ComboVid.com

Maybe this doesn't belong in this section, but it seems like it would. This is not a typical SRK thread - everyone here has analyzed at least one game to death and can write intelligently. I'm interested in what brought us all, well, here. We all have our favorites...so what I want to know is, what features of which games do you like, and why? What appeals to you about the games that do? Is there a game (or games) you admire for the design or features? Is there a game you admire for something but don't like for that same reason? (Questions in those general directions.)
If it really does come down to "because Sent is a giant robot and he stomps on people," or "Mai has skimpy clothing," then I suppose that's a valid response, but I hope it doesn't.
---- so ----
The games I admire most are Killer Instinct, OMF:2097, GGX (the entire series) and MSH, in roughly that order. I appreciate 3s, MvC2, and I downright dislike ST and the older SF's. (Nobody will ever see this post after that sentence, will they, Maj?) I used to play them when they were new, but I don't appreciate them anymore.
Why? Because I like combos - more specifically, I like the art of combos. Finding new and interesting ways to squeeze more and different possibilities from a game is fun to me.
Killer Instinct and OMF were both radical departures from the fighting game norm of the day. They both had unique, original combo and juggle systems with easy-to-understand yet very free limits on chains and juggling, and those systems both completely prevented infinites. Every infinite in both games comes about as a result of a glitch or bug that makes something work contrary to the overall system - OMF Tournament characters speed-up stuff notwithstanding. I'm not talking about giving a move too much hitstun, or anything like that, I'm talking about straight up breaking the otherwise-set-in-stone rules of the game. (In contrast, the infinites in Versus games, CvS2, A3 and pretty much everything else come about because of inherent flaws in the system. Doom's in MvC2 is my favorite example of an elegant infinite that uses many rules and breaks none, not even fast-fly.) I found it exceptionally fun to explore the depths and intricacies of both games.
However, long combos make for exceedingly boring 2-player gameplay, which is why I admire GGX and, again, KI. (Yes, KI has terrible 2-player gameplay, but not because of the combo system - it has no throws, nothing very fast, and no blockstun.) KI introduced the notion of combo breakers, and almost completely failed in their implementation. [edit: that has a 'e' in it] They were too easy, too useful, and free...then later on glitch unbreakable combos were discovered which rendered them moot. GGX, on the other hand, has air techs, increased gravity, and the more refined Burst system of breaking combos.
- Digression: I disapprove of modifying move properties depending on the length of the combo (increased gravity, decreased hitstun, juggle potential, juggle points, undizzies, only-certain-things-juggle etc) as a catch-all for a flawed system...but they do work, until you find an infinite not covered by that system, such as standing infinites in GG. -
GGX is one of the few games where you are examining your opponent's combo and thinking during each and every hit. A3 somewhat approaches this with mashing, techs, and rolls, but many of the combo-heavy games fail miserably (XSF, MSH, MvC2, etc.) So I admire GGX for being fun to explore in and allowing you to do crazy awesome stuff while introducing yomi layers as you are being hit.
Which brings me to MSH - while it certainly stands near the top of the mountain of 1st-hit-wins games, it was a remarkable achievement. It presented the beginnings of combo limitations, rather than combo extensions. COTA was all about giving the player freedom to do absolutely anything , building upon the advances made from WW through ST. To me, MSH was the beginning of the realization that players would eventually outsmart everything if there was a way, and it is a beautiful game. Everything about MSH was refined and polished; The new rules (and the inexperienced player base for the game style) kept infinites from being found for a good long time, while still allowing amazing combos to exist almost from the beginning. There was little to no combometer-inflation (also the case with KI, as opposed to, say, MvC2). As well, the last-I-heard top character (Shuma) has no practical infinite, and indeed remained without an infinite found for her for years.

I would rather play something freeform and broken than something which limits the maximum length of a combo (even covertly) as the main line of infinite defense.

Wow, I didn't even touch on why I like who I play. Oh well...
Mike Z

Hmm, random.. Well, I haven't really figured out the pattern myself. The characters I end up sticking with are usually characters where I can play their strength well.

