Wii U

[Esau of Isaac]

No, it's in other fighting games, Bleach for one. And how is it bad when it doesn't in any way replace original d-pad motion specials, instead only there if you need it?

Because it rewards lack of skill and ability to input. It's the antithesis to a polished fighter. I suppose it's somewhat forgivable on a handheld system that doesn't give capability to control as ably, but it's nothing to write home about, or build a system around.

You may not, but I know several people who do. I also personally found playing Advance Wars and Luminous Arc 2 better with a stylus than d-pad. It's not revolutionary or anything, but it allows for other styles of play that don't impede upon the game, and can be equally probable compared to the d-pad (unlike most motion control vs gamepad options).

I remember it the opposite for Advance Wars, actually. I found the stylus to be unwieldy for anything other than moving the cursor over a very vast distance, which really has nothing to do with any form of real advanced control. There was no realistic difference in ease of use or control. The fact that it was there as an add-on for all intents and purposes kind of makes that clear.

Name some (non-shovelware) DS sidescroller/platformers that has touch controls that severely negatively impact the game, please. Because I can't think of any.

I'm not talking about negatively impacting the game, I'm talking about positively impacting the game.

Many xbla/psn sidescrollers/platformers don't use the right thumbstuck whatsoever, does that make the right thumbstick a gimmick?

Was the Xbox 360 built with using its controller's second thumbstick as a revolutionary means of control as its primary selling point?

Wii motion controls in itself is extremely flawed, but also add on to the fact that many games are hurt because they decided to shoehorn those controls in (such as Resident Evil 4 or DBZ Tenkaichi), and that's what makes the motion controls a gimmick, while the touch screen isn't. I can't think of any DS game that was straight up ruined because of terrible touch screen controls.

Because it was just an add-on in most of these games instead of the sole means of use. If you were incapable of doing basic actions as in many Wii games without using touch controls, then you would feel insanely frustrated by them as well.

I'm sure I could probably find a few where the touch screen controls were an active detriment to gameplay, however.

Edit: Misunderstood one point

Edited November 24, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Because it rewards lack of skill and ability to input. It's the antithesis to a polished fighter. I suppose it's somewhat forgivable on a handheld system that doesn't give capability to control as ably, but it's nothing to write home about, or build a system around.

So? Why should I spend precious time learning to accurately be able to double full circle then press three buttons? The buttons add accessibility to fighting games which otherwise several people probably wouldn't touch.

I remember it the opposite for Advance Wars, actually. I found the stylus to be unwieldy for anything other than moving the cursor over a very vast distance, which really has nothing to do with any form of real advanced control. There was no realistic difference in ease of use or control. The fact that it was there as an add-on for all intents and purposes kind of makes that clear.

I found it the exact opposite. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not talking about negatively impacting the game, I'm talking about positively impacting the game.

If the touch controls aren't negatively impacting any game, then it's either a) not being used at all (which doesn't constitute it as a gimmick, by the way), b) slightly helps/adds small things that do benefit the game overall, or c) Completely innovate games. I'd say overall that this is a positive impact.

Was the Xbox 360 built with using its controller's second thumbstick as a revolutionary means of control as its primary selling point?

So what? Your argument was that the touch screen is a gimmick because platformers on the DS aren't able to use it without harming the game. I countered with the fact that platformers in general don't use several features of the hardware. Marketing is irrelevant.

Because it was just an add-on in most of these games instead of the sole means of use. If you were incapable of doing basic actions as in many Wii games without using touch controls, then you would feel insanely frustrated by them as well.

Yes, add-ons that are straight up inferior to gamepad setup because of purely technical reasons, and not preferential choice. Also, not all of the add ons are optional. Waggle qte's and several motion control mini-events in several games (that are technologically hampered) are forced.

I'm sure I could probably find a few where the touch screen controls were an active detriment to gameplay, however.

Please name some non-shovelware DS games that do so then.

I'm also going to point out that since the DS came out, the new iterations of portable consoles now also include touch screen controls to some degree. This is similar to the fact that when the N64 analog stick/rumble pak came out, they were considered gimmicks, and now every console up to now (besides the Wii/WiiU, but that's because they replaced them with new, experimental things) include them.

[Esau of Isaac]

So? Why should I spend precious time learning to accurately be able to double full circle then press three buttons? The buttons add accessibility to fighting games which otherwise several people probably wouldn't touch.

Why should you spend precious time learning how to play anything? Why not just press one button and have the game do everything for you?

Because it discourages actual gameplay.

If the touch controls aren't negatively impacting any game, then it's either a) not being used at all (which doesn't constitute it as a gimmick, by the way), b) slightly helps/adds small things that do benefit the game overall, or c) Completely innovate games. I'd say overall that this is a positive impact.

Again, I'm talking about a relevant positive impact. It might be a positive impact to make it necessary to own a huge chair that acts as speakers and sub-woofer for a game. It doesn't matter that it adds immersion to whatever handheld it is used for, it's a lame gimmick that's unnecessary.

So what? Your argument was that the touch screen is a gimmick because platformers on the DS aren't able to use it without harming the game. I countered with the fact that platformers in general don't use several features of the hardware. Marketing is irrelevant.

It's absolutely relevant. The system was made because of the notion that a second touch-screen would be an in-depth revolution to gameplay. That's its purpose. If it fails at innovating in its titles then it's a gimmick.

Titles like TWEWY should be in abundance, not a rarity. Those are the kinds of games that the DS was made for. That's what I'm talking about. Games like Advance Wars? Dragon Quest? Zelda? Pokemon? They would work quite fine on a handheld like the PSP with only a single screen.

Please name some non-shovelware DS games that do so then.

What do you classify as shovelware?

I'm also going to point out that since the DS came out, the new iterations of portable consoles now also include touch screen controls to some degree. This is similar to the fact that when the N64 analog stick/rumble pak came out, they were considered gimmicks, and now every console up to now (besides the Wii/WiiU, but that's because they replaced them with new, experimental things) include them.

To some lame degree. And surprise, outside of a very small number of them such as Gravity Rush, their use is more or less pointless and could be done fine without.

[Constable Reggie]

Why should you spend precious time learning how to play anything? Why not just press one button and have the game do everything for you?

