Scott, when you play Street Fighter IV, are you using the analog stick or the D-pad?
D-pad. If I try to use the analog stick, it's not so reliable. If you use the stick, you have to be ultra-precise. Otherwise you might be pushing up+back or down+back when you think you are pushing just plain old back.
I have a hard time doing super and ultra with ANY character. They make them so impossible.
I know hardcore fighter people hate it, but with so many buttons on the controllers, there really is no reason to have these crazy special move combinations other than tradition. Every special move should either have it's own button, or should be as simple as pressing two buttons simultaneously.
My knee jerk reaction to this was negative but after thinking it through this could work. I would add to your control scheme directional modifiers such as right-trigger + A + forward = special move one "weak" right-trigger + A + down = special move one "medium" right-trigger + A + back = special move one "hard"
With just 4 special moves the game would still be a little too basic. Often in games like Street Fighter your moves have different start up times/effect/hit boxes etc... depending on what button you chose to execute them with. The directional modifiers would allow you to lose none of that depth. Basically, make a more complex version of brawls special move system. A modification like this would likley appeal to all but the most hardcore of players.
The skill cap in this fighter would still be lower then in games such as Street Fighter or Guilty Gear as manual dexterity is a huge factor in those games and your game would mostly remove that. (Not to mention aggressively using charge characters is really an art in itself. Your game would never have something that difficult available.) The hard core old school would say this game is to easy and takes no skill, and in a sense they would be right in comparison to harder traditional fighting games, but for the majority it would be a vast improvement.
The only difficulty I could see with this game is that since moves are very easy to execute, if a character is given a quickly activated high priority/safe on block move this mechanism could be heavily abused. For instance, if Ryu's Dragon Punch was a one button move in Street Fighter it would completely break the game. For that matter you also couldn't allow long range grapples like Zangief either. A one button Atomic Buster would be incredibly annoying. I would be afraid your game would devolve into Soul Caliber 4. Which, at high level play, is a horrible game. The moves are all very easy to execute so the safest ones are quickly found and abused. Though, this I suspect is the fault of poor game design not the control scheme. With every character perhaps 1/10 of there move list is actually useful. The rest is just fluff. The move lists are too long. Give the character fewer, but more likley to be useful moves. Not 100 moves that the vast majority will never be used. This also helps with play testing as you are more likley to find broken high level techniques.
Isn't Mario 3 a sequel? For that matter, isn't A Link to the Past? Super Metroid? Those are all fantastic games that expand on the things that made the original great.
Those games are also ancient, from an era where Nintendo seems to have had a different philosophy on game design.
Mario 1 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre Mario 2 - derivative abortion "Mario 2" (Doki Doki Panic reskin) - innovative and welcome departure Mario 3 - perfected the genre with the existing technology; unsurpassed to this day in its genre Mario World - bold steps into the next generation while maintaining core gameplay Mario 64 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre
Zelda 1 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre Zelda 2 - experimental departure Zelda 3 - used the new technology to fully actualize the genre invented by the first Zelda 64 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre
Metroid 1 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre Super Metroid - used the new technology to fully actualize the genre
Remember, old man. Zelda 2 came out over twenty years ago. Twenty years. The cold fucking war was still on. Nintendo's decisions so long ago are barely relevant to modern discussions. What recent Nintendo sequels have either started a new genre or perfected an existing one?
We thus have one example from over seven years ago.
Super Smash Brothers was a refinement of the fighting game genre and is also the earliest four player fighting game that I can think of. Eternal Darkness perfected the survival horror genre. Sin and Punishment took shooters into a different direction, as did Pikmin for the real time strategy genre. I know that none of these games are new, but they are examples.
Remember, old man. Zelda 2 came out over twenty years ago. Twenty years. The cold fucking war was still on. Nintendo's decisions so long ago are barely relevant to modern discussions. What recent Nintendo sequels have either started a new genre or perfected an existing one?
20 years ago. Fuck.
How about the more recent focus on competitive/cooperative games? Think about the new Mario on the Wii, a competitive/cooperative multiplayer platformer. Nintendo has been moving away from solid single-player game experiences and moving towards a multiplayer game experience.
We thus have one example from over seven years ago.