Like each character in the roster has a set of strengths and variable weaknesses. If you're able to naturally take advantage of the character's strength(s) then odds are you'll like playing that character. After all, it's not really fun to play the character completely "wrong", where you don't take advantage of the strengths and are not able to cover weaknesses.

I remember Zar once said "If you don't use Aoko 123 orb loops, you do not play Aoko". And that got me to thinking that something similar could be said for a lot of characters. Such as "If you do not Tri-Jump or ROM, you do not play Magneto" or "If you do not c.MK xx SA.2, you do not play Chun-Li".

I wondered why I like playing M.Hisui in Melty Blood rather recently actually, and this thought occurred to me again. It really has nothing to do with the aesthetics of the character at all, I find her rather boring and stupid actually. But I enjoy playing her because I can really take advantage of her strengths very easily and they come rather naturally for me. I went and analyzed quite a few match videos of both American and Japanese M.Hisui players to see what the character strengths and weaknesses were, and sure enough they do the same stuff I do and their core basics were the same, only with varying levels of execution and varying types of movement (plus the Japanese guess right more and guess wrong less). The character in particular has a very strong projectile game and a unique melee/throw game that is incorporated with Melty Blood "staggers", and a well above average low poke and anti air, which I tend to base a lot of my game around.

I've noticed another patter about myself though, in every game I take seriously I play four characters, and my proficiency level with each of the four in a set is different from best to worst (like each char is in their own proficiency tier).
A3- Cammy, Chun, Karin, Guy
3S- Ibuki, Chun, Elena, Yang
MB- M.Hisui, V.Sion, Aoko, Kouma
IaMP- Yuyuko, Sakuya, Yukari, Patchouli
CvS2- Claw, Cammy, Kyo, Mai
Monster- Ryougen, Orju, Maya, Siely
GG#R- Baiken, Venom, Dizzy, I-No
VSAV- Zabel, Lei-Lei, Aulbath, Lillith

Now, looking at this list I can't really say there's any particular thing that links any of these characters together. Except Cammy and Chun being reoccurring characters between A3->CvS2 and A3->3S, respectively.

However, I do believe that for me it has everything to do with character proficiency as far as pressing the character strengths go. When I pick up a new character I like to learn everything about them and find all the little details about everything, explore combos, links, anti-airs, mixups, oki, wakeup, pressure, traps, baits, midrange, point blank, RPS, max range, control, spacing, everything. And then I usually start to pick up other characters as time passes and I don't explore them as much, but I play them casually a lot until I feel comfortable with the character.

But as far as my main characters go, I like to learn what I can do and then I go and try to do it -- but first I usually have to have a natural affinity for the basic tools of the character. Hit confirming Chun c.MK into SA.2 is a basic tool for that character, and if that doesn't come naturally then that character is probably not for you unless by some miracle you happen to exploit all her other strengths to an above average level.

Oh! It should be noted that this is very important: I don't pick my character based on aesthetics at all. In fact, all of the aforementioned characters listed, I hate all their aesthetics. Most of them are really boring, generic, or even downright obnoxious. Ironically the only characters in any game where I actually really enjoy the character's aesthetics, turns out I don't like the way they play, or I suck with them horribly, or I hate the game they're in.

Mike Z wrote:We all have our favorites...so what I want to know is, what features of which games do you like, and why? What appeals to you about the games that do?

There are a lot of specific reasons i have for liking my favorite games, and i can go into those later, but my direct/best answer to your question is simply "time constraints." I learned a bunch of games that people at SHGL were playing at the time. Turned out some of them were good so i stayed interested, turned out some of them sucked so i dropped 'em. Now i can definitely say that i like ST more than SSF2, but it's all relative. And unfortunately the quantity of titles i'm familiar with is tiny compared to the number of games that i've never explored thoroughly.

