Are combos really necessary to make a "Good Fighter"?

[JOE!]

sorry for the wait lyth

It's not. Footsies and poking are also a part of being offensive, especially in a really defensive game like Street Fighter as you mentioned here: "Quite, look at a SF4 vid and you'll usually see this: Footsies -> hit 1 to a few hit combo -> reset to neutral -> some blocks and more footsies -> another hit to a few hit combo ->repeat till a winner." Getting a combo isn't about being offensive. You can easily be defensive, and punish someone and land a combo off of their mistake. It isn't so black and white as you make it seem. There's rushdown, there's blockstrings, there's zoning, etc. There are lots of ways to apply pressure and be offensive. Landing a combo isn't really one of them.

"Getting a combo isn't [allways] about being offensive."

True, as you (and I earlier) said, landing a combo makes it so that the foe cannot retaliate, which is a great if not the best form of defense. And yes, the defensive guys can easily punish for massive damage using them instead of tryign to go for straight-up damage racking. But regardless, those latter types who focus on punishing are almost never top tier material, my question is why time and time again do a certain character archetype dominate the higher levels of fighters which feature the ability to combo?

Combos do maximize your damage. You'll get a lot more damage off of a series of hits that cannot be teched out of, than you will off of pokes. And that's the whole point of a combo. Your opponent isn't supposed to be able retaliate until it's finished, and unless you have really sloppy execution that will give them a chance to tech out. And in a fighting game that isn't broken, the combo will have to end eventually.

Problem with most fighters however is that they're walled in (creating wall shenanigans), and that their form of "DI" isnt as good as Smash, from what I've seen (please prove me wrong if I am). This can over centralize the playstyle I mentioned in the OP for the guys who play like Fox or Shiek, over other playstyles which are different, but dont take as much advantage of the system.

*looks at Krewman's vid*

How is that fun?

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Hmm... You know, I'd argue that in most conventional fighters, a lack of combos is definitely a bad thing. It reduces the gameplay to entirely footsies, which makes for a very slow, plodding, dull game. While many 3D games can get past this (Soul Calibur, for example), many can't, and most don't even try any more. You need a very different movement style in order for "just footsies" to be enough. The smash engine is perfect for this kind of gameplay-almost no game allows for so much mobility in any direction, or as much variance (through various stages). It means that "just footsies" is STILL a lot!

The opposite ("Just Combos") can also be very bad.

Pretty much this.

It really depends on the game, but for a game like Smash, not having combos actually makes it deeper on many levels. You are constantly playing footsies with your opponent and the Yomi is extended to levels beyond what it would be if there were more combos.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Not at all

The lack of combos just creates an illusion of added depth, when that depth simply replaces something that was previously there

like mixing up your DI to throw off your opponent. punishing your opponent's bad DI on a throw, predicting which direction your opponent will DI and throwing a different move than expected, etc.

and JOE don't talk about 2d fighters like you know anything about them. Even SF4's depth far surpasses anything Brawl could ever hope to achieve. Combos are more or less about the flash in these fighters, but the footsies and counter game is what SSF4 is really about.

 

[JOE!]

im not talking about them as if I know everythign about them, im simply stating what i see from what I've observed: in almost every fighter where there is an engine where combos are possible, the "combo character" archetype is almost allways the best option regardless of all the other characters and playstyles

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

derpderp

There are different styles of characters.

But they all have combos.

goodness SF isn't Brawl

There's only two styles of play in Brawl: camp the **** out of your opponent and abuse the ****ty physics or Metaknight.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

Pretty much this.

It really depends on the game, but for a game like Smash, not having combos actually makes it deeper on many levels. You are constantly playing footsies with your opponent and the Yomi is extended to levels beyond what it would be if there were more combos.

This is true and not true at the same time Let me share my exp. with this.

In pichu vs mario as pichu you can't really combo unless you pull off some platform s*** like upair them onto it and dair or something a few grab combos and sometimes nair to forced tech to a jolt and nair any more than 34% would be insane damage for pichu in this match-up.

So you have to relie on trying to use the safer moves because mario can grab to like 50% to power combos and try to edge gaurd. mario can combo you if you approach wrong of if you let him approach right from what I know. you mostly spam d-tilt(your d-tilt outranges everything but his f-smash XD) but can lose to sheilds if they react fast and isn't spaced so it would outrange him like he'll fair or something.

