Wii U

[Rehab]

Dude, I honestly sympathize with the want to simplify the inputs, but doing something like giving Zangief a version of his traditional 720 that he can easily do grounded isn't something I'd do idly. That single move does more damage than most full up combos, being both simply very strong and immune to the scaling effect combos suffer in most modern fighters (and especially in sfIV), it can often grab the other player out of the middle of their own move (as his 360 does, which is already cause for people to be wary of throwing out vulnerable moves too predictably against him), and it has range that makes it hard to disrespect. People are already rightfully wary of getting close to Zangief, and if you gave him something that could take more than half their health, which was both possible to do basically whenever he wanted and could be done with no fear of messing it up, then as soon as he would get meter, people would be even more inclined than they are already to either get a tiny health lead and run the fuck away, or just put the controller down. If they tried to fight him straight up in most matchups like that, here are some things you would see happen:

-if they whiffed basically any random normal move? bam 60+%

-if he blocked a move that's anything less than completely frame neutral and pulls off the reversal (made easier by sfIV's bigger window)? bam etc

-in the jostling back and forth for space that happens in every match, which Zangief can already make very scary, if he can just walk up to them and do the move Previously Known As the 720, or do it instantly standing, he threatens that much more damage than he already does just for the other person existing in that grab range at the wrong (or at a predicted) time, rather than having to set it up off, I don't know, a wake-up or a jump

-all of that above taken into account, if they get cornered and aren't a character that has a foolproof escape? welcome to the bam zone

It's not as though this is really high level stuff here either, though you can bet savvy players would abuse every new chance they get from an easy P.K.A. 720. This'd affect how Zangief plays in the given game all the time, everywhere, forever. Now, it's possible to do a standing 720 in a lot of games that have them, but it's usually pretty hard, and developers aren't generally in a rush to make it easier. If it's not yet easy to understand why, I kinda failed at this whole post probably.

The greater point being, fighting games as their players know them have evolved a balance that can be changed very drastically by what might seem like small tweaks, and that goes even harder for input adjustment. Making all the characters in such a game equally as easy to execute isn't just going to make purists of the genre and format mad about the coming reign of scrubs and get them all romantic for "better days," it'd probably make for a game that's not very fun for anybody to play with other people, because many character designs out there are based at least partially on having a lot of power in very specific situations, that can be used only with such significant difficulty that even the best are bound to mess up at times, or both.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you may have said before something to the effect of "well, fuck fighting games then, sounds like a waste of time," and you're entitled to such an opinion, but I'd ask you to consider whether you'd say the same for, say, a concert pianist. What they're playing may be far more inherently beautiful to a lot of people than a combo that requires multiple inputs which have a margin of error a tiny fraction of a second long, or than a standing 720, but surely part of the beauty in playing a great solo is that it's eminently possible to fuck it up. If I could sit anybody with no experience down, give them an instrument to play and wait 20 minutes, and have them be the physical equal of somebody who'd spent more time practicing, I might not value the endeavor of playing as much, right?

Well, fighting games can be like that. A particularly good one, IMO, is challenging in both the physical and mental arenas, such that I can both be exhilarated by watching somebody perform a feat of uncommon skill, and be inspired by the tenacity they might show in beating their opponent to their getting a chance to do the same. It's something possible in many genres and in many ways, to be sure, but the fighter can provide a particularly engaging brand of it that's hard to find elsewhere, and the variety of possible styles within the genre can even make it a powerful tool of self-expression, if you care to look at it that way.

It's one thing to take away the difficulty in getting into and understanding a fighting game, and I do think it would be a loss, even though my execution itself is both awful and rusted over, but if you also took all the limits that have been evolved off the characters, you wouldn't just have a lesser spectacle IMO, you'd have a game that, when you actually play it, falls apart.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Rehab

[Esau of Isaac]

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.

Whether the sky is blue or not is not opinion-based. It's an objective fact that the sky is blue. It is not an objective fact that, for example, pizza tastes good. The opinion "it tastes like shit," is just as valid as "it tastes amazing, the traditionally strong aromatic flavors of the tomato sauce's garlic components truly jive with the four-cheese makeup of this pie." One is just more fleshed out as to their opinions. Neither is more right.