Because it discourages actual gameplay.

I highly doubt the majority of portable gamers are seasoned fighting game players. There is no denying that complex fighting inputs can hamper the game for the majority of players: the touchscreen allows for enjoyment of those games without previous time investment.

Again, I'm talking about a relevant positive impact. It might be a positive impact to make it necessary to own a huge chair that acts as speakers and sub-woofer for a game. It doesn't matter that itt adds immersion to whatever handheld it is used for, it's a lame gimmick that's unnecessary.

Again, if you're assuming relevent as "games that can be played fine without touch screen controls", then I still don't understand how NOT impeding the game and adding small/large improvements is not considered a positive impact. Sure, Pokemon can be played fine if it were just the top screen, but the bottom screen/touch controls do improve the game, if only a little bit.

It's absolutely relevant. The system was made because of the notion that a second touch-screen would be an in-depth revolution to gameplay. That's its purpose. If it fails at innovating in its titles then it's a gimmick.

What? Where did Nintendo say that the DS would completely revolutionize gameplay? Also, your insinuation that everything that doesn't completely revolutionize gameplay is a gimmick is ridiculous.

Titles like TWEWY should be in abundance, not a rarity. Those are the kinds of games that the DS was made for. That's what I'm talking about. Games like Advance Wars? Dragon Quest? Zelda? Pokemon? They would work quite fine on a handheld like the PSP with only a single screen.

Super Mario World, Ocarina of Time, Mario Kart 64, GoldenEye, in fact probably every N64 game didn't NEED an analog stick, they would have worked quite fine on the Playstation*. Since the analog stick didn't have any games, let alone the apparently MAJORITY of games needed to constitute not being a gimmick, that fully utilitized it in a completely revolutionary way, I hereby declare that the analog stick is a gimmick.

*Assuming before the PS got analog sticks

What do you classify as shovelware?

Majority of sports games, movie/tv/other forms of entertainment tie-ins, obviously lazy ports.

To some lame degree. And surprise, outside of a very small number of them such as Gravity Rush, their use is more or less pointless and could be done fine without.

Would you argue that the rumble pak is a gimmick because it's use is more or less pointless and could be done fine without?

I honestly believe you have too high of standards for what constitutes being above a gimmick. What do you believe are true hardware improvements and not gimmicks? Because I bet I could match them to your standards and they wouldn't pass.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Rehab]

I'm of the opinion that almost everybody has the motor skill necessary to learn to execute a quarter-circle forward (on pad or otherwise), especially with sf4's input window, and that being rewarded for practice is basically half the fighting game experience, but that's just me

Edited November 24, 2012 by Rehab

[Ciarre]

I know it's irrelevant to launches, but man, Trauma Team was the shit. That and the other Trauma games basically justified the wii (and DS, but that had other stuff too) and all the wagglin to me forever.

Yes. There's a reason my namesake is from this game. The Wii also had a bunch of other games that kept my attention for a bit and also it was so easy to hack into it, it's amazing.

That said, none of the games on the Wii U so far really appeal to me. The 3DS didn't at the start either, but other games soon popped up on it *coughcough* that made me want to get it, so hopefully this is similar.

[Randoman]

Gooooood for you? I don't think there's much else I can say, sorry that my pessimism is dissatisfying :P

I'm just glad you're easing up on it now. I mean, heavy pessimism in a thread celebrating the WIi U launch kind of kills the mood.

And wow, it looks like a lot has happened since I went on a Wii U playing marathon yesterday. So much for hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a console war of sorts. I know it's not a full blown out one, but arguing that things like touchscreens and second analog sticks being gimmicks for game systems comes pretty close it it. XD

Anyways, more about my impressions. I will say that I feel Nintendo Land has quite a bit more staying power than Wii Sports. Although a lot of you said that you stopped playing Wii Sports soon after you got it, some of the multiplayer games like Mario Chase, Luigi's Mansion, and Animal Crossing Sweet Day are really addicting and you'll find yourself going back to them a lot when playing with friends at your house (I can't say much about Metroid Blast and Zelda Battle Quest since I don't have enough Wii Motion Plus controllers for a full team of players. Pikmin Adventure I can see wearing thin for quite a few people after adventure mode is completed, though I haven't touched it since launch day). I had a friend from university come over yesterday and although my brothers and I had more experience than him with the multiplayer games, it was hardly disadvantageous towards him since the games were quite easy to pick up. We also found it quite hard to switch between Nintendo Land multiplayer games since we were always so into the one we were currently playing. I wouldn't say the single player games have the same staying power as the multiplayer games after they are completed to the end (though they are rather addicting). I haven't defeated any of them yet, but failing them constantly makes me want to keep trying again repeatedly. Especially Captain Falcon's Twisted Race (I have no idea what the trick is to staying on the track after big ramps, sometimes I stay straight, other times I fly off the course even when I'm going straight). Captain Falcon's Twisted Race is pretty intense and exciting, even if you aren't an F-Zero fan. The obstacles later down the road get really fatal (some will kill you outright while others will slow you down and stop you from reaching the checkpoint in time). The second half of the race gets really difficult, and the farthest I've gotten so far is section 12 (the last one). Balloon Fight was quite simple to control, though the spikes in the air and the winds that you fight against prove to be quite challenging in later levels (especially in the part where the wind forces you to the left and unless you fight against the wind strong enough you'll hit whatever obstacles first show up from the left). Donkey Kong's Crash Course is brutal since the kart is quite frail and you need to be reallly gentle with it while moving, yet some parts force you to go really fast to make big jumps. I only made it to the second analog stick rotation part (after the swirly gate) before losing all my lives.