You know what i'm saying? There's a whole mountain of games out there that i'd love to have learned, but i couldn't ever find the time. I regret never getting good at a Marvel game, i always wanted to try a couple of Samurai Shodown games, it would have been cool to get good at Starcraft, i wouldn't mind learning a proper V-Ism character in Alpha 3, maybe it would have been fun to learn a KoF game, and so on and so forth.

So really, i chose my favorite games based on my own preferences, but i chose them from a pool of candadates determined almost entirely by chance.

I downright dislike ST and the older SF's. (Nobody will ever see this post after that sentence, will they, Maj?) I used to play them when they were new, but I don't appreciate them anymore.
Why? Because I like combos - more specifically, I like the art of combos. Finding new and interesting ways to squeeze more and different possibilities from a game is fun to me.

I like ST a lot and i'll automatically defend it at every opportunity. But i'm gonna hold off on that instinct cuz this thread definitely doesn't need to go in that direction. That said, there are two things i want to add here.

First, ST has a fucking amazing combo engine and there are still new combos being found by anyone brave/dedicated enough to keep looking. Sure it's slowed down compared to GGX games, but look at how much older ST is. More importantly, the coolest thing about classic SF2 games is how methodical everything is - the emphasis on fundamentals. You can find a creative new meaty setup or clever projectile setup or charge manipulation technique or whatever, and it'll be a big deal! The impact will be readily apparent.

On the other hand, if you find a cool meaty setup in a Marvel game, chances are it'll get lost in the flurry of 493875 other hits in the same combo. In classic SF2 games, the core game engine fundamentals always shine through, whereas in "freeform" games they really tend to get lost under all the flashy gimmicks. Even in CvS2, which is a more traditional slow-paced fighter, the fundamental ideas usually get lost behind whatever character-specific groove-specific glitch is being demonstrated.

To me, the magic of it is that you can take TZW's ideas and apply them to damn near any combo engine, but you definitely couldn't say the same about the vast majority of joo's ideas. That's not to say that joo's best ideas are of any lesser magnitude than TZW's best ideas. It's like apples and oranges. It's just that you can find oranges in any exceptional combo video, but the apples are a rarity outside of classic SF2 videos.

Second, at some point i started having different criteria for games i like for combos and games i like for gameplay. Nowadays they're pretty far separate for me. CvS2 is still my all-time favorite game combo-wise, but i don't like it as much as a competitive game. The only character i truly enjoy playing is Ken. He gets his ass kicked too often which forces me to play top tier characters. Guile is the only one i don't mind playing, but it's annoying having to pick Sagat. In fact, these days my team is usually C-Gief/Ken/R2-Guile but sometimes both Gief and Ken lose for free to the same single button, which gets frustrating after a while.

I thoroughly enjoy 3S combo videos and top player matches can be very exciting (whether it's Daigo playing Ken or KSK playing Alex), but i can't play that game. Too many things about it annoy me. On the other hand, ST and HF are probably my two favorite competitive games. Combo-wise, there really isn't a whole lot left to HF. There are a lot of HF combos which i find stylish, but i realize that the odds of ever seeing another truly revolutionary HF combo video are slim to none. Doesn't bother me though, cuz overly elaborate combos tend to ruin the competitive aspect of games anyway. So even if fundamentally innovative combos weren't so fascinating to me, it wouldn't change my opinion of ST as a competitive game. Hell, i never even play Guile in ST. Too much damn charging, not enough offense.

Xenozip. wrote:In fact, all of the aforementioned characters listed, I hate all their aesthetics. Most of them are really boring, generic, or even downright obnoxious.

But Guy is a ninja! A ninja from the streets! He wears sneakers! How is that not cool? Ibuki is pretty cool too. In fact, Capcom has a remarkably good track record of designing interesting non-generic ninjas. Vega, Strider, even Kenji has a unique design. I mean, they could have all ended up looking like Mortal Kombat ninjas but they didn't.

Maj wrote:... even Kenji has a unique design.

Pffft hahahaha.

Kenji/Mukuro looks exactly like Hattori Hanzo (Samurai Shodown), and is basically the same appearance as Capt.Com's assist ninja (Ginzu).