Continue ignoring where I confronted this insipid line of conversation with the fact that the individuals I linked explained in very clear terms why they disliked the terrible mechanic implemented. Some even referenced how infamous the mechanic was at its time (IMPOSSIBLE! OTHER GAMING MAGS DIDN'T MENTION THIS, MUST BE UNTRUE!). But I guess since they are words written by regular Joes their logic is just substandard. If only you were paid to debate with me, perhaps I would have just given up and bowed down to your might.

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.

Do you know how many reviews praised Dragon Age II, The Old Republic, and Mass Effect 3? Do you know how universally despised these games are by the gaming public? Stop putting stock in "official" gaming review publications. Metacritic can't even be called a joke it's so fucking pathetic.

It's a fact that one of the reasons the game fell by the wayside was because of the negative reaction to simple button-mashing of combos. I was there. I saw it. I left along with many of them. If you choose not to believe that a shitty mechanic caused it then go nuts and continue living in the land of IGN where everything they say is more valid than the millions of people that actually prop up these companies. In the real world, nothing is as simple as their personal evaluations.

Edit: Rehab is teh sex. The final segments of his post perfectly explain many of my feelings on the subject. Also:

the move Previously Known As the 720

welcome to the bam zone

My sides have ascended from the mortal realm.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

I do not recall playing a single strategy game where the difference was something that would have mattered if it were just programmed for using a D-pad/analogue stick.

Well, in Advance Wars and Fire Emblem it's a lot easier and faster to just use the stylus.

I still say that I'm happy that the DS had a second touch screen.

Whether the sky is blue or not is not opinion-based. It's an objective fact that the sky is blue.

That's half true: blue is a subjective experience. Some people, like colourblind people and blind people, would not perceive the sky as blue. It's true that during the day, during clear weather, the sky refracts light from the sun that we perceive as blue light, and that is an objective fact, and that is what we usually mean by a statement like "the sky is blue", but not everyone has that perception of the sky. It's interesting to note that the ancient Greeks didn't even have a word for "blue". Homer, the Greek poet, writes of the sky shining like bronze in his Odyssey.

I understand your point, that there are objective facts beyond our ability to perceive them, but colours are not one of them! Colours are, in fact, just our brain's way of interpreting the light around us. Different animals and even other humans can interpret that light in different ways.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Anouleth

[Rehab]

*jumps on Anouleth for implying the DS has two touch screens even though it's obvious what he meant*

[Esau of Isaac]

Well, in Advance Wars and Fire Emblem it's a lot easier and faster to just use the stylus.

The extra tap you have to do with most actions really sets me off. I remember hating it and using it in rare situations.

That's half true: blue is a subjective experience. Some people, like colourblind people and blind people, would not perceive the sky as blue. It's true that during the day, during clear weather, the sky refracts light from the sun that we perceive as blue light, and that is an objective fact, and that is what we usually mean by a statement like "the sky is blue", but not everyone has that perception of the sky. It's interesting to note that the ancient Greeks didn't even have a word for "blue". Homer, the Greek poet, writes of the sky shining like bronze in his Odyssey.

Whatever word you call it, it's an objective fact that the light that reaches us is in the spectrum we associate with the color blue.*

*Since you are going to ride my ass there are exceptions based on cloud cover, time of day, and geographical location. I am obviously speaking of the sky we associate with clear sky, a sunny day, in the middle of the afternoon.

I understand your point, that there are objective facts beyond our ability to perceive them, but colours are not one of them! Colours are, in fact, just our brain's way of interpreting the light around us. Different animals and even other humans can interpret that light in different ways.

If I say water is wet are you going to argue that some people lack the sense of touch

*jumps on Anouleth for implying the DS has two touch screens even though it's obvious what he meant*

WHY DID YOU WASTE THIS OPPORTUNITY

[Constable Reggie]

Do you know how many reviews praised Dragon Age II, The Old Republic, and Mass Effect 3? Do you know how universally despised these games are by the gaming public? Stop putting stock in "official" gaming review publications. Metacritic can't even be called a joke it's so fucking pathetic.

If you actually looked at Metacritic, you'd see I was counting both professional and user reviews (none of the professional reviews agreed with your criticism, they were user reviews). Persona 4's user reviews are far higher than ME3/DA2's. Research before you jump to conclusions, please.

Also, I don't know if you're noticing this, but it feels like you're taking this argument way too seriously. I get that you don't like professional reviews, it doesn't mean you have to endlessly rag on about it and my personal (and likely several others) preference for them.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Esau of Isaac]

If you actually looked at Metacritic, you'd see I was counting both professional and user reviews (none of the professional reviews agreed with your criticism, they were user reviews). Persona 4's user reviews are far higher than ME3/DA2's. Research before you jump to conclusions, please.