New Super Mario Bros. U, I've gotten farther in (mid-world 5) and quite a few of the level backgrounds I've seen are just absolutely stunning. Some of the brand new backdrops I've seen range from foggy brambled forests to ship graveyards. The new take on areas like crystalline ice caverns, haunted houses with moonlight shining through the windows, and flowing lava caves is also really vibrant and beautiful. There's also the ones that they've shown in previews like the starry snowy sky, the Van Gough painted swamp, and the gorgeous waterfall background which you just have to see for yourself firsthand (don't go buying the game just for that though :P ). The level design gets even more chaotic and hectic with the levels keeping you on the move a lot (a combination of both enemy density forcing you to keep moving and floors and platforms shifting on you a lot). Enemy density gets even more ridiculous with at least 5 enemies on the screen at any given time in quite a few sections (if they happen to be Mega Urchins, Torpedo Teds, or Flying Cheep Cheeps, you're in for a world of pain). The Haunted House puzzles have also been stepped up quite a bit (nothing that'll get you stuck on the level for days, but growing up on Super Mario World, I'm kind of embarassed that some of these puzzles I'm figuring out slower than I should be). Some of the bosses have changed significantly and it's no longer as simple as jumping on them ASAP (Morton Jr. summons and hits Giant Pokey parts towards you and you have to evade them and wait till Pokey is short enough before you jump on Morton, Bowser Jr. fights you underwater and you have to have him hit himself with his own Tracking Torpedo Teds). Challenge Mode I've tried further in depth and I think there's around 10-15 Challenges per category (and there's 5 total: time, coin, 1UP, misc, and boost mode). I haven't unlocked all of them for any category so I don't know about the upper cap, but boost mode already has more than 10 and I've done at least seven of them. Challenge Mode so far is a lot of fun (and frustration, but in an addicting way). The challenges are also really unique, especially the boost mode challenges (not to confused with Boost Rush with the automatic scrolling and coins speeding up the scrolling), where it's absolutely mandatory that boost mode is used to complete them since most of the challenges have no floor, and the ones that do you still cannot complete without boost mode platforms. The boost mode player definitely plays a much bigger role than the Mario player in the challenges, since it's the boost mode player that has to be quick and strategic in the challenges. That's the challenge mode I played the most extensively yesterday, so I guess I'll wait until I played more from the other four categories before I go in depth on them (and I already explained some of those challenges in previous posts).

[Constable Reggie]

I'm of the opinion that almost everybody has the motor skill necessary to learn to execute a quarter-circle forward (on pad or otherwise), especially with sf4's input window, and that being rewarded for practice is basically half the fighting game experience, but that's just me

But can everyone pull off Akuma's/Guile's/Zangief's super/ultra accurately 100% of the time? Keep in mind this is on the 3DS, where there's no extra buttons for quick-inputting triple punch/kick (except for the touchscreen, which again proves my point).

Edited November 24, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Comet]

I want to get it either when ssb4 comes out, or when it gets a price cut. 300$?!?! SERIOUSLY?!?!

[Rehab]

Dude, that's not a whole lot more than the wii launch. If I remember the figure right, no nintendo console has launched farther than $100 away from the original console, in current "real money." Cheaper than the competition was at launch, certainly. Not that it isn't your right to wait for a price drop in any circumstance, but I wouldn't be doing it out of indignation or anything if I were you.

[Esau of Isaac]

I highly doubt the majority of portable gamers are seasoned fighting game players. There is no denying that complex fighting inputs can hamper the game for the majority of players: the touchscreen allows for enjoyment of those games without previous time investment.

You don't need to be a seasoned gamer to be able to execute basic movements. Moreover, just because you are not seasoned doesn't mean the game should just baby you. Should all strategy games have a button that puts out whatever unit is best suited against the enemy? Should platformers have a button that makes every jump for you perfectly?

It's a personal line, and in my opinion having a button that executes moves like these instantly is crossing it.

Again, if you're assuming relevent as "games that can be played fine without touch screen controls", then I still don't understand how NOT impeding the game and adding small/large improvements is not considered a positive impact. Sure, Pokemon can be played fine if it were just the top screen, but the bottom screen/touch controls do improve the game, if only a little bit.

I'm not arguing it doesn't have some small positive impact: I'm arguing that small positive impact is why it is a gimmick most of the time.

What? Where did Nintendo say that the DS would completely revolutionize gameplay? Also, your insinuation that everything that doesn't completely revolutionize gameplay is a gimmick is ridiculous.

Where didn't they? All they were talking about was how it was the best thing since sliced bread. My insinuation isn't that everything that doesn't revolutionize is gimmicky, my statement is that if it breaks the mold for a specific purpose and doesn't fall through, using only its novelty as a driving force, then it is a gimmick. And that's what most of the DS titles did. They had half-assed implementation of touch-screen mechanics to satisfy the bare minimum of existence. And the DS sold amazingly, because of Nintendo's past record, the quality of the machine, and in my opinion many from the novelty of the touch screen.

Super Mario World, Ocarina of Time, Mario Kart 64, GoldenEye, in fact probably every N64 game didn't NEED an analog stick, they would have worked quite fine on the Playstation*. Since the analog stick didn't have any games, let alone the apparently MAJORITY of games needed to constitute not being a gimmick, that fully utilitized it in a completely revolutionary way, I hereby declare that the analog stick is a gimmick.

*Assuming before the PS got analog sticks

The N64 was not build around the analog stick. It wasn't advertised and named because of its invention and use.

And, ironically, you'd have a point about the analog stick being gimmicky...if you were talking about the original Dualshock's right analog stick. After its advertisement and release, very very few games made any actual use of it. For all intents and purposes, until the release of Ape Escape it was about as useful as tits on a bull. Meaning it was gimmicky as fuck.

Majority of sports games, movie/tv/other forms of entertainment tie-ins, obviously lazy ports.

I don't really know of any AAA games that were actively harmed by its use, then. But then I don't know of many AAA DS games that actually used the touch screen to any effect outside of extra maps and info, moving through and equipment screen, etc.

Would you argue that the rumble pak is a gimmick because it's use is more or less pointless and could be done fine without.

Yeah. More or less. It's supplemental, and people take it for granted, but it's a gimmick for the most part.

I honestly believe you have too high of standards for what constitutes being above a gimmick. What do you believe are true hardware improvements and not gimmicks? Because I bet I could match them to your standards and they wouldn't pass.

You could probably match some of them to my standards originally, but controllers, the D-pad, face buttons and triggers for example are all anything but gimmicky at this point.

But can everyone pull off Akuma's/Guile's/Zangief's super/ultra accurately 100% of the time? Keep in mind this is on the 3DS, where there's no extra buttons for quick-inputting triple punch/kick (except for the touchscreen, which again proves my point).