He's also basically Strider with a mask and different weapon. Which you could argue is the same for the ninja in Shinobi or Ninja Gaiden. Speaking of Strider, Chipp (GG) looks the same. Strider obviously came first but, it's clearly a popular style.

These ninja are also very similar to Hokutomaru (Garou) and Konoha (Arcana), the long red flowing scarf around the neck in partiulcar, which they all have (ALL of them! Though Kenji's is a different color)! A lot of Ibuki's moves are very similar to Hokutomaru's too, Ibuki just doesn't have the scarf.

They are all very similar. And if I knew more characters and perhaps even the artists then I could probably name more. I'm personally willing to bet it's the same concept designer/artist for a lot of them.

But yeah, Guy, Maki, and Claw are unique. Though Maki and Guy are kind of plain and boring as far as appearance and backstory go. Claw is definitely cool -- weird, but cool.

[Edit]: Very random trivia. The pajama-clad ninjas depicted in popular movies, anime/manga, and video games aren't historically accurate (of course). But really, no such ninja ever even existed in history that wore stuff like that. I remember reading somewhere that they were probably based off the story of Ongyo-ki.

Familiarity is a large part - I got into OMF because there were no local arcades and it was the only decent PC fighter, and Guilty Gear because it was the only game in the genre everybody reliably owned.

What I look for is a game or character that won't punish me for having bad execution skills, a varied gameplay experience (i.e. each match doesn't feel like a repeat of the previous match), and reasonable ability to control space, and good character design.

I mean, I can see how MvC2 would be fun, and I've drained about 100 hours into it, but I still can't trijump or unfly, so I had to just give up. I can't jab-dash-jab in Tekken, I can't double throw escape in Virtua Fighter, I can't hit confirm my supers in CvS2/3S, I can't FRC in Guilty Gear, etc. so many of these games are closed off to me.

I am often accused of being good at OMF combos, but this is because they tend to require much more thinking than execution. This is the same reason I like DOA4, because you're forced to look at your combos which are usually stuff like 6P, 7PPPK and think, "Will he break this?" instead of frantically spinning the joystick to get the next move out. A game that lets me do that by providing a fun character with easy, useful ways to do damage is a winner in my book.

The visceral thrill of "Sent is a giant robot and he stomps on people" doesn't hurt either. Character design is key.

Regarding liking characters, it's kind of the whole package. Backstory, appearance, and play style. For Capcom games, I grew up with Street Fighter, so naturally I like Ken/Ryu(I like Ken more) in basically any game, and as much as I'll try to deviate from it, any character I like from any game will have some sort of shoto element in it if I'm not already playing one of the shotos.

Alpha 3: Ken, Dan, Sakura, Guy(I really like everything else about him, but I use her terribly)
CvS: Ken, Kim, Yuri(ex), Sakura
CvS2: Ken, Ryu, Kim, Sakura
MvC2: Anakaris/Ruby/Cable <- Most people who never played vs this team died to Anakaris alone, Ryu/Ken/Akuma <-best team evar
3S: Ken, Sean
Melty: Hisui, Shiki

I've stopped playing everything but Melty Blood since I graduated from college, but towards the end I basically already stopped most of them. I did like them all at one point.

What caused me to stop liking any particular game is generally the same reason: It feels like I've already played the same exact match before. In CvS, CvS2, MvC2, and 3S, those games were great when they first came out. But as people started getting better and tier whoring, its like, everyone plays the same teams. It's the same old shit over and over again. Even tourney vids where you see pros going at it, it's kind of... boring.

This kind of ties together with the reason why I don't like games like Arcana Heart and the like... it's because even with all the characters they have in the game, it plays like the same homogenized shit. It doesn't matter who you pick, what groove you pick, everyone plays the same. I kind of dislike GG for the opposite reason, the game isn't homogenized enough, and its crazy hard to pick up a new character in the game. Melty Blood actually tip toes along the thin line of being too homogenized, but I love everything else about it. I wish people would give it a fair chance(This is RE: any SRK comments about it).