Oh wow. You're telling me to research before jumping to conclusions after basically denying my claim that auto combo shit negatively impacted the online gameplay because you took a look at Metacritic?

Also, I don't know if you're noticing this, but it feels like you're taking this argument way too seriously. I get that you don't like professional reviews, it doesn't mean you have to endlessly rag on about it and my personal (and likely several others) preference for them.

I have nothing against the existence gaming rags. I have had a subscription to Game Informer for the past decade, occasionally peruse content aggregators like Kotaku, and enjoy getting an idea of what the folks over at places like Screw Attack, Gametrailers, and Rock Paper Shotgun think. But the notion that people who are paid to write their opinions are innately of greater value is tripe. Your notion that my and other users' valuations of gameplay is lesser because IGN said otherwise is nothing less than insulting to all of our basic powers of observation.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Oh wow. You're telling me to research before jumping to conclusions after basically denying my claim that auto combo shit negatively impacted the online gameplay because you took a look at Metacritic?

Yes, I have less trust your claim that Persona 4's online isn't that great because of the auto combo, because the general consensus (from EVERYONE, not professional reviews) says it doesn't hurt it. Is that simple enough?

I have nothing against the existence gaming rags. I have had a subscription to Game Informer for the past decade, occasionally peruse content aggregators like Kotaku, and enjoy getting an idea of what the folks over at places like Screw Attack, Gametrailers, and Rock Paper Shotgun think. But the notion that people who are paid to write their opinions are innately of greater value is tripe. Your notion that my and other users' valuations of gameplay is lesser because IGN said otherwise is nothing less than insulting to all of our basic powers of observation.

Again, I didn't say I say professional reviews are better because the writers are paid, I prefer them because they're generally more informative and insightful. Professional reviewers play games to critique them, with enjoyment being second. They play games with full knowledge that they're going to have to write in-depth about them (there's few exceptions, of course). General user reviews usually just play the games and enjoy them, then write up stuff they thought about it afterwards (there's few exceptions, of coruse). I do not prefer professional reviews because they're more popular, but because they're much more insightful about the stuff they're reviewing. I view opinions that don't reasonably explain why they have that opnion less. Is that a problem? Should I base my judgements on deciding whether or not to buy Diablo 3 on individual opinions that say it's one of the best games ever because it's pretty and plays well? Should I consider that equal to professional reviews that ALSO state other, more important stuff about the game? Stop thinking I prefer professional reviews because they're more popular. The reviews you brought up I already read, and I said that they're not good because they simply look at the mechanics from the surface, and how the game was only DIRECTLY impacted by it, without finding out what else changed because of them.

[Nanami Touko]

A lot of people have bias against professional paid reviewers because they're unsure how much of what they write is truth, and how much they're being paid to write "truth" :V

Edited November 26, 2012 by seph1212

[Constable Reggie]

Sure there may be some review sites that do that, but to say that means no professional review should be trusted because of that is ridiculous. My original words of "paid reviewers" may have been a bad choice of words, considering Esau's argument has been nothing but riding my ass about that, but I meant reviewers that play the game with criticism/analysis in mind and entertainment second, which just happen to be most professional reviewers. Generally, user reviews don't do that.

[Nanami Touko]

Maybe your standards for what constitutes a good review are too high.

[Constable Reggie]

I don't completely ignore user reviews, but in my opinion, to say that they all of them should held as important as most professional reviews is ridiculous. There are user reviews that are just as insightful/informative as professional reviews, but they're far and few between. If I were a casual gamer (aka someone who doesn't absolutely despise MW3 for personal reasons), should I take the user reviews of Modern Warfare 3 (32) just as seriously as professional reviews (88)? Because Modern Warfare 3 is honestly an extremely polished and well done game, if also very unoriginal. Should I hold all the 0 score reviews of Modern Warfare 3 just as high in regard of the typical professional reviews?

Should I ask a casual moviegoer about what their opinion of Drive was, and hold it as high as regard to any Movie critic's review for it?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Nanami Touko]

Sure, why not? Better question: why the fuck are you letting user/professional reviews decide everything for you? In today's day-an-age there are normally always demos for these things; videos; pictures; media for you to view and formulate your own opinion on.