People have just as much trouble with them on the console. There's no problem so long as you have practice, and executing the moves without a triple button should be doable given they're so close together. Triggers are heavy and two of each face are light and medium respectively, right? So you just lay your thumb over the two while simultaneously pressing the trigger.

Should there be a button that executes every special move on the touch screen? How about target combos? How about a button that just does a thirty-hit combo for you so long as the first blow lands?

[Constable Reggie]

I'm still calling bullshit on the fighting game thing. If a game requires me to constantly practice in order to pull off what is considered core to the gameplay, then fuck that game, I'm not wasting my time on it. And I'd probably bet that many people who don't play fighting games would agree. To say adding convenient buttons that allow for easy use of supers/ultras for people who don't want to practice the game regularly is wrong is flat out ridiculous (again, it's not as efficient as manually pulling them off due to split second timing, but it allows for the damn moves to be easily used). Not every casual gamer wants to spend a lot of time just to become good at fighting games. Having the quick buttons allows casual players to play the games at a somewhat efficient level without the needed practice. Also, it's not akin to essentially having the game being played for them, it's more akin to adding a no permadeath mechanic in Prince of Persia, or adding a casual mode for Fe12. Is it wrong for people to play casual mode because the game to an extent babies you? Should the players spend a couple of hours playing the first few chapters getting their asses handed to them?

Also, I again call bullshit on double circle triple punch being a basic movement. I've played SF4 quite a bit on Xbox and I still can't pull that fucker off reliably.

As for the touch screen thing, I doubt I'm going to convince you it's not a gimmick, and vice versa. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I could have sworn this thread was about something else.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm still calling bullshit on the fighting game thing. If a game requires me to constantly practice in order to pull off what is considered core to the gameplay, then fuck that game, I'm not wasting my time on it. And I'd probably bet that many people who don't play fighting games would agree. To say adding convenient buttons that allow for easy use of supers/ultras for people who don't want to practice the game regularly is wrong is flat out ridiculous (again, it's not as efficient as manually pulling them off due to split second timing, but it allows for the damn moves to be easily used). Not every casual gamer wants to spend a lot of time just to become good at fighting games. Having the quick buttons allows casual players to play the games at a somewhat efficient level without the needed practice.

Right, it lets people who don't put in the bare amount of time to learn the mechanics play just as well as people who do. It rewards laziness by just giving you a button to let the game play for you. It's as bad as having a character's bread and butter combo automatically connect by just mashing one button, instead of requiring any amount of depth of thought and strategy. It's the opposite of a good fighting game.

Also, it's not akin to essentially having the game being played for them, it's more akin to adding a no permadeath mechanic in Prince of Persia, or adding a casual mode for Fe12. Is it wrong for people to play casual mode because the game to an extent babies you? Should the players spend a couple of hours playing the first few chapters getting their asses handed to them?

Ironically, the lack of punishment in Prince of Persia 2008, essentially placing you right back where you failed, was one of critics' biggest complaints. It didn't actually punish you for poor inputs, letting you just try over and over again with absolutely no delay.

I'm not saying that casual play is wrong, just that a good fighting game doesn't include an easy button to play for you.

Also, I again call bullshit on double circle triple punch being a basic movement. I've played SF4 quite a bit on Xbox and I still can't pull that fucker off reliably.

Then maybe grapple characters just aren't for you? Try characters whose moves are more natural to your playstyle, instead of just asking for a button that makes everyone the exact same?

Edited November 25, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Rehab]

If by double circle triple punch you mean Zangief's ultra, you're right, it's not a basic movement, it's one of the harder ones out there. Not a lot of characters that aren't grappler focused are going to have a motion like that. It is, however, a basic part of playing Zangief. Practice the movement, and you'll have a nasty punisher that few characters can match. Ergo reward for practice. It's also not as though you have to do it all on the ground, it's very common to start the movement in the middle of a jump.

If you mean double quarter-circle-forward, Ryu's ultra and super motion, well, not every fighting game makes you hit more than one attack button at once to do moves, but yeah, double qcf is a pretty common super move motion. I'm still going to guess it's within the majority of people's motor capability, though.

Fighting games are all about unlocking your potential as a player and pushing yourself, in which they are comparable to martial arts.

Input windows that require less than 1/20th of a second accuracy can be obnoxious, yes, but most all games have indeed raised their windows since, like, sf2. Internet going rest of post for another time arblblblbl

[Constable Reggie]

Right, it lets people who don't put in the bare amount of time to learn the mechanics play just as well as people who do. It rewards laziness by just giving you a button to let the game play for you. It's as bad as having a character's bread and butter combo automatically connect by just mashing one button, instead of requiring any amount of depth of thought and strategy. It's the opposite of a good fighting game.

In a split second timing fighting game such as Street Fighter, manual input will always trump having to reach other and press the button. I'm still not sure how you can see it as a bad thing: not everyone wants to fully dedicate a lot of time to fighting games, and the buttons allow them to play the game at a decent level, but will always be trumped by more experienced players. What's wrong with better accessibility for a game?

Ironically, the lack of punishment in Prince of Persia 2008, essentially placing you right back where you failed, was one of critics' biggest complaints. It didn't actually punish you for poor inputs, letting you just try over and over again with absolutely no delay.

I'm not saying that casual play is wrong, just that a good fighting game doesn't include an easy button to play for you.

I actually looked up several reviews (including the ones that Wikipedia said criticized the difficulty for), and aside from Gamespot, the general consensus is that it was for the better, even if it was easier (sound familiar?).

"This steals some of the challenge from Prince of Persia, but it also offers some freedom for exploration." -IGN

"For some the absence of death will be a step too far, but we agree with Ubisoft's designers; having to try again is punishment enough, and the lighter the punishment the better." -Eurogamer

"Prince of Persia does away with one of the most fundamental game design rules [dying] and is all the better for it." -Videogamer

"Ubisoft's PoP games have always been games that were enjoyable and lauded because of the experience of platforming, experiencing its narrative (sans Warrior Within), and so on, not because there were huge challenges to overcome." -CPUGamer

"But because of Elika, the game never feels frustrating or tiring; instead, it actually encourages you to continue playing by eliminating any real break in the action." -Destructoid

"Since there are no worries about having sand to rewind time or the dreadful notion of waiting to retry, it's easier to jump back into the game from your last checkpoint and try again. It's a testament to this fluid feature that it never feels as though the game is holding your hand." -Gamespy

Again, a button for difficult directional inputs is not the game being played for you. The player still has to combo his own attacks together, know when to use the special moves, etc etc.

