BearsAreScary
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 360
shouldn't he aspire to be a good player...?
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The BlazBlue Thread. V-13 hates you! Edit: Now with gamertags! <3 See first post.
- Thread starter Fizz-sama
- Start date
Zero_Gamer
Smash Master
360 controller is just fine to me.
I think the PS2/PS3 controller is garbage though. 360s/720s are stupid on Dualshock.
But since everyone in AL uses PS3 I have to use a stick.
I think the PS2/PS3 controller is garbage though. 360s/720s are stupid on Dualshock.
But since everyone in AL uses PS3 I have to use a stick.
Winnar
Smash Lord
AfroQT
Smash Master
Attacking nvm cloop
Blocking nvm cloop
Jumping nvm cloop
cloop nvm cloop
RIP Guilty Gear
Blocking nvm cloop
Jumping nvm cloop
cloop nvm cloop
RIP Guilty Gear
Laijin
Smash Hero
Wait what?
What are you? Weird?
The 360 controller is complete garbage for fighting games. The dpad has only gates(up down left right) which makes controlling characters hard(plus its HUGE) and the buttons are MASSIVE.
PS2/PS3 controllers are nice and comfortable. ;o
Its personal preference, its just 99.9999% of everyone in the world prefers PS3/PS2 controllers at fighting games.
AfroQT
Smash Master
Or you could think for 1 second, and immediately realize he couldnt possibly be talking about melee jiggs.
fixed it for completeness :3
Zero_Gamer
Smash Master
I use the Control Stick. It's actually good for stuff and comfortable.
Who, in their right mind, would use the 360 DPAD... FOR ANYTHING?
And the buttons are just fine.
I just wish I could find a converter for my controller without having lagged inputs. :/
GA Peach
Smash Lord
this is one of the saddest and most tragic posts i have ever read. i wish it weren't true...
AfroQT
Smash Master
Thats the worst partthis is one of the saddest and most tragic posts i have ever read. i wish it weren't true...
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
What? Did Guilty Gear's tournament rep go from 6 down to 3 cause of BB? /not hating on the great late GG
GA Peach
Smash Lord
well, a lot of people stopped playing GGXX and went to BB because it's new, and a lot of new players play it, so there's a bit more money involved. but, BB is nowhere near as solid of a game. it's just sad to see something as good as GGXX start to go the way of the dinosaur in a lot of areas. i know GA GGXX is almost non-existent, short of me and a couple of people.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Really? ****it, so I've been practicing my A.B.A. combos for nothing ;_;
I agree that GG is the better game (although I truly enjoy BB as much as I liked GG), but it's just too frakking hard to be good at it. It was hard enough to convince people to play Accent Core when it came out. Add the passage of time and a new game to that, and it's not surprising that GG isn't being played anymore.
But I wouldn't be so harsh on BlazBlue so early. People disagree on which version was the best of GGXX, but we all agree that it wasn't the first. It may take a few years and a few versions, but I think most people will be satisfied eventually.
But I wouldn't be so harsh on BlazBlue so early. People disagree on which version was the best of GGXX, but we all agree that it wasn't the first. It may take a few years and a few versions, but I think most people will be satisfied eventually.
GA Peach
Smash Lord
i dunno. maybe with time, it'll get better, but i really don't like how easy BlazBlue is to pick up and be good at. i think the difficulty of GGXX, although it wasn't really that difficult IMO, really added something to the game, as i think it does with all fighting games. The added complexity really made the game special, and while BlazBlue is fun, i think Arksys should have just made another GGXX instead of BlazBlue.
If it's any consolation, Arc Systems didn't stop making Guilty Gear by choice. There were some really wacky copyright issues and they basically lost the rights to continue making Guilty Gear games.
GA Peach
Smash Lord
that is true. i'm very saddened by those facts.
AfroQT
Smash Master
Yeah why reward people that put time into games.
A competitive game SHOULD be hard to get good at. Thats like saying its hard to get really good at a sport. Its hard to get good at ANYTHING competitively, which made GGXXAC so good because you had to put time into it, if you didnt you might as well quit.
BB is the heyimmaretard version of it, where everything is about bnbs (not that GG didnt have bnbs), ridiculous loops, and heavy offense as well.