So, Mike, did you get the answer you were looking for?

Btw i thought of another dope analogy. Let's say you are born in America and then you move to Russia when you are 25. Three years later, you speak Russian fairly well. Now, at this point, when you are reading English literature, nothing less than Shakespeare impresses you. But you can still pick up just about any Russian magazine and run across at least four or five paragraphs that seem remarkably well written to you.

Bottom line is, if English is your first language, only someone with a true mastery of the language can impress you. At the same time, you relate to ideas spoken in English noticeably easier than to similar ideas spoken in Russian. When it comes to fighting games, SF2 is everyone's first language! (Unless you are a fob in which case it might be KoF98 or something, haha.)

I still get impressed by the extreme level of skill displayed in top-level ST and 3S, and I still greatly enjoy watching tournaments of those games. However, I no longer really enjoy playing either of those games myself anymore.

I'm currently enjoying a great many new games, but none of the stuff I've seen other people do has really wow'd me the same way the top-level ST and 3S does. I have been wow'd, don't get me wrong, there are some crazy good players out there, but it's really quite different. I don't know really how to put it in proper words, but I would say games like Guilty Gear and Melty Blood are more "grammatical" or something, rather than the whole language.

In these games there's a lot of max range dartboard pop-shots followed by point-blank slug-fests that are just RPS, and then rushdown and maintaining momentum and advantage. And when one of these players is extremely good at that it's like.. yeah you can get good at RPS too but what kind of skill is that exactly?

"Yeah man, you freaking owned that dartboard! And then you went and totally beasted at RPS! Great job dude!".

You're shooting blanks into the dark waiting for something to work, basically fishing for advantage, until either you get something right or they get something wrong and you're able to start pressing the advantage. Then comes lightning fast reflexes and very good educated guessing, followed by dialing the digits to victory.

It seems games that emphasize midrange; fluid gameflow, strategy, planning, mindgames, baiting, trapping, etc, don't seem to get any love anymore.

People don't want Chess, they want Wack-a-Mole, and I can see why. Who cares if you did good or not, it was fun. I wouldn't be shooting the breeze with friends and bullshitting about that awesome game of Chess from the other night, not when it's more amusing to get tipsy and bash some moles with a hammer, hurrhurrhurr. :B

I think the reason why I like games that I like is because of the fun I have from an intense mind games + good spacing and poke game + actions that need sharp reactions + good intuitive combos. If the game has the kind of gameplay like the grand finals of B3, I'll like it.

I also tend to like games that reward players with strategy and skills way more and have a highly unfavorable risk/reward ratio for people that go for unskilled stuff. This is why I don't like games where random guessing is pretty safe and rewards you in a big way like 3s with random guess parries or tekken with safe mid-launchers and safe lows.

I don't think I can ever take Tekken seriously, because if an uber Tekken scrub like myself can steal a perfect round against someone as godly as Nin when he's playing Steve (which btw is his main character for those that don't know), I KNOW I'll hate the game more and more as I get better because it's inevitable that I'll lose some games to random scrubs just because the game will reward random guess too much.

Maj - I wasn't really looking for an answer, but at the same time I kinda did get one.

People generally seem to like the same things about the games they like, they just disagree about which games have those features. :^) I dislike the same thing that Xenozip and most people do (random guess junk followed by winning), but for that reason I like GG's basic design and dislike 3s's, which is exactly his view reversed. It took me a while to dislike 3s for this reason, but I ended up that way. I agree with him about ST, though.

Games that you can get good at (whatever 'get good at' means to you) seem more popular than games where (you think) one's skill level is irrelevant or nearly meaningless for winning. This is very interesting, because a lot of people I talk to who don't play fighters much feel the opposite, hence DOA's large casual following. Smash seems to have actually found a middleground there...

I'm not sure what to take away from the why-I-pick-who-I-do part.
Don't stop,
Mike Z

Well just to clarify, I only mentioned 3S because I enjoy watching it.