Then maybe grapple characters just aren't for you? Try characters whose moves are more natural to your playstyle, instead of just asking for a button that makes everyone the exact same?

The issue isn't that Zangief is a difficult character to use (he is, but for other reasons), it's that being to able to execute one/two of his CORE techniques (not as in comboing it in successfully, but on a purely technical level) is very difficult.

Really, how can you say quick action input buttons are a bad thing when they allow for new or casual players to get into the game easier, but still aren't superior to perfectly timing manual input? Yes, it allows casual players to actually pull off some moves they otherwise probably wouldn't know how to reliably do, and that throws a wrench into players who dominate scrubs who don't know how to do anything, but it doesn't mean it will allow them to beat more experienced players. Not everyone wants to perfectly practice fighting games and becoming a fighting force on online matches: if you do, then practice the inputs instead of using the buttons. But for the rest of us, we'll stick to the quick buttons if we ever want to occasionally play SS43D or Bleach.

It is, however, a basic part of playing Zangief.

Being able to get close and deal with quicker/ranged characters is the main point of playing Zangief (at least, that's what I personally remember from SF2/4, I'm not an expert). There's a difference between practicing that, and practicing how to reliably pull off his ultra, which has nothing to do with Zangief's playstyle.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Esau of Isaac]

In a split second timing fighting game such as Street Fighter, manual input will always trump having to reach other and press the button. I'm still not sure how you can see it as a bad thing: not everyone wants to fully dedicate a lot of time to fighting games, and the buttons allow them to play the game at a decent level, but will always be trumped by more experienced players. What's wrong with better accessibility for a game?

I'm not against accessibility. I am against the game holding your hand for you when it shouldn't have the need.

I actually looked up several reviews (including the ones that Wikipedia said criticized the difficulty for), and aside from Gamespot, the general consensus is that it was for the better, even if it was easier (sound familiar?).

"This steals some of the challenge from Prince of Persia, but it also offers some freedom for exploration." -IGN

"For some the absence of death will be a step too far, but we agree with Ubisoft's designers; having to try again is punishment enough, and the lighter the punishment the better." -Eurogamer

"Prince of Persia does away with one of the most fundamental game design rules [dying] and is all the better for it." -Videogamer

"Ubisoft's PoP games have always been games that were enjoyable and lauded because of the experience of platforming, experiencing its narrative (sans Warrior Within), and so on, not because there were huge challenges to overcome." -CPUGamer

"But because of Elika, the game never feels frustrating or tiring; instead, it actually encourages you to continue playing by eliminating any real break in the action." -Destructoid

"Since there are no worries about having sand to rewind time or the dreadful notion of waiting to retry, it's easier to jump back into the game from your last checkpoint and try again. It's a testament to this fluid feature that it never feels as though the game is holding your hand." -Gamespy

Again, a button for difficult directional inputs is not the game being played for you. The player still has to combo his own attacks together, know when to use the special moves, etc etc.

"The implementation of an overly-streamlined exploration system and the lack of a serious penalty for failing change the Prince of Persia formula considerably, and it severely hurts an otherwise great continuation of the franchise."

"Elika also has several powers at her disposal. Her most important is saving the Prince from death. If ever he should fall into the abyss or get the crap kicked out of him in a fight, she'll be right there to save him. This effectively means that there is no death in the new Prince of Persia and, by association, no challenge."

"Plat forming is made even easier with the introduction of new support character, Elika, who accompanies you on your whole trip. Every time the Prince is about to die, be it in combat, or just because of your accidental 'extra' button pressing...Elika will jump out and save the Prince. This immediately reduces all challenge from the game, combat is not to be feared, and when you fail at plat forming sections, Elika transports you to the nearest solid ground."

I am not going to bother debating this with you much further. It is a fact that Elika's saving of the Prince was very controversial when the game was released, and many did not appreciate its inclusion because of how it simplified everything. Anyone on this site that even lightly perused gaming publications in late 2008 and looked at anything related to this game should be at least fuzzily familiar with the crazy "easy mode" backlash the title received. Go ahead and Google all about it if you like.

The issue isn't that Zangief is a difficult character to use (he is, but for other reasons), it's that being to able to execute one/two of his CORE techniques (not as in comboing it in successfully, but on a purely technical level) is very difficult.

Executing his CORE techniques requires knowledge of the character and the movements needed to play him. That is Zangief. Part of the character is the movements you execute to play them.

Really, how can you say quick action input buttons are a bad thing when they allow for new or casual players to get into the game easier, but still aren't superior to perfectly timing manual input?

I have already told you how and why. I am against the game being ultimately simplified into a simple button pressing to do complex moves. A 360 isn't a daunting input. If you were complaining about SSFIV's insane 1-and-2 frame links, I'd agree. But no, I'm not going to agree that it's okay to have a button that does an integral part of the game for you. If you don't want to take the simple time to actually learn the character then your gameplay should reflect that.

Being able to get close and deal with quicker/ranged characters is the main point of playing Zangief (at least, that's what I personally remember from SF2/4, I'm not an expert). There's a difference between practicing that, and practicing how to reliably pull off his ultra, which has nothing to do with Zangief's playstyle.

How does it have nothing to do with his playstyle? It uses the same movements and is incorporated into the same combos.

[Constable Reggie]

I'm not against accessibility. I am against the game holding your hand for you when it shouldn't have the need.

Except it's not overtly simplifying (I mean come on, the buttons don't tell you when to use them, or how to combo them in, we're talking about a purely technical gameplay mechanic), and it is accessibility, for numerous reasons I've stated already.

"The implementation of an overly-streamlined exploration system and the lack of a serious penalty for failing change the Prince of Persia formula considerably, and it severely hurts an otherwise great continuation of the franchise."