Super Smash Brothers was a refinement of the fighting game genre and is also the earliest four player fighting game that I can think of. Eternal Darkness perfected the survival horror genre. Sin and Punishment took shooters into a different direction, as did Pikmin for the real time strategy genre. I know that none of these games are new, but they are examples.
Eternal Darkness perfected the survival horror genre
Eternal Darkness was more a third-person shooter with a story wrapped around it. It wasn't really that good of a game aside from having excellent art design and an interesting story. It was also a new franchise, not an extension of an existing franchise.
It was far from perfect, and there are better similar games.
Smash Brothers came out in 1999. Melee was in 2001. Brawl was in 2008. The is one of the few franchises Nintendo has left that exemplifies the idea of guaranteed incremental improvement, and one of the few I would buy at release sight unseen.
I know that none of these games are new, but they are examples.
That's the point: they're not new. Nintendo is focusing on entirely different demographics now, and appears to have a very different design philosophy from what it used to have.
How about the more recent focus on competitive/cooperative games? Think about the new Mario on the Wii, a competitive/cooperative multiplayer platformer. Nintendo has been moving away from solid single-player game experiences and moving towards a multiplayer game experience.
What about Wario Ware? They moved AWAY from multiplayer with the franchise, basically killing it.
The new Mario game is innovative and fun with its co-op, but it doesn't go far enough, and the controls are frighteningly loose compared to earlier games. I wouldn't buy it at full price, nor would I buy a sequel sight unseen. And on that note, where is a DS/Wii four swords equivalent? Why do they instead add fake, pointless "co-op" to games like Mario Galaxy?
Look at the portable Zelda games. Spirit Tracks is in many ways a step backward. It's a modern equivalent of the original Mario 2. More of the same, sloppily executed, with the franchise sticker prominently displayed. Nintendo certainly isn't pushing any boundaries.
What about Wario Ware? They moved AWAY from multiplayer with the franchise, basically killing it.
Well, they moved away from multiplayer gameplay in that case, but not a multiplayer experience. The newer Wario Ware is more akin to a party game where people take turns being asses.
The new Mario game is innovative and fun with its co-op, but it doesn't go far enough, and the controls are frighteningly loose compared to earlier games. I wouldn't buy it at full price, nor would I buy a sequel sight unseen.
The controls are a bit loose, I'll give you that; the DS version, I recall, had Mario sort of slipping. I think it added an additional challenge; if you don't nail a jump just right, you'll slide off. However, I can also see how it's incredibly aggravating to keep slipping around, as it forces you to slow down the pace of a level. However, control issues aside, the competitive/cooperative thing changes it into a new type of game. The challenge is now meta to the game itself (i.e. coordinating 4 players who are each trying to outdo each other), and for better or for worse, it alters the nature of the game completely. I would say it's still following in Nintendo's tradition of gameplay that spawns a new genre. I mean, they basically perfected the single-player platformer already, so what else can they do with that genre?
Look at the portable Zelda games. Spirit Tracks is in many ways a step backward.
Is it substantially different than Phantom Hourglass? I thought they were supposed to be very very similar games.
This is the next problem; they started spinning many different games in the same "genre" in many different directions.
s it substantially different than Phantom Hourglass?
Instead of a boat, you ride on a train. Trains are awesome. Also, the hub dungeon is not nearly as annoying as the one in Phantom Hourglass. I would say that it's an all-together better game than Phantom Hourglass, but it's not the greatest thing ever.
I think the entire Wii experience is something new. I played the archery game the other day, and it's spookily accurate. What I find the most disappointing is that all the other game developers aren't jumping on the new technology and making games for it.
I mean, they basically perfected the single-player platformer already, so what else can they do with that genre?
Make MORE of them. There's nothing wrong with more of the same if the same is awesome already.
A world in which there is only one Stradivarius violin is just as sad as the world in which there are millions of Stradivarius violins. Too much of a good thing, and it loses its specialness. Too few, and the enjoyment of that specialness does not get spread far enough.
