Big-Cat
Challenge accepted.
Link to original post: [drupal=3937]Not Enough Depth? Too Much Depth?[/drupal]
This is kind relevant to my Ranting on Smash post, but I'm making a separate post to discuss a more broad topic.
I got to try out the Project M Brawl mod today at a Brawl tournament where I just spectated. I loved playing the mod, with it feeling like a brand new game, but I was ticked to see L-Canceling returning, and I once again called out on its lack of depth. That was when a player had asked me why would you not combo in another fighter. To be honest, I didn't have much of a response at the time. I was wondering whether or not there was any depth behind behind something like links or revolver actions/magic series/whatever.
Just trying to think this out on paper, it didn't seem like there was much depth on combos in other fighters. I mean, when you get that first hit in, you automatically go into one of the combos that first attack allows you to do, technical skill not withstanding. But I wonder if this "lack of depth" is a bad thing. The combo is there to give punishment to the opponent, and when you have a knockdown or reset, there is depth on what to do next for you and the opponent and then there are mechanics like FADC and FRC in some fighters that add more offensive and defensive options with can be better determined based on scaling mechanics.
Smash adds depth to its combos where you have to take into consideration the knockback of each of your attacks and the damage of your opponent so a combo's not always the same. Then there's DI in every attack. Therefore, there is a good amount of depth behind every attack followup. However, could there be too much depth with DI as it's implemented?
Think of it this way, imagine X does a combo with five attacks on Y. After each attack, X and Y must take into consideration what option to do to continue/break the combo. As much as I love mixups, I think DI as its implemented adds too much of a mixup game, at least in the wrong place. I think it turns the game too much into a guessing game. Again, I don't think DI is a bad thing. In fact, I love the concept and think it's something very instinctive. I just wonder what it would be like if only certain attacks for each character had DI properties where you do a combo into the DI attack, with a proper guess, you get to continue the combo.
To make this not Ranting on Smash 2, I'll compare DI to something in Tekken. I was watching some Tekken tutorial videos and they mentioned, IIRC, that there 24 wakeup options overall or something. As soon as I heard this, I thought, "No way; I'm not dealing with this." That was just too many options for me to worry about. I simply don't like the idea of having to consider 24 possible outcomes and attacks. I'm fine with something like SFIV's minimum of 9 options and these depend on what X does to Y on Y's wakeup and the quality of those options will vary on Y's character. Then there's Virtua Fighter which is supposed to be the deepest fighter out there, but I also hear there is a an extremely high learning curve.
Should there be more than one option in every single possible scenario? Should some scenarios be kept simple where there's only one outcome?
Discuss.
This is kind relevant to my Ranting on Smash post, but I'm making a separate post to discuss a more broad topic.
I got to try out the Project M Brawl mod today at a Brawl tournament where I just spectated. I loved playing the mod, with it feeling like a brand new game, but I was ticked to see L-Canceling returning, and I once again called out on its lack of depth. That was when a player had asked me why would you not combo in another fighter. To be honest, I didn't have much of a response at the time. I was wondering whether or not there was any depth behind behind something like links or revolver actions/magic series/whatever.
Just trying to think this out on paper, it didn't seem like there was much depth on combos in other fighters. I mean, when you get that first hit in, you automatically go into one of the combos that first attack allows you to do, technical skill not withstanding. But I wonder if this "lack of depth" is a bad thing. The combo is there to give punishment to the opponent, and when you have a knockdown or reset, there is depth on what to do next for you and the opponent and then there are mechanics like FADC and FRC in some fighters that add more offensive and defensive options with can be better determined based on scaling mechanics.
Smash adds depth to its combos where you have to take into consideration the knockback of each of your attacks and the damage of your opponent so a combo's not always the same. Then there's DI in every attack. Therefore, there is a good amount of depth behind every attack followup. However, could there be too much depth with DI as it's implemented?
Think of it this way, imagine X does a combo with five attacks on Y. After each attack, X and Y must take into consideration what option to do to continue/break the combo. As much as I love mixups, I think DI as its implemented adds too much of a mixup game, at least in the wrong place. I think it turns the game too much into a guessing game. Again, I don't think DI is a bad thing. In fact, I love the concept and think it's something very instinctive. I just wonder what it would be like if only certain attacks for each character had DI properties where you do a combo into the DI attack, with a proper guess, you get to continue the combo.
To make this not Ranting on Smash 2, I'll compare DI to something in Tekken. I was watching some Tekken tutorial videos and they mentioned, IIRC, that there 24 wakeup options overall or something. As soon as I heard this, I thought, "No way; I'm not dealing with this." That was just too many options for me to worry about. I simply don't like the idea of having to consider 24 possible outcomes and attacks. I'm fine with something like SFIV's minimum of 9 options and these depend on what X does to Y on Y's wakeup and the quality of those options will vary on Y's character. Then there's Virtua Fighter which is supposed to be the deepest fighter out there, but I also hear there is a an extremely high learning curve.
Should there be more than one option in every single possible scenario? Should some scenarios be kept simple where there's only one outcome?
Discuss.