I am not going to bother debating this with you much further. It is a fact that Elika's saving of the Prince was very controversial when the game was released, and many did not appreciate its inclusion because of how it simplified everything. Anyone on this site that even lightly perused gaming publications in late 2008 and looked at anything related to this game should be at least fuzzily familiar with the crazy "easy mode" backlash the title received. Go ahead and Google all about it if you like.

Lol, user reviews? Reliable reviews please, as in people who are paid to determine if a game is good or not, and explain the reasons for so. People who immediately jump to the conclusion that "oh, you can't die, GAME TOO EASY" are completely ignoring all the positive benefits of it, which the professional reviews point out. Yes, the no dying mechanic was controversial. No, that doesn't mean it's bad (again, as many professional reviews talked about). Yes, it may make it seem easier on the surface (although seriously, it doesn't make the platforming any harder, it just eliminates the extra time from restarting the level), no, it doesn't mean it's bad.

Executing his CORE techniques requires knowledge of the character and the movements needed to play him. That is Zangief. Part of the character is the movements you execute to play them.

I have already told you how and why. I am against the game being ultimately simplified into a simple button pressing to do complex moves. A 360 isn't a daunting input. If you were complaining about SSFIV's insane 1-and-2 frame links, I'd agree. But no, I'm not going to agree that it's okay to have a button that does an integral part of the game for you. If you don't want to take the simple time to actually learn the character then your gameplay should reflect that.

How does it have nothing to do with his playstyle? It uses the same movements and is incorporated into the same combos.

Because being able to reliably do a double full circle triple punch input IN ITSELF doesn't affect Zangief's gameplay. It's not the same as knowing when to use the moves, knowing how to get close to the opponent, knowing how to counter certain strategies, knowing how to perform combos, etc.

Then I guess that's that. You think casual/new players should have to practice the game before playing it (regardless of whether or not they will actually dedicate much of their time in the future to the game), while I think quick input buttons is a good way for casual players to immediately get into the game (whilst still being relatively inferior compared to one who practiced the manual inputs), and more importantly, HAVE FUN WITH IT without the tedium beforehand. Yes, it does sound skewed, but I honestly believe that's what it is. Nothing really more to argue, I guess.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Esau of Isaac]

Except it's not overtly simplifying (I mean come on, the buttons don't tell you when to use them, or how to combo them in, we're talking about a purely technical gameplay mechanic), and it is accessibility, for numerous reasons I've stated already.

Would it be "accessible" to have a button that, when pressed, will perform a full-screen combo link dealing 50% of the opponent's lifebar? Sure, I guess. Doesn't stop it from being stupid.

Lol, user reviews? Reliable reviews please, as in people who are paid to determine if a game is good or not, and explain the reasons for so.

This just in: You have to be paid to have a valid opinion.

I audibly guffawed.

People who immediately jump to the conclusion that "oh, you can't die, GAME TOO EASY" are completely ignoring all the positive benefits of it, which the professional reviews point out. Yes, the no dying mechanic was controversial. No, that doesn't mean it's bad (again, as many professional reviews talked about). Yes, it may make it seem easier on the surface (although seriously, it doesn't make the platforming any harder, it just eliminates the extra time from restarting the level), no, it doesn't mean it's bad.

I am going to break your little heart and let you know that Gamespot's opinion of one mechanic is the same as everyone else's. In fact, given continuous allegations of bought and paid for reviews, shouldn't you be shying away from the use of a system that rated games like Dragon Age II as amazing?

Being a professional reviewer doesn't mean shit. If it's badly made anyone can see it. The fact that someone is paid to talk doesn't mean their words are instantly of greater worth.

Because being able to reliably do a double full circle triple punch input IN ITSELF doesn't affect Zangief's gameplay. It's not the same as knowing when to use the moves, knowing how to get close to the opponent, knowing how to counter certain strategies, knowing how to perform combos, etc.

Yes it is. Knowing how to use his moves is as important as when to use them. This is akin to saying knowing how to pedal a bike has no bearing on being able to ride it. The character is the culmination of all mechanics, including the movements to execute their abilities.

Then I guess that's that. You think casual/new players should have to practice the game before playing it (regardless of whether or not they will actually dedicate much of their time in the future to the game), while I think quick input buttons is a good way for casual players to immediately get into the game (whilst still being relatively inferior compared to one who practiced the manual inputs), and more importantly, HAVE FUN WITH IT without the tedium beforehand. Yes, it does sound skewed, but I honestly believe that's what it is. Nothing really more to argue, I guess.

You can have fun with whatever you want. I'm just telling you that a good fighting game doesn't have an easy button to hold your hand. It's great if you like to drive an automatic, but stick shift is just plain better.

[Constable Reggie]

Would it be "accessible" to have a button that, when pressed, will perform a full-screen combo link dealing 50% of the opponent's lifebar? Sure, I guess. Doesn't stop it from being stupid.

When the alternative is to spend a large amount of time learning how to do it for new/casual players, and when it is on a technical level inferior to manual input (it's much more likely to get blocked), then yes, it's better to have it included. Again, not every player will want to play the game longterm: those who decide to do so will probably learn the inputs, because it allows for more advanced play.

This just in: You have to be paid to have a valid opinion.

I audibly guffawed.

I am going to break your little heart and let you know that Gamespot's opinion of one mechanic is the same as everyone else's. In fact, given continuous allegations of bought and paid for reviews, shouldn't you be shying away from the use of a system that rated games like Dragon Age II as amazing?

Being a professional reviewer doesn't mean shit. If it's badly made anyone can see it. The fact that someone is paid to talk doesn't mean their words are instantly of greater worth.

Paid reviewers actively look for all the pros and cons of games, they explain the games, and they are far more experienced in doing so than a regular video game player. They are much, much, much more likely to give accurate information about the games they review. I don't give a shit about the scores they give, I care about what they say about the games. Anyone can have an opinion, no shit, but professional reviewers are the ones most likely to have substantial evidence and reasoning to back them.

Let me give you an equally absurd reasoning: "In fact, given continuous allegations of corrupt and paid for politicians in the Government, shouldn't you be shying away from the use of a system that said Americans could be indefinitely detained based on very vague reasonings?"