EDIT:
The reason brawl is so bad is because its so easy to be at top level as well, anyone can pick up any character and be playing top level with them in a month MAX.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
The only thing technical skill does is separate the beginners from the intermediates. Simply making a game hard just to make it hard is not the way to go about doing things. Guilty Gear XX is a game that is hard because it had to be with all of the systems, tools, and extreme character designs. They didn't put FRC because it would make the game more difficult, they put it in because it would give the player more options. They didn't put in yellow blocking because it would be difficult, they put it in to give the player more options and increase the depth. You shouldn't set out to make the game difficult to play, which I don't think Guilty Gear did. At top level, it doesn't matter what kind of technical skill you have, because everyone can do everything once you get to that level. The obscene difficulty is part of the many reasons the fighting genre fell the last few years. SF4 and (much more so) Blazblue brought things down to be more approachable, and they have been a big success thanks to that. What makes a fighter competitive is not the technical skill, but the depth itself, which sometimes will lead to the difficulty and technical skill in the case of GGXX. McC2 is far more technically difficult than the Street Fighters, but that certinally doesn't make it more competitive.
In a review of Street Fighter 4, Serlin discussed the 1 frame linked moves among other things and said
In a review of Street Fighter 4, Serlin discussed the 1 frame linked moves among other things and said
and
not that a game being easy makes it more competitive either, but I really don't think that technical skill is the way to make a fighting game competitive. Ever.
AfroQT
Smash Master
Saying that all top players are on the same technical level is extremely ignorant. Watch Latif play Eddie and compare him to any other Eddie. No one is as technical as his Eddie, and no one (in the US btw) does the character specific combos that he can do with Eddie.
As for this
I dont agree with this at all. 1 frame links ARE apart of the gameplay. People who spend time to master these deserve to be rewarded. A lack of things like 1 frame links gives you a game like brawl, where everyone can do everything....making it terrible...or BB (not to say that it doesnt have difficult links).
Serlin isnt right about everything, its just 1 person giving his opinion.
As for that, doing the right thing at the right time is key, but people who spend time to learn harder BETTER punishments should be rewarded. Serlin thinks one should only play with his mind, which is ********. Technical skill should be equally as important as how smart both players are. If you dont have the ability to do top level combos (or havent practiced them enough to have them down 99% of the time), you shouldnt be beating someone that did.
Winnar
Smash Lord
Tell me ONE person who has done this.
Tell me one person who has ACTUALLY gotten to top level competition in brawl within a MONTH of picking the game up.
That's an extremely simplified view of the difficulty debate.
Like I said, I think GGXX is the better game, but I can totally understand why someone would not want to put in the amount of time necessary to master the game. I enjoyed the difficulty of it, and felt the sense of pride and accomplishment that came with learning IAD and FRC, and then I went to tournaments and got utterly annihilated by the people who were better than me. Sure it doesn't bother me, but the kind of skill gap that exists in GGXX is extremely discouraging to most of the people that I've seen try to learn it.
And that's what it really comes down to, bringing in new people. Your view (and mine, and the entire competitive gaming community for that matter) is a minority one, and Arc Systems is a business that needs to sell its product to as wide a market as possible. Arc Systems made BlazBlue easier than GG, but it's a serious overstatement to call it a "heyimretarded" game. You don't have to like what Arc Systems did, but at least acknowledge that they're trying to do something that's notoriously difficult: satisfy casual and core audiences.
The comparison to Brawl is not only unfair, but inaccurate as well. Sakurai intentionally designed Brawl in a way that would preclude tournament play. And even still, despite Brawl having zero competitive worth, it still sold nearly 8 million copies. As a videogame company, how can you argue with that?
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
What's really funny, is that games are becoming easier because they think it fits the American audience xD Maybe they should view the SRK, Dustloop, and Smashboard threads sometimes. I guess Seth was right when he said they think we are monkeys.
He was either exaggerating, or talking about the pure technical aspects at mastering the characters, not actually beating MEw2King and Ally.
Winnar
Smash Lord
No I'm pretty sure he said, "anyone can pick up any character and be playing top level with them in a month MAX."
I don't think there's really any reason not to take that at face value.
I dunno about you but after that remark about being ignorant this came off as a little...hypocritical. Also a bit confusing, since he's in the Brawl BR.
I don't think there's really any reason not to take that at face value.