Nintendo really made some perfect games, like Mario 3, Ocarina of Time, and Super Metroid. They shouldn't pull a Mario Party and come out with clones of these games every year, that would dilute the waters. But they should make two or three more games just like Mario 3 with different maps, suits, etc. Make a few more games just like Super Metroid, but with different maps, bosses, and weapons. Make a couple more Zelda games just the same as Ocarina of Time with a different overworld, dungeons, and bosses.
Ok, I played NS last night. First session in 2 months. I sucked. As an onos I ate three heavies in a row, but that's about my only contribution to the three games I played as an alien.
Nintendo really made some perfect games, like Mario 3, Ocarina of Time, and Super Metroid. They shouldn't pull a Mario Party and come out with clones of these games every year, that would dilute the waters. But they should make two or three more games just like Mario 3 with different maps, suits, etc. Make a few more games just like Super Metroid, but with different maps, bosses, and weapons. Make a couple more Zelda games just the same as Ocarina of Time with a different overworld, dungeons, and bosses.
I agree, but the problem is, they don't have to. I mean, look at the Virtual Console; Nintendo has demonstrated that they can make a handful of good games and just keep reselling them to us. They only make a new game when they absolutely have to. They're assholes for doing it, but it works.
I agree, but the problem is, they don'thaveto. I mean, look at the Virtual Console; Nintendo has demonstrated that they can make a handful of good games and just keep reselling them to us. They only make a new game when they absolutelyhaveto. They're assholes for doing it, but it works.
Correction: It worked. Past tense. I don't think it's going to continue working.
Is it substantially different than Phantom Hourglass? I thought they were supposed to be very very similar games.
No. It's just the same game with some badly designed boss fights and less inspired dungeons.
I think the entire Wii experience is something new. I played the archery game the other day, and it's spookily accurate.
But the games like this are nothing more than tech demos. Where is the "Mongolian Horse Archer Rail Shooter" that uses the bow and arrow? Where is the "Wandering Samurai" rpg that uses the sword? Nintendo has done nothing but demonstrate the patently obvious applications of the technology. They've done this well, granted, but no one has moved beyond "tech demo."
would say it's still following in Nintendo's tradition of gameplay that spawns a new genre. I mean, they basically perfected the single-player platformer already, so what else can they do with that genre?
Multipath puzzles. Race modes. Meaningful character selection. Alternative goals. DS integration. The list is endless.
Correction: It worked. Past tense. I don't think it's going to continue working.
Are they having trouble? Perhaps part of the reason they're pushing so hard into the casual gaming market is that they want to ensure they will continue to have a market. Nonetheless, I don't foresee them having trouble in the near future. They've managed to always give us just enough innovation at a time to keep us coming back for more. They essentially perfected the MMO marketing model before MMO's existed.
No. It's just the same game with some badly designed boss fights and less inspired dungeons.
So how is that a step backwards? They just didn't move forward. I'm not saying it's a good thing per se, but it's not exactly akin to the Mario 1/Mario 2 relationship.
Multipath puzzles. Race modes. Meaningful character selection. Alternative goals. DS integration. The list is endless.
DS Integration is the number one thing on my list that they should have done, and one of the major failings of Nintendo's next-gen development. Multipath puzzles, unless they're really really really innovative, just artificially extend the length of the platformer. Race modes are a multiplayer item, and that's where they're going with platforming right now. They've also already incorporated alternative goals into their platformers: multiple exits to the same level that open up different levels and all that. Yes, they could be doing more, but they're not doing nothing.
But the games like this are nothing more than tech demos. Where is the "Mongolian Horse Archer Rail Shooter" that uses the bow and arrow? Where is the "Wandering Samurai" rpg that uses the sword? Nintendo has done nothing but demonstrate the patently obvious applications of the technology. They've done this well, granted, but no one has moved beyond "tech demo."
This is true. The Wii has been very disappointing in terms of true innovation. Archery is fun, sure, and it's neat to have such a shockingly accurate archery simulation on the Wii, but they haven't done anything with it yet.
Then again, Wii Sports Resort is a relatively recent game, as is the Motion Plus accessory. Perhaps they're working on more complicated Wii games now that more people have the ability to play them. We shall see.
But the games like this are nothing more than tech demos. Where is the "Mongolian Horse Archer Rail Shooter" that uses the bow and arrow? Where is the "Wandering Samurai" rpg that uses the sword? Nintendo has done nothing but demonstrate the patently obvious applications of the technology. They've done this well, granted, but no one has moved beyond "tech demo."