Let me say your distrust of professional reviews, and the belief that any person can give the same detailed, accurate reviews as them is baffling. Even though I didn't learn about film studies, and am not paid to only watch movies and actively determine what makes them good or bad, that my opinion about movies should be equal to worth as Roger Ebert's or Richard Roeper's? I think that Citizen Kane is one of the shittiest movies ever because it's in black in white, my opinion and the reasoning behind it is just as good as Ebert's liking the movie and his reasoning.

Yes it is. Knowing how to use his moves is as important as when to use them. This is akin to saying knowing how to pedal a bike has no bearing on being able to ride it. The character is the culmination of all mechanics, including the movements to execute their abilities.

If Zangief's ultra was changed to 2xqdf triple punch, it wouldn't change his playstyle at all, do you agree? And no, learning how to move your legs in circles does not affect riding a bike. Learning how to pedal your legs against the resistance, and learning to do it whilst staying up does. Knowing how to do a double circle triple punch motion does not change Zangief's gameplay. Knowing when to use it and how to use it effectively does.

You can have fun with whatever you want. I'm just telling you that a good fighting game doesn't have an easy button to hold your hand. It's great if you like to drive an automatic, but stick shift is just plain better.

If your idea of a good fighting game (keep in mind, on the bloody 3DS, where it's likely the majority of players will not be experienced SF players) is to be made to practice motion inputs, as opposed to having that option AND having a shortcut that isn't as efficient, but allows for new players (who know they won't play the game long term, otherwise they'd probably take option A) to jump right in without getting annihilated without the tedium of practicing beforehand, then I'll stick with the bad fighting games.

Oh, and for your car example, let me say this:

Drivers who will likely drive very often, and in more varieties of vehicles and whatnot (longterm, experienced fighting gamers) would probably prefer stick. People who don't drive that often (casual/new gamers) will probably prefer automatic because they don't need to learn somewhat difficult maneuvers that stick requires. Let's say that tomorrow, there exists a car that has both options implemented (that are as effective as the two individuals), and allows the driver to choose which they want to use. What you're doing is akin to saying, "no, that car is worse than stick because it means drivers will have an easy mode for driving, they should have to learn stick and use only stick because it's better".

Edited November 25, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Esau of Isaac]

When the alternative is to spend a large amount of time learning how to do it for new/casual players, and when it is on a technical level inferior to manual input (it's much more likely to get blocked), then yes, it's better to have it included. Again, not every player will want to play the game longterm: those who decide to do so will probably learn the inputs, because it allows for more advanced play.

Or they won't, because they have the option to cheat that you gave them by just pressing a button.

Paid reviewers actively look for all the pros and cons of games, they explain the games, and they are far more experienced in doing so than a regular video game player.

They're far more experienced at writing reviews. That doesn't mean that they're somehow innately gifted about being able to express displeasure at a shitty gameplay mechanic. Just because the industry is paid doesn't mean it's more valid. That's why you have huge disparities in metacritic between critic and user reviews.

They are much, much, much more likely to give accurate information about the games they review. I don't give a shit about the scores they give, I care about what they say about the games. Anyone can have an opinion, no shit, but professional reviewers are the ones most likely to have substantial evidence and reasoning to back them.

It's either good or bad. You don't need to wax philosophic to say "This game is waaaaay to easy because it's impossible to die and doesn't punish you." I think it's awful. Some random gaming mag thinks it's good. Somehow because the guy that wrote it was paid to do so, his opinion's more valid?

If Zangief's ultra was changed to 2xqdf triple punch, it wouldn't change his playstyle at all, do you agree?

Yeah it would. Just like if Zangief were changed to a charge character it would change his playstyle.

And no, learning how to move your legs in circles does not affect riding a bike. Learning how to pedal your legs against the resistance, and learning to do it whilst staying up does.

What is the difference? One is an extension of the other.

If your idea of a good fighting game (keep in mind, on the bloody 3DS, where it's likely the majority of players will not be experienced SF players) is to be made to practice motion inputs, as opposed to having that option AND having a shortcut that isn't as efficient, but allows for new players (who know they won't play the game long term, otherwise they'd probably take option A) to jump right in without getting annihilated without the tedium of practicing beforehand, then I'll stick with the bad fighting games.

Go ahead, vote with your dollar. If you like it, that's fine. Just know that most fighting game enthusiasts, and indeed videogame players, will be voting in opposition. Most of them, myself included, think it's a silly mechanic that devalues the gaming experience, and we'll point out such when given the chance.

[Constable Reggie]

Or they won't, because they have the option to cheat that you gave them by just pressing a button.

What part of "the quick button input is not as efficient as manual input, because it's slower and is more likely to get blocked" do you not understand?

They're far more experienced at writing reviews. That doesn't mean that they're somehow innately gifted about being able to express displeasure at a shitty gameplay mechanic. Just because the industry is paid doesn't mean it's more valid. That's why you have huge disparities in metacritic between critic and user reviews.

It's either good or bad. You don't need to wax philosophic to say "This game is waaaaay to easy because it's impossible to die and doesn't punish you." I think it's awful. Some random gaming mag thinks it's good. Somehow because the guy that wrote it was paid to do so, his opinion's more valid?

Good grief. Let me ask you this: what is the difference between these two sentences?

"In Prince of Persia, you can't die. This makes the game too easy, because there is no challenge, and thus, is a bad thing."

"In Prince of Persia, you can't die. While it does make the game feel easier, it also encourages more creative exploration, removes frustration and grief from death, and makes the game more fluid by removing restarting, which makes it overall a good thing."

The two statements have different opinions. One of them gives much more explanation and reason behind the game's mechanics, and thus is a more valid opinion.

You're assuming I'm thinking that because they're paid and more well-known, they have a more valid opinion. What I"m actually saying is that professional reviewers have a much higher tendency to give in-depth reasoning and explanation about the game mechanics they're talking about, and that's what makes their opinion more valid. I have no doubt there's user reviews from very intellectual people that have just as much reasoning as professional reviewers, but a) they're far and few between and b) your examples sure as hell are not them. Would you say that my opinion that Ed Wood is total shit (reasoning: it's black and white, thus it's not as immersive and therefore bad) is just as valid as Guy #2's opinion that Ed Wood is a spectacular film (reasoning: although it's in black and white, *insert all the amazing stuff about use of black/white film in EW*, thus it's great)? If you say yes, then I'm stopping my argument here.