Then comes nair which can beat the sheild just go through of punish him for trying o do something it's also the fastest way of building up damage in a lot of ways. but loses to all his attacks and then you have jolts which set-up stuff but lose to most stuff but if they sheild you can damage their sheild deadly with a nair. they attack you could still run up and attack or switch ways you're going.

if mario misses you can up-smash or grab the highest rewardboth equal more damage from being able to set up a thunder or kill.

It isn't rock, paper , siscors per say. but on pichu's part there is insane mix-ups like SH 2nd jump away jolt or a mix-up to your mix-up sh at them 2nd jump away and up-B at them. up-B plus your movement options make it say moario doesn't feel safe to approachso he'll try to somewhat pressure you to attack and you make him think you are or aren't or whatever.

The approach mix-ups get pretty crazy as you could image.

HOWEVER compared to like falco I feel the mix-ups are nice and all but are tacippally not as good because if I upair it's better than everything esleand the risk makes everything esle not as good because I can take a risk for 7% or for a whole stock yes you'll mix-up but not as much as say vs mario.


However focusing on just ONE thing you will have many ways/mix-ups for it. like I can nair still but if they sheild that means I get an upair from sheild pressure if they f*** upif I whole hopthere are tricks to land upairs mostly depending on the player and your counter reads. also you focus A LOT on defence and then trying to read their offense/defense more than focusing more on defence. so it balnces out for the most part.

im not talking about them as if I know everythign about them, im simply stating what i see from what I've observed: in almost every fighter where there is an engine where combos are possible, the "combo character" archetype is almost allways the best option regardless of all the other characters and playstyles

combos are chances for you to make mistakes think of a simple combo to a single hit that does that much you are going to focus on setting up carefully and makeing sure that combo doesn't flaw and you keep the pressure going.

Also sick 0-death combos and lots of pressure have mental effects like not being able to get in. If you play as fox and marth keeps you out it's going to be hard to keep a level head after so long.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Pretty much this.

It really depends on the game, but for a game like Smash, not having combos actually makes it deeper on many levels. You are constantly playing footsies with your opponent and the Yomi is extended to levels beyond what it would be if there were more combos.

That may be the most..what?

I can only assume you're talking about Brawl, where the system pretty much lets you do little more than defend thanks to the lack of much reward, unless your name is Metaknight, but even then, it's just an advantage for him due to his fast attacks. The lack of combos has lead to a lot of fairly stagnant game where the majority of top play is just spacing hits, then spacing more hits.

If you're talking Melee, Melee would be heeellllaaa gay if there weren't combos, it has an almost perfect balance.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

nah the lack of combos just makes the game boring and stupid to play

the physics, the lack of a viable dash, and the lack of fluid movement is what really kills Brawl

 

[Falconv1.0]

nah the lack of combos just makes the game boring and stupid to play

I was answering how it doesn't add an extra layer of 'yomi' because all it does is lead to people spacing, then the position is pretty much reset due to not hitstun, I'm not even sure why you're talking like you're disagreeing with me.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I didn't actually read your post to be honest

 

[Falconv1.0]

I didn't actually read your post to be honest

Well at least you're honest.

 

[Purple]

Combos are not important to fighting games, period.

That's about all i get from this conversation.

Because i'm lazy, and i'd rather not write a wall for no one to read it, just ask a specific question and i'll answer it.

 

[riocosta123]

I don't think combos are necessary, they're just one element of a fighting game. As someone said, it all depends on what you want out of your game.

The VF series is really good example against combos. It's one of the most balanced fighting series ever (and my fav) but you rarely see anything over two or three hits (Kage can juggle with his crazy throws though). It's all about countering and positioning, not to mention that every character has an incredible amount of tools.

Combos can be very entertaining though, especially if they aren't static (as in, there is one combo that always works and is the superior option). I think the nice thing about the smash series is how dynamic combos are compared to other games.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I don't think combos are necessary, they're just one element of a fighting game. As someone said, it all depends on what you want out of your game.