This is true. The Wii has been very disappointing in terms of true innovation. Archery is fun, sure, and it's neat to have such a shockingly accurate archery simulation on the Wii, but they haven'tdoneanything with it yet.
Then again, Wii Sports Resort is a relatively recent game, as is the Motion Plus accessory. Perhaps they're working on more complicated Wii games now that more people have the ability to play them. We shall see.
This is why I said "What I find the most disappointing is that all the other game developers aren't jumping on the new technology and making games for it."
But there IS innovation here, despite it not being flashed out into a full game.
This is why I said "What I find the most disappointing is that all the other game developers aren't jumping on the new technology and making games for it."
Well, Nintendo is incredibly restrictive in allowing people to develop for their consoles. Why make a game on the Wii and have to jump through all of Nintendo's hoops when Sony or Microsoft will get you a dev kit for less?
Make a game with theJonny Lee head tracking tech, plus the Wii sword and bow, and you could charge as much as you want for it.
Oh, absolutely. But once again, they don't have to. They can keep going at their current pace, wait for the community to do all the development (because they're doing it right now, for free), and then open up to developers. They have an extremely conservative business model, and by all accounts, it's worked before and is continuing to work. They release their good games very slowly to keep themselves going in the market for as long as possible. Yes, it's very annoying for hardcore gamers (myself included), but nobody can deny that it works.
So how is that a stepbackwards? They just didn't move forward. I'm not saying it's agoodthing per se, but it's not exactly akin to the Mario 1/Mario 2 relationship.
If there are two games on the same engine with basically the same gameplay, and one is demonstrably inferior in some glaring way, it's definitely a step backward.
I can't believe they haven't tried capitalizing on this idea yet.
They're waiting for the right moment. It's their biggest trump card. It's the big hammer.
If they had done it five years ago, it would be shit today technology-wise. They're experimenting with every pokemon game that comes out, and someday, they'll be ready for the MMO, likely on the front of a long gaming tech plateau.
Besides, Nintendo is a Japanese company. You know full well it's incredibly disrespectful to show your full power until the last possible second.
If they had done it five years ago, it would be shit today technology-wise. They're experimenting with every pokemon game that comes out, and someday, they'll be ready for the MMO, likely on the front of a long gaming tech plateau.
Even if they did it today, it would be shit technology-wise. Nintendo has no infrastructure whatsoever for doing an MMO. Also you would have to consider which route would they want to take? With the exception of a few N64 games, Pokemon has never done well on console, and all the regular games were for handheld. So naturally, a successful MMO would have to be on a DS today. Could they actually do it on there? Possibly. More likely, they would want to experiment with something else, like the online functionality that Dragon Quest 9 has. That would actually work really well for a Pokemon game.
I still think the best Pokemon game would involve some kind of GPS's so you could only catch certain (probably rare) types of Pokemon in certain parts of the world. Ideally they'd even make it so different parts of a city would have different Pokemon, but I'm sure that's way to complex.
Comments
right-trigger + A + forward = special move one "weak"
right-trigger + A + down = special move one "medium"
right-trigger + A + back = special move one "hard"
With just 4 special moves the game would still be a little too basic. Often in games like Street Fighter your moves have different start up times/effect/hit boxes etc... depending on what button you chose to execute them with. The directional modifiers would allow you to lose none of that depth.
Basically, make a more complex version of brawls special move system. A modification like this would likley appeal to all but the most hardcore of players.
The skill cap in this fighter would still be lower then in games such as Street Fighter or Guilty Gear as manual dexterity is a huge factor in those games and your game would mostly remove that. (Not to mention aggressively using charge characters is really an art in itself. Your game would never have something that difficult available.) The hard core old school would say this game is to easy and takes no skill, and in a sense they would be right in comparison to harder traditional fighting games, but for the majority it would be a vast improvement.
