Which one do you prefer?

[Baby_Sneak]

An example of a lenient System: Umvc3, melee, KOF13, KOF11- these games are loose on their rules; you can break some of them if you have the tech skill requirement. These games are the ones with the most combo videos, shown exploits, etc... One's that shows a lot of discovery and bugs. These games usually aren't competitive for a very long time (think sf alpha 2 and 3, mvc1, XvsSF, etc... They didn't last long), but they work great as casual games as well. It's considered a beautiful accident to have one of these types of games to be viable for competition.

An example of a strict system: SF2 series, Pokken, virtual fighter, Smash 4, samurai showdown ll- these games have more focused rules; you can bend a few rules, but the rest are unbreakable or bendable. These games are generally looked at more as games of skill and display of wit in comparison to games of lenient systems. These games are more likely to have less rules to abide by, since having too many limiting rules with no way around them would homogenize the gameplay. The characters become severely varied, with little overlap with them.


Which one do you guys prefer? I personally prefer games of lenient systems, I played brawl- and watched others game to not to

 

[LancerStaff]

I prefer strict systems mostly because they're usually more balanced... In lenient systems the game can be a happy accident for some characters but for the rest it just feels unfortunate.

This applies to most games, and not just fighters or other multiplayer games. Castlevania for example can be played in ways that make it almost unrecognizable, where the more obscure options or techniques are vastly better then the basic abilities, while other games such as Megaman you have less movement or attacking options and can't fudge the rules as much and things get used much more evenly. Sometimes an inherent brokenness can create a much more interesting game then it would of without, like basically every Zelda game ever, but more often then not a game should have a significant amount of depth to begin with rather then hoping it's interesting after letting things break.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

I prefer strict systems mostly because they're usually more balanced... In lenient systems the game can be a happy accident for some characters but for the rest it just feels unfortunate.

This applies to most games, and not just fighters or other multiplayer games. Castlevania for example can be played in ways that make it almost unrecognizable, where the more obscure options or techniques are vastly better then the basic abilities, while other games such as Megaman you have less movement or attacking options and can't fudge the rules as much and things get used much more evenly. Sometimes an inherent brokenness can create a much more interesting game then it would of without, like basically every Zelda game ever, but more often then not a game should have a significant amount of depth to begin with rather then hoping it's interesting after letting things break.

One thing that lenient systems have that puts it over strict systems for me is freedom. If I had to choose between classic mega man games (2 or 3) and older castlevania and super metroid, I would choose castlevania/metroid 7/10. Classic mega man games feel tight and responsive and of good design. Same with ninja gaiden, contra, SFll, etc...

However, sometimes I like to do what I want, and games like League of Evil series, metroid series, late castlevania, and others do exactly that for me. Glitches and unbalanced play aren't a main priority to me as long as there's relative balance between strats, top tier characters or w/e.

 

[LancerStaff]

Part of it depends on how you define a game... Metroid Zero Mission for example barely had a sequence to begin with, so I'd call that a strict system because it was mostly intentional. Super is kinda in the middle of this scale because probably the most important advanced technique, walljumping, was built into the game. Then you have other games like Pikmin 3 which is very strict with it's stage order but lets you do almost anything within the stage.

My problem with lenient games is that digging deeper generally breaks the balance of the game. Castlevania either gets really easy or absurdly difficult when you start going off the rails, while with Megaman you're almost always playing with the natural difficultly curve and balance. I find that improving at what the game gives you is usually more fun then improving at a repetitive technique such as backdash canceling... I see and feel more depth in mechanically simple games such as Shovel Knight then I do in almost absurdly complex ones like OoT.

 

[iFLuX]

It's hard for me to say I favour a strict system, as I love melee with all my heart.
The only issue is with the barrier to entry once new mechanics are discovered and mastered.
I know after years most of us don't even consider it, but just think about how difficult it would be for a newcomer to learn to simply SHFFL.
A strict system in my opinion opens the game up to so many more players without having to spend hours in lab practicing advanced techniques.

Specifically in the case of SSB4 vs Melee it is very apparent that MANY more people are willing to try their hand in the competitive scene when that entry barrier is lowered (whether or not this is a good thing, of course, is a matter of opinion).

 

[cpm]

I like strict systems.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

It's hard for me to say I favour a strict system, as I love melee with all my heart.
The only issue is with the barrier to entry once new mechanics are discovered and mastered.
I know after years most of us don't even consider it, but just think about how difficult it would be for a newcomer to learn to simply SHFFL.
A strict system in my opinion opens the game up to so many more players without having to spend hours in lab practicing advanced techniques.