The VF series is really good example against combos. It's one of the most balanced fighting series ever (and my fav) but you rarely see anything over two or three hits (Kage can juggle with his crazy throws though). It's all about countering and positioning, not to mention that every character has an incredible amount of tools.

Combos can be very entertaining though, especially if they aren't static (as in, there is one combo that always works and is the superior option). I think the nice thing about the smash series is how dynamic combos are compared to other games.

There are still combos in VF, and they do quite a bit of damage.

I repeat, go learn the basics of SF, and get back to me on this ****, Jesus Christ guys.

 

[Purple]

VF has ridiculous combos, what in the world are you talking about.


lol

 

[Falconv1.0]

Here's a better question, how on Earth would you replace damage done by combos, which when done right, are at least partially based of reads during the combo itself, with a single attack or whatever that would do the same amount of damage a combo would do.

Exactly, you can't. Doesn't mean fighters need huge elaborate ones, but you need to have options so that you can be rewarded for successful reads, not just like one bull**** hit. Also, without good combos, you get Brawl, and I imagine most people AT THE VERY LEAST find melee to be more exciting to watch, and a big part of that is the combos. (I AM NOT SPARKING A MELEE V BRAWL DEBATE HERE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT MAKE IT ONE)

 

[Purple]

You don't need the damage by combos though. lol

 

[john!]

i haven't read the thread but here is my response to the op...

a "good fighter" in the eyes of a competitive community is one that is competitive, the definition of which is "rewards skill". melee requires more skill than brawl, because combos require more skill than non-combos. the reason combos require more skill is because it is much more than simply automatically mashing a preset sequence of buttons (which is what combos are in most other fighters, which is why melee is arguably the greatest fighting game of all time). in melee, combos require knowledge of the game (which moves/strategies you can do to combo and your opponent can do to get out), tech skill (executing the knowledge), mindgames (continuing a combo by reading and predicting), reaction time (observation of your opponent), and a host of other small factors. executing a long combo in melee at the top level takes an extreme amount of skill, barring the few preset combos that melee has, such as chaingrabs and team combos.

combos of this nature take far more skill than brawl. the few combos that do exist in brawl are either preset, or easier due to brawl's slower, more forgiving nature. therefore, brawl takes less skill and is not as good of a fighter as melee, competitively speaking.

 

[riocosta123]

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=z1mfr2yg6qU&feature=related

Most combos at high level VF are only a couple of hits (Kage has some nasty **** but he's special). They aren't that important to the actual game and there is certainly nothing on the Melee/MvC/Tekken/SF level in terms of damage or degree of difficulty.

 

[AprilShaw]

Combos in melee are entirely different from most other fighting games, something you didn't even address. The way DI and teching works is very different from what other games have to offer, and combing/getting comboed is just as much an interaction between the two players as any other part of the game.

That said, in most fighting games combos add an element of "tech skill", something that you can mess up when you're nervous or if you don't get that perfect opener. It rewards people for being calm and having practiced, albeit somewhat forced.

However, what it primarily brings to a fighting game is a sense of fast paced combat. Comboing people is fun, and it makes watching the game much more enjoyable too. People don't like watching SF4 over games like Blazblue, at least no one I've shown these games to, unless they actually play SF4 and understand what the players are doing. The flashiness of games like these, and the simplicity of seeing someone getting comboed and knowing "hey, that person is not doing well" makes things much more enjoyable for the third party. It's part of the reason Starcraft got so popular; it's really easy to look at a Starcraft battle and understand that all the units of one color want to kill all the units of another color.

Combos are not needed for depth, and you could remove them and just buff the normal hits to do more damage and have an equally fast paced game, but it does take a lot of the fun out of learning a new fighting game for most people as well as watching it. And the problems aren't nearly as exaggerated as you seem to think.

Also, your analysis of Melee's metagame is close but not correct. The best combo character is Falco, yes, but Fox/Falco/Falcon are extremely easy to combo as well. And other characters that can combo aren't that good (Pikachu, anyone? Link?). What it comes down to isn't really the comboing itself (though being able to combo helps a lot), but the strength of your punishes in general as well as your finishers. This is why characters like Puff do really well; she doesn't combo that much compared to the other "good" characters, but she punishes like a *****. Also, the problem with fast characters being good is just that. Mobility is broken, it has nothing to do with their combos. A good example are the new class, Rogues, in Dungeon and Fighter if anyone follows that. They do **** damage post-nerf compared to every other melee/combo class but are extremely mobile, and are top tier purely because of that.