Yeah it would. Just like if Zangief were changed to a charge character it would change his playstyle.

I'm talking about just the super/ultra, and only when it changes into something that is pretty much the same movement except much easier to pull off (which is why I didn't say hold 3 sec input). No, it wouldn't.

What is the difference? One is an extension of the other.

The point is that the motion to pull off the piledriver BY ITSELF does not affect Zangief's gameplay. If Zangief's ultra was simplified (NOT changed into an entirely different style of input) into 2xqdf, Z, 2xqdb, whatever, it wouldn't change Zangief's gameplay. If a bike rider practiced much slower leg circle motions, it wouldn't change his bike riding.

Go ahead, vote with your dollar. If you like it, that's fine. Just know that most fighting game enthusiasts, and indeed videogame players, will be voting in opposition. Most of them, myself included, think it's a silly mechanic that devalues the gaming experience, and we'll point out such when given the chance.

Unfortunately for you, the majority of video game players aren't fighting game enthusiasts, and if in the future the opportunity arrives for fighting game makers to implement something similar to that of the 3DS system, I'd bet real money they'd implement it (insert fact: SF4 brought the ability to keybind 3 actions to a single button, which is "easy mode"). Because it allows for a wider audience to have fun with the game. Does it devalue the core fighting system? Perhaps. Does it make the game funner for new/casual (note: the majority of gamers) players while still maintaining experienced players' superiority? Yes.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Esau of Isaac]

What part of "the quick button input is not as efficient as manual input, because it's slower and is more likely to get blocked" do you not understand?

The part where you make a factually incorrect statement? How in the hell do you get the idea that a button depress is slower than two quarter circles or a 720? God forbid we bring charge mechanisms into this.

Good grief. Let me ask you this: what is the difference between these two sentences?

"In Prince of Persia, you can't die. This makes the game too easy, because there is no challenge, and thus, is a bad thing."

"In Prince of Persia, you can't die. While it does make the game feel easier, it also encourages more creative exploration, removes frustration and grief from death, and makes the game more fluid by removing restarting, which makes it overall a good thing."

The two statements have different opinions. One of them gives much more explanation and reason behind the game's mechanics, and thus is a more valid opinion.

No, it's not a more valid opinion. It's a deeper expressed opinion, but it's not of more validity simply because of that fact. Whether a person is paid to write these sentences is also not necessarily a factor in the quality. Stephanie Meyer is paid to write, Ashley Simpson is paid to sing, and IGN is paid to churn out reviews.

You're assuming I'm thinking that because they're paid and more well-known, they have a more valid opinion. What I"m actually saying is that professional reviewers have a much higher tendency to give in-depth reasoning and explanation about the game mechanics they're talking about, and that's what makes their opinion more valid. I have no doubt there's user reviews from very intellectual people that have just as much reasoning as professional reviewers, but a) they're far and few between and b) your examples sure as hell are not them.

How do you come to that conclusion? The examples I gave were just as fleshed out as your own in the relevant areas. The only difference is that they were not paid to do so. All of them identified and acknowledged their dislike for the mechanic and gave a very clear reason for why they did not like it. They don't have to give a three-page editorial on why they think a plain, out-in-the-open mechanic is shit.

Would you say that my opinion that Ed Wood is total shit (reasoning: it's black and white, thus it's not as immersive and therefore bad) is just as valid as Guy #2's opinion that Ed Wood is a spectacular film (reasoning: although it's in black and white, *insert all the amazing stuff about use of black/white film in EW*, thus it's great)? If you say yes, then I'm stopping my argument here.

Yes. You don't have to have amazing depth to opinions for them to exist.

I'm talking about just the super/ultra, and only when it changes into something that is pretty much the same movement except much easier to pull off (which is why I didn't say hold 3 sec input). No, it wouldn't.

What is the same movement? Are you insinuating that a quick-button is the same movement as a 720 or something? The lack of those movements alters how you play them intensely.

The point is that the motion to pull off the piledriver BY ITSELF does not affect Zangief's gameplay. If Zangief's ultra was simplified (NOT changed into an entirely different style of input) into 2xqdf, Z, 2xqdb, whatever, it wouldn't change Zangief's gameplay. If a bike rider practiced much slower leg circle motions, it wouldn't change his bike riding.

Yes it would. A primary method of play for many grapple characters, for example, is to buffer the move while jumping. You leap, do a quick 360, then upon hitting the ground execute your move. If you changed the motion to a quarter-circle this method of play would disappear.

How the inputs are made directly impacts how they are played.

Unfortunately for you, the majority of video game players aren't fighting game enthusiasts, and if in the future the opportunity arrives for fighting game makers to implement something similar to that of the 3DS system, I'd bet real money they'd implement it

The majority of videogame players aren't fighting game enthusiasts, but the majority of fighting game players --the people who buy fighting games-- are fighting game enthusiasts. There are several different systems by which newbies are generally given a handicap method, but they're all universally looked down upon in the fighting game community. One of the reasons that Persona 4 Arena didn't catch on very well was because of dial-a-combos that were automatically enabled even in ranked matches, for example.

[Rewjeo]

Regarding the bike analogy: Pedaling a bike is important for a bike that needs to be pedaled, but is a motorcycle race inherently worse than a bicycle race because you don't have to pedal in the motorcycle race?

[Esau of Isaac]

Were in this hypothetical make-believe reality absolutely all other things equal aside from the pedaling? Yes.

[Constable Reggie]

Yes. You don't have to have amazing depth to opinions for them to exist.

I'm done. If you say that an opinion that has absurd reasoning behind it (I think the sky is green because it looks greenish to me) is just as equally valid as one that explains in great detail and explanation ehind so (I think the sky is blue, because *facts about why sky is blue*), then nothing I say will get through to you. I think Wendy is one of the best Fe6 characters ever because she has lots of speed and wears pink armor, therefore my opinion should be held just as importantly as someone's who's opinion states she's shit for so-and-so (valid) reasons, and the tier list should be reflected upon so. Wendy to mid tier, please.

As for the idea that Persona 4's automatic combos was a negative impact, almost every review on Metacritic (I counted only 2 that agreed with your statement) disagrees with you.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Davinatorman