. Hence the slowing of sales in the genre.

I say keep VF5 as it is, but breath new life into the genre with some new, thoughtfully executed fighters.

[icecold1983]

imo they dont look better because animation hasnt improved since the ps2 fighting games.