I dunno about you but after that remark about being ignorant this came off as a little...hypocritical. Also a bit confusing, since he's in the Brawl BR.
Brawl is bad for reasons completely unrelated to its technical difficulty. It is bad for concrete reasons resulting from an engine that isn't conducive to entertaining competitive play.
I think, Afro, you are misinterpreting the nature of technical difficulty. Any video game, sport, business market, or other competitive environment has some kind of learning curve involved with participating successfully in that arena. This curve does little more than set a technical baseline for success. You need to understand that this baseline is completely arbitrary, and serves only to provide a filter on viable entrants into a competitive field.
So what happens when your filter is very broad? Well, you just get a lot of viable entrants. The issue here comes from game theory, which makes the accurate claim that the chances of one of these viable entrants achieving success decreases with the number of viable entrants. Case in point: Brawl. This is actually a very difficult community, because the baseline of technical ability is so low, so the chances of one player winning is also lower. But it's worth mentioning, that with the lowered chance of winning, the higher number of viable entrants also brings greater success to the winning entrant. High risk, high reward. If Brawl weren't a bad game, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with this.
What if the filter is very high, that is to say, there is a very high baseline technical ability necessary to win? Well, you can actually run into problems here. With a high baseline comes a low number of viable entrants. Of course, for those who meet the baseline, this means they have a higher chance of winning, but for those who don't, and have zero chance of winning as a result, they would only enter with the hope of gaining valuable experience. Ultimately, we reach the conclusion that this is a low risk, low reward scenario.
Add in the cost-benefit analysis, and it becomes more complex. Reaching the baseline requires a certain amount of time. When you get down to it, a game with a low baseline is low cost, high risk, high reward, and a game with a high baseline is high cost, low risk, low reward. Ultimately, it comes down to what you value.
I don't really find either to be a desirable situation. There's no balance in either of them. Certainly the technically difficult games are more fun to watch, but I don't have the time to devote to becoming a dedicated player of them. Alternately, high risk, high reward is a dangerous game, and the playing of it is really what led to the housing market crash in 2008. I'd rather seek a middle ground. Blazblue is a game with a certain technical baseline: you have to learn the mechanics of the game and learn certain character specific mechanics and combos if you want to be successful. On the other hand, you don't have to become adept at several inputs per second on a regular basis just to be a viable entrant.
Notice that nowhere in my breakdown have I made a judgment as the value of a game, or its competitiveness. The value of a game is based on its capacity to consistently bring enjoyment to its players within its stated boundaries. In many respects, Brawl is a good game, because it is not even meant to be played competitively, and it's actually really fun if you don't take it seriously. Ultimately, value judgments are the most meaningless of judgments you can give a game since they are almost purely subjective when taken on an individual basis.
The competitiveness of a game, or any field, really, is based on the number of viable entrants, and the relative viability of those entrants. It is based on nothing else. If a field has only one viable entrant, it is not competitive. Alternately, if a field has many viable entrants, but one of those entrants is many levels above the rest, the field is still not highly competitive. A field with many entrants of equal viability is competitive.
Again, note that none of what I have mentioned involves technical ability. Technical difficulty, competitivity and value are three completely unrelated judgments. There is no logical way I can think of to conflate the three meaningfully. It is increasingly vexing to me to see people trying to do so with apparently no thought given to the act.
tl;dr: stfu about competitivity, technical difficulty and value judgments if you aren't willing to think about them as long as I have here.
I think, Afro, you are misinterpreting the nature of technical difficulty. Any video game, sport, business market, or other competitive environment has some kind of learning curve involved with participating successfully in that arena. This curve does little more than set a technical baseline for success. You need to understand that this baseline is completely arbitrary, and serves only to provide a filter on viable entrants into a competitive field.
So what happens when your filter is very broad? Well, you just get a lot of viable entrants. The issue here comes from game theory, which makes the accurate claim that the chances of one of these viable entrants achieving success decreases with the number of viable entrants. Case in point: Brawl. This is actually a very difficult community, because the baseline of technical ability is so low, so the chances of one player winning is also lower. But it's worth mentioning, that with the lowered chance of winning, the higher number of viable entrants also brings greater success to the winning entrant. High risk, high reward. If Brawl weren't a bad game, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with this.