 

[Lythium]

sorry for the wait lyth



"Getting a combo isn't [allways] about being offensive."

True, as you (and I earlier) said, landing a combo makes it so that the foe cannot retaliate, which is a great if not the best form of defense. And yes, the defensive guys can easily punish for massive damage using them instead of tryign to go for straight-up damage racking. But regardless, those latter types who focus on punishing are almost never top tier material, my question is why time and time again do a certain character archetype dominate the higher levels of fighters which feature the ability to combo?

You're confusing combo ability with the combo damage that someone can do off of a random poke. Of course a character is going to be better if they have that. But it's not the same as combo ability.

Problem with most fighters however is that they're walled in (creating wall shenanigans), and that their form of "DI" isnt as good as Smash, from what I've seen (please prove me wrong if I am). This can over centralize the playstyle I mentioned in the OP for the guys who play like Fox or Shiek, over other playstyles which are different, but dont take as much advantage of the system.

Other fighters don't have DI. Just Smash. ._.

Just different ways to tech. Forward or back rolls, neutral, air, etc.

 

[Oracle]

Without combos, you have no big punishment. Without that, it allows many more mistakes to be made, making it much easier to play, thus, lack of depth (in many people's opinion)

 

[Lythium]

Without combos, you have no big punishment. Without that, it allows many more mistakes to be made, making it much easier to play, thus, lack of depth (in many people's opinion)

I would absolutely agree with this.

Also, I'll just add that it's the footsies, poking, and good blocking that will get you there rather than just knowing fancy tricks. In the end, it's fundamentals that matter: knowing when to attack and when not to attack, making good use of backdash, IAD, anti-airs, and knowing how to outspace the opponent. Once you've gotten to the point where you can deal with what people throw at you either by countering, blocking, and punishing, or evading, then you get to land combo after combo to win... assuming they can't deal with the gaps in between combos. As in all fighting games, a solid defense and knowing how to control your character, and work the game's engine is more important than anything else: if you're getting hit by combo after combo, you can't fix that by learning how to combo better, you fix it by getting hit less. I could say "Street fighter is about landing attacks before the opponent lands attacks" and it would be similar in definition, since moves do comparatively much more damage in that game than most. Learning to combo is what gets you good damage, but it's one the least important part of playing most characters (except the ones that really need combo damage to function) compared to knowing how to use the character's individual moves at neutral/while pressuring/while being pressured.

Okay.

Now I will try to stay away from this thread forever. :I

 

[MuraRengan]

TC really doesn't understand Melee. Melee has combos but those combos are by no means easy to set up AND continue, especially with the recent advancements int he metagame. Watch any of the top players and you won't see matches come down to combos. It used to be that way, but i't a lot less common. In Melee combos result from well used mindgames and can only be continued with a good ability to read an opponent's DI. Calling a character a "combo *****" completely devalues comboing as something that's easy, when it's really not.

Fighting games do not need combos, but they sure do make the experience more fun. In some games comboing goes too far (I.E. Tekken), but when you have the balance that makes comboing a rightfully deserved reward for being a good player, like in Melee, then there's nothing wrong with it.

Regardless of a Melee player's idea of what a combo is, Brawl has them. Just watching a video liek this makes it undeniable. Though they are set up and followed through differently than in Melee, they're still combos. The problem is that combos like these aren't commonplace in Brawl, and thus, aren't important as a crucial element of gameplay.

The reason I don't like Brawl is because the over-defensive gameplay makes competitive matches boring. I don't like that camping is a viable and necessary tactic in Brawl.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Melee has more defensive options than Brawl, the difference is that Melee allows for breaks in the defense because combos are a lot less stupid. Still not arguing what's better, but seriously, Melee allows for some heellllla gay ****, and I love Melee.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Lythium said most of what I was going to say, so I'll just add this:

I'm sure that a development team could make a fun, competitive

Spoiler

(sidebar- this term "competitive" has really started to bug me lately. It's becoming one of those terms like "deep," "technical," and all the others that are shortcut words in fighting game jargon that have been so overused that the really don't mean anything at all anymore)

game that wasn't based around the tried-and-true combo system. But nothing will ever be more viscerally satisfying than scoring a poke or mixup that leads to a big damage combo, and that's as important to my experience as everything else the game offers.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

also there are mindgame combos like f-throw as falco or pichu then 2 of the following run up regrab or DD regrab then after the 1st time you can laser or nair if you think they'll roll or something esle out of fear of getting grabbed again.