Specifically in the case of SSB4 vs Melee it is very apparent that MANY more people are willing to try their hand in the competitive scene when that entry barrier is lowered (whether or not this is a good thing, of course, is a matter of opinion).

The thing is, games naturally gain a higher barrier to entry as the level of play develops. Smash N64 is a game with not many techs and the barrier to entry is high since you have to acquire mass MU knowledge, develop your punish game to acceptable levels (usually near-stock per hit), develop your neutral to acceptable levels (the neutral in 64 is extremely important. This honestly will be the hardest thing new players will have struggle with), your movement, recovery mix ups, etc...

LancerStaff you bring up an interesting pointing defining games properly. I technically can call all speedrunned games lenient systems because they all have glitches that are massively exploited. My definition I think is built upon "breaking rules", "supplying lots of freedom", or both (though they can interlap though). That being said, I then consider games of strict systems to be the opposite; games that don't give the player a deal of freedom and is very hard-nosed on their rules.

I can feel the depth behind the game when their mechanics gives me a ton of options to choose from and allows me the privilege of being subjective with my choices. I don't have to be overly analytical and choose the best, most optimal option because all the others are inferior in comparison (talking about choice here). Let me use my mvc2 example (or any marvel game): In marvel, if I touch you, it's a very high chance of you dying just off that one hit. The process of that extreme punish can vary from person to person because it all leads into death almost equally; doesn't matter if I hit you with j.LKs twice too much, or reset into a grab because you're going to be dead anyway. I was just playing this game called," League of Evil 2." It's a platformer where you can double jump and do this attack that makes you rush forward really fast (let's call this move X). Well, move X also became a versatile air dash (multiple ways to do it; off a ledge or in midair or off a wall), a way to climb a wall, a dash on the ground due to its quick recovery time, and many more. I recently found a quirk that allows me to climb up a wall with this move while being attached to it (because if you do it normally, you're constantly jumping on and off the wall). This new quirk allowed me to shave off some time and opened up some new strats. I think this quirk is unintended because of its weird momentum properties, so there's one example of why I like lenient systems and what they can provide.

cpm care to explain why?

 

[iFLuX]

The thing is, games naturally gain a higher barrier to entry as the level of play develops. Smash N64 is a game with not many techs and the barrier to entry is high since you have to acquire mass MU knowledge, develop your punish game to acceptable levels (usually near-stock per hit), develop your neutral to acceptable levels (the neutral in 64 is extremely important. This honestly will be the hardest thing new players will have struggle with), your movement, recovery mix ups, etc...

LancerStaff you bring up an interesting pointing defining games properly. I technically can call all speedrunned games lenient systems because they all have glitches that are massively exploited. My definition I think is built upon "breaking rules", "supplying lots of freedom", or both (though they can interlap though). That being said, I then consider games of strict systems to be the opposite; games that don't give the player a deal of freedom and is very hard-nosed on their rules.

I can feel the depth behind the game when their mechanics gives me a ton of options to choose from and allows me the privilege of being subjective with my choices. I don't have to be overly analytical and choose the best, most optimal option because all the others are inferior in comparison (talking about choice here). Let me use my mvc2 example (or any marvel game): In marvel, if I touch you, it's a very high chance of you dying just off that one hit. The process of that extreme punish can vary from person to person because it all leads into death almost equally; doesn't matter if I hit you with j.LKs twice too much, or reset into a grab because you're going to be dead anyway. I was just playing this game called," League of Evil 2." It's a platformer where you can double jump and do this attack that makes you rush forward really fast (let's call this move X). Well, move X also became a versatile air dash (multiple ways to do it; off a ledge or in midair or off a wall), a way to climb a wall, a dash on the ground due to its quick recovery time, and many more. I recently found a quirk that allows me to climb up a wall with this move while being attached to it (because if you do it normally, you're constantly jumping on and off the wall). This new quirk allowed me to shave off some time and opened up some new strats. I think this quirk is unintended because of its weird momentum properties, so there's one example of why I like lenient systems and what they can provide.

cpm care to explain why?

Yeah, the thing with smash 64 is that it's entry barrier isn't based on doing 5+ inputs per second, which a lot of people are simply not capable of in the first place. You make good points, I simply feel that the masses, the people who truly hold the power to blow up the competitive smash scene, will have much better odds getting into a game like sm4sh, than trying to master all of melees advanced techniques, especially with the poor quality of netplay and lack of locals in A LOT of places.
To me it boils down to what will grow our community more, which in my opinion is a strict system.
I do agree with everything you said though.