What if the filter is very high, that is to say, there is a very high baseline technical ability necessary to win? Well, you can actually run into problems here. With a high baseline comes a low number of viable entrants. Of course, for those who meet the baseline, this means they have a higher chance of winning, but for those who don't, and have zero chance of winning as a result, they would only enter with the hope of gaining valuable experience. Ultimately, we reach the conclusion that this is a low risk, low reward scenario.
Add in the cost-benefit analysis, and it becomes more complex. Reaching the baseline requires a certain amount of time. When you get down to it, a game with a low baseline is low cost, high risk, high reward, and a game with a high baseline is high cost, low risk, low reward. Ultimately, it comes down to what you value.
I don't really find either to be a desirable situation. There's no balance in either of them. Certainly the technically difficult games are more fun to watch, but I don't have the time to devote to becoming a dedicated player of them. Alternately, high risk, high reward is a dangerous game, and the playing of it is really what led to the housing market crash in 2008. I'd rather seek a middle ground. Blazblue is a game with a certain technical baseline: you have to learn the mechanics of the game and learn certain character specific mechanics and combos if you want to be successful. On the other hand, you don't have to become adept at several inputs per second on a regular basis just to be a viable entrant.
Notice that nowhere in my breakdown have I made a judgment as the value of a game, or its competitiveness. The value of a game is based on its capacity to consistently bring enjoyment to its players within its stated boundaries. In many respects, Brawl is a good game, because it is not even meant to be played competitively, and it's actually really fun if you don't take it seriously. Ultimately, value judgments are the most meaningless of judgments you can give a game since they are almost purely subjective when taken on an individual basis.
The competitiveness of a game, or any field, really, is based on the number of viable entrants, and the relative viability of those entrants. It is based on nothing else. If a field has only one viable entrant, it is not competitive. Alternately, if a field has many viable entrants, but one of those entrants is many levels above the rest, the field is still not highly competitive. A field with many entrants of equal viability is competitive.
Again, note that none of what I have mentioned involves technical ability. Technical difficulty, competitivity and value are three completely unrelated judgments. There is no logical way I can think of to conflate the three meaningfully. It is increasingly vexing to me to see people trying to do so with apparently no thought given to the act.
tl;dr: stfu about competitivity, technical difficulty and value judgments if you aren't willing to think about them as long as I have here.
Winnar
Smash Lord
AfroQT
Smash Master
I can name multiple players who picked up random characters for specific people in tournament, and played them at a level in brawl. Myself, and Shaky.
It took me 3 days at Equi's house, a wolf player, to learn Wario.
MK...lol....
keep talkin like your someone special.
You *****s look at this like its super deep, lookin at puddles like there oceans...Especially Brawl.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
splashing in puddles is amazing
splashing in puddles > surfing in ocean
/not speaking metaphorically
splashing in puddles > surfing in ocean
/not speaking metaphorically
AfroQT
Smash Master
Hey calm down
Laijin
Smash Hero
So I don't know wtf you guys are talking about, but something bothered me..
I gotta disagree with you there.
BlazBlue is an extremely simple game with a very low technical baseline. Its extremely simple to learn how the game works, how each character plays, and how to even combos. Everything in the game is extremely very simple up to the point where you can just look at someone do something once and its like "Wow, you can do that?" Then you try and on your first try you get it right cause its that ****ing simple.
This is the main reason why I don't like BlazBlue as much anymore, because I was running out of stuff to learn very quickly. You may disagree with me there, but seriously coming from Guilty Gear, I found BlazBlue easier to learn than Brawl. Brawl requires more tech skill and understanding of way more match ups than BlazBlue.
So in other words, Brawl is harder to play than BlazBlue.
Thats my conclusion.
I gotta disagree with you there.
BlazBlue is an extremely simple game with a very low technical baseline. Its extremely simple to learn how the game works, how each character plays, and how to even combos. Everything in the game is extremely very simple up to the point where you can just look at someone do something once and its like "Wow, you can do that?" Then you try and on your first try you get it right cause its that ****ing simple.
This is the main reason why I don't like BlazBlue as much anymore, because I was running out of stuff to learn very quickly. You may disagree with me there, but seriously coming from Guilty Gear, I found BlazBlue easier to learn than Brawl. Brawl requires more tech skill and understanding of way more match ups than BlazBlue.
So in other words, Brawl is harder to play than BlazBlue.
Thats my conclusion.