I love being in their heads i'm very good at it.

 

[Falconv1.0]

also there are mindgame combos like f-throw as falco or pichu then 2 of the following run up regrab or DD regrab then after the 1st time you can laser or nair if you think they'll roll or something esle out of fear of getting grabbed again.

I love being in their heads i'm very good at it.

Man, you should consider going pro.

 

[john!]

competitive means rewarding skill. the greater percentage of the time that the more skilled player wins, the more competitive the game is. at least that's my definition.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Has anyone here played some of the Street Fighter II games? Those are traditional fighters with very short combos, and in both ST and HDR one of the characters with almost no combo potential at all is one of the best (Dhalsim). All the Street Fighter games are really far more about footsies and zoning than combos; a combo just may be the reward when a hit is landed. As the series went on, combos got longer and single hits got weaker and comboing into supers became far more possible which really changes some basic balances, but the ideas still are about the same. The versus games kinda go the other but similar way by making the most basic combo system really easy (if you can't do a magic series combo, you probably have deeper problems).

Combos can add depth when done properly, and I feel SFII and the versus games do the best job at this (which is why they're my favorite traditional fighters). SFII has simple combos, but what does exist always masks options and reads. For one, the game's overall engine is incredibly fast (in the "Turbo" games at least) so most of the time you're going to be hitting buttons on prediction and not reaction. For two, throws are incredibly powerful, and just about any combo can be turned into a mix-up for a tick throw. The simplest example is with Zangief's crouching jabs. If he's really deep, Zangief can combo up to three crouching jabs before being pushed too far away to continue (and in the SFII engine, anything that can combo is also a block string, very important to note). After any one of these jabs, he can voluntarily stop doing the jabs and go for a Spinning Piledriver. This is a command throw that does stupid amounts of damage, but notice that in this game you can't combo into throws at all so going for the SPD gives them a chance to escape. If the opponent tries to reverse out or counter-throw or something on the wrong jab though, they'll basically waste their chance and get thrown for sure if the Zangief is competent. If Zangief's c.jab didn't combo, this whole dynamic wouldn't exist, and it adds a lot of depth.

The versus games, particularly MvC2 and it's looking like MvC3 will too, have a somewhat different take. In this case, throws aren't really any good at all, and block stricks are comprised of far fewer moves than combos. However, damage scaling and some other "security" features make the very long combos less rewarding than they initially seem. They're still pretty rewarding, but far more rewarding is doing a "reset". In this, you voluntarily drop the combo with a very small window and then resume, preferably at at time in which it will be very difficult for the opponent to block the start of the new combo. This lets you land tons more damage than you would have if you just went for the combo all the time, but if you get too greedy with resets and such you are going to be giving up what would have been guaranteed damage.

Combos are not, however, an inherent good. I think the standard for design in fighting games should be about choice. Every system should force the player to somehow make a choice, either by being something that has to be done on prediction, that has inherent mix-up, or that somehow forces you to give up something else. Combos at the most basic level are something that removes choice from one player, but the idea of a combo is very big and can potentially be made into something good and has been in quite a few games. We'll always have the "anime fighter" style games that care more about nimble fingers than anything (that video in this topic with that 99 second, 140 hit combo was a fine example of what we don't want to see!), but that's just saying that not all fighting games are as good as the others which we kinda knew all along. Smash gets along so well with its fairly short combos mostly because it has other depth-adding systems like air control, off-stage games, etc. that are unique to it. Having absolutely no combos at all would be more or less impossible within the genre as well, unless you were willing to sacrifice things like hitstun which would probably make for some pretty bad games...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Then there are the characters (Here's looking at you, Saki from TvC) who aren't about combos OR reads, but just "spam ranged attacks until the opponent approaches".