The only difficulty I could see with this game is that since moves are very easy to execute, if a character is given a quickly activated high priority/safe on block move this mechanism could be heavily abused. For instance, if Ryu's Dragon Punch was a one button move in Street Fighter it would completely break the game. For that matter you also couldn't allow long range grapples like Zangief either. A one button Atomic Buster would be incredibly annoying. I would be afraid your game would devolve into Soul Caliber 4. Which, at high level play, is a horrible game. The moves are all very easy to execute so the safest ones are quickly found and abused. Though, this I suspect is the fault of poor game design not the control scheme. With every character perhaps 1/10 of there move list is actually useful. The rest is just fluff. The move lists are too long. Give the character fewer, but more likley to be useful moves. Not 100 moves that the vast majority will never be used. This also helps with play testing as you are more likley to find broken high level techniques.
Mario 1 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre
Mario 2 - derivative abortion
"Mario 2" (Doki Doki Panic reskin) - innovative and welcome departure
Mario 3 - perfected the genre with the existing technology; unsurpassed to this day in its genre
Mario World - bold steps into the next generation while maintaining core gameplay
Mario 64 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre
Zelda 1 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre
Zelda 2 - experimental departure
Zelda 3 - used the new technology to fully actualize the genre invented by the first
Zelda 64 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre
Metroid 1 - revolutionary game, spawning a new genre
Super Metroid - used the new technology to fully actualize the genre
Remember, old man. Zelda 2 came out over twenty years ago. Twenty years. The cold fucking war was still on. Nintendo's decisions so long ago are barely relevant to modern discussions. What recent Nintendo sequels have either started a new genre or perfected an existing one?
Seven years ago, we invaded Afghanistan, and the original Xbox was barely a year old.
How about the more recent focus on competitive/cooperative games? Think about the new Mario on the Wii, a competitive/cooperative multiplayer platformer. Nintendo has been moving away from solid single-player game experiences and moving towards a multiplayer game experience.
It was far from perfect, and there are better similar games.
Smash Brothers came out in 1999. Melee was in 2001. Brawl was in 2008. The is one of the few franchises Nintendo has left that exemplifies the idea of guaranteed incremental improvement, and one of the few I would buy at release sight unseen. That's the point: they're not new. Nintendo is focusing on entirely different demographics now, and appears to have a very different design philosophy from what it used to have. What about Wario Ware? They moved AWAY from multiplayer with the franchise, basically killing it.
The new Mario game is innovative and fun with its co-op, but it doesn't go far enough, and the controls are frighteningly loose compared to earlier games. I wouldn't buy it at full price, nor would I buy a sequel sight unseen. And on that note, where is a DS/Wii four swords equivalent? Why do they instead add fake, pointless "co-op" to games like Mario Galaxy?
Look at the portable Zelda games. Spirit Tracks is in many ways a step backward. It's a modern equivalent of the original Mario 2. More of the same, sloppily executed, with the franchise sticker prominently displayed. Nintendo certainly isn't pushing any boundaries.
This is the next problem; they started spinning many different games in the same "genre" in many different directions.
A world in which there is only one Stradivarius violin is just as sad as the world in which there are millions of Stradivarius violins. Too much of a good thing, and it loses its specialness. Too few, and the enjoyment of that specialness does not get spread far enough.
Nintendo really made some perfect games, like Mario 3, Ocarina of Time, and Super Metroid. They shouldn't pull a Mario Party and come out with clones of these games every year, that would dilute the waters. But they should make two or three more games just like Mario 3 with different maps, suits, etc. Make a few more games just like Super Metroid, but with different maps, bosses, and weapons. Make a couple more Zelda games just the same as Ocarina of Time with a different overworld, dungeons, and bosses.
Then again, Wii Sports Resort is a relatively recent game, as is the Motion Plus accessory. Perhaps they're working on more complicated Wii games now that more people have the ability to play them. We shall see.
But there IS innovation here, despite it not being flashed out into a full game.
EDIT: I still want my goddamn lightsaber game.
Sequels have to be equal, better, or different.
It's not original, but damn if I wouldn't play it.
If they had done it five years ago, it would be shit today technology-wise. They're experimenting with every pokemon game that comes out, and someday, they'll be ready for the MMO, likely on the front of a long gaming tech plateau.
Besides, Nintendo is a Japanese company. You know full well it's incredibly disrespectful to show your full power until the last possible second.