I've been watching you two argue for the past few pages and I've been wondering this the entire time :E

[Constable Reggie]

Because life's short. Not all games have demos for them, and you can't always tell if a game's worth playing or not from just videos/pictures. If I had the time to play every game ever, then I would, but for now, I'd rather just play the generally good ones.

Should I play Two Worlds because the pictures/videos make it out as a really cool western RPG?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Nanami Touko]

I GUESS~

I'll always prefer to make my own opinions on things than trust the views of others because there are plenty of games that I enjoy that have been decreed terrible by others and the media :F

Should I play Two Worlds because the pictures/videos make it out as a really cool western RPG?

If they look interesting enough to you, sure.

Edited November 26, 2012 by seph1212

[Constable Reggie]

Well sure, there are exceptions. I'm a die hard fan of Fire Emblem and would buy any game, regardless of other people's opinions on them, pretty much instantly. But for games I'm on the fence about/don't know anything about? I'd look at reviews to see how they play, if it's any good, and if it's worth playing.

Just a note, my point about Two Worlds is that it was a game that was pretty much destroyed by bugs, terrible controls, interface problems, and whatnot. Pictures and videos can't really show those.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Nanami Touko]

Just a note, my point about Two Worlds is that it was a game that was pretty much destroyed by bugs, terrible controls, interface problems, and whatnot. Pictures and videos can't really show those.

but at the same time you don't need to read a review to know about these things :F

[Rehab]

GI at least actually called the second Two Worlds kinda good, though, in a borderline satirical "knows it(s predecessor) is bad" way

[Constable Reggie]

but at the same time you don't need to read a review to know about these things :F

Where else would you find out about it besides playing the demo/game?

And I'm actually playing Two Worlds 2 right now, it's got a pretty messy menu interface and the combat's either button mashy/pretty cool while also being useless, but it's personality is just absolutely wonderful (ex. making fun of the original TW's Shakespearean dialogue, having a quest that is so ridiculous that if you actually do what the NPC says to do and not use common sense, you fail it, several funny media references, etc) .

Edited November 26, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Nanami Touko]

Where else would you find out about it besides playing the demo/game?

by reading articles explaining the bugs/info about the game? You don't need to read someone's opinion to find out what's wrong with a game.

[Constable Reggie]

And what are usually articles of the game when it comes out? Reviews.

[Nanami Touko]

you're just not looking hard enough~

[Ike-Mike]

you can't always tell if a game's worth playing or not from just videos/pictures.

Yes, you can.

[Samias]

For me, the prime example of not being able to trust paid reviews comes down to this:

Gamespot's infamous Twilight Princess 8.8

The Wii review was lower scored despite the higher scoring GCN review calling the Wii version superior. This is the point where you have to shake your head and admit some "pro" reviews just pull arbitrary numbers out of their ass.

Or Radiant Dawn, where some "pro" reviewers were not fans of the genre, cried about the game being too hard, and proceeded to give the game a crummy score. Shadow Dragon is rated significantly higher by "professionals", but how many fans actually prefer Shadow Dragon? It's the perfect example of how user reviews can be of benefit to someone, because you're getting the impression of the average person who shares your interests and isn't bowing down to the companies whose ads pay the bills on their website. Obviously you can't really trust user reviews when people are review bombing a game, but if you removed all the ridiculously biased negative reviews, then you'd get a pretty good impression of the game.

[Constable Reggie]

Really? So can pictures/videos tell me that Two Worlds was full of bugs, control and interface problems to the point that it ruined the game? Can they tell me that the port of Dark Souls was so badly butchered in it's execution that it hampers the game? Can they tell me that Diablo 3 contains one of the most ridiculous DRMs to date, a DRM that made the game literally unplayable for the first few days of release?

Also, for the Fire Emblem examples, you have to look at them from a non-Fire Emblem fan point of view. If you were just starting to play Fire Emblem, and started with Radiant Dawn, you probably would say it was extremely difficult, and hell, I doubt anyone here really argues that RD's plot turns into wtf later on. As for the comparison to Shadow Dragon, at least Shadow Dragon had an extremely robust difficulty choice, a major graphical upgrade, and some other things that while FE fans may not value that much, regular players probably would. Obviously user reviews can be from Fire Emblem fans, but if you're a Fire Emblem fan, you'd probably buy the games anyway, regardless of reviews.

And yes, as I said before, I value the actual reviews more, I don't care that much about the numbers.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Davinatorman