3S has all the qualities that I mentioned that I do not like and I should have mentioned it with the other two. Also, hence why I no longer play it.

To me, I was describing 3S, GG, and MB, but I realize Guilty Gear shouldn't be lumped in with the other two.

For 3S, the Chun-Li twitch dance IS fishing followed by pure RPS. However that's just the most obvious form of it, you also see it with just about any 3S character that does well, except Yun who completely avoids fishing in the first place and goes strait for brute force RPS via GJ (skipping midrange entirely).

The parry system itself guarantees that there is no absolute advantageous position relative to your opponent. You could be anywhere on the screen and your opponent could be anywhere on the screen having done anything at all, and as long as they have at least one frame of neutral before you connect anything then they at least have a chance to parry. May not be a huge chance, but it's a chance, therefor midrange is diluted marginally.

The most advantageous situations in 3S are neutral where you can safely fish for counter hits (not direct hits, but counter hits), and of course knockdown where you can play RPS. There simply aren't tools where you can really control anything.

At this point you're not trying to hit the opponent anymore, you're sticking out an attack and hoping the opponent hits themselves with your fist. So rather than being "better" you're waiting for your opponent to be "worse" and slam themselves into you.

This problem exists in MB except instead of the twitch game, players bounce and dance aimlessly in the air, fishing for literally anything, or simply dash strait in for a random slug fest. Precise movements/positioning and timing sort of flies out the window since being predictable means you could get parried anyway. Any attack that could potentially zone and control space and force the opponent into a bad spot is potentially nullified by the numerous defensive options: parry(shield), dodge, backdash, DP's, airblocks, and outstanding air mobility (double jumps and airdashes).

So rather than the very strict and defined twitch game you get with 3S, you get a pile of watery goop that is MB's "midrange". It's hardly defined because movement is fluid and what beats what is very situational, which is further amplified by the fact that there are shields and other defensive options. And some people confuse this "non-strict" midrange with some sort of depth or potential or feel that it's just better than 3S's midrange because there's potentially more going on at any given time than just twitching back and forth. But to me, that is strait bullshit IMO, because it IS the same fishing dartboard crap you see in 3S, the only difference is you move further and faster, but it's the same "gee, I am going to stick this out randomly and hope my opponent slams into me".

Guilty Gear's midrange game is boosted by projectiles and the lack of parries, definitely. But I originally lumped it in with the others because after the first attack connects on hit/block it becomes not much different from Melty Blood. The player with direct advantage is pressing the advantage with RPS and staggers which fish for hits, until you can hit and do a very large dial-a-combo that leads into safe oki (meaning the combo sets up another string of RPS and fishing). And the projectiles that the majority of the cast has almost guarantee that the opponent will block on wakeup, so rather than meaty RPS it just becomes a forced block into favorable RPS mixups (in favor of the aggressor).

In other words, once I get hit or block something I'm in for quite a ride. Provided I block I now have to deal with high/low/throw and staggers, in which if I flinch or guess wrong I get hit, and if I get hit I'm put down and forced to block, meaning I'm put back into the high/low/throw and staggers game. And blocking correctly doesn't always get you out of the string. Characters like Testament can do continual high/low/throws for quite some time until he eventually runs out of meter.

But, yeah I will concede that GG shouldn't be lumped with the other two due to having much more of a midrange game than the other two.

As long as we're on the subject and as long as I'm on a tangent..

I'll talk about how I feel about GG's midrange game.

Some characters like Millia and Slayer still tend to act as if they were playing Melty Blood. Millia players tend to dance around with j.D, and setting discs, and shooting the occasional random pin. Slayer also tends to fish until he can get point blank, just moreso on the ground.

Fortunately not all characters are like that. My favorite example being Venom. Venom is able to use multiple types of billiard shots to control certain areas of the screen at certain points of time. This allows him to use these shots as cover fire and advance in towards the opponent. When using a horizontal slow billiard shot against a standing opponent, the opponent now has to either continue to stand in its path and block (giving Venom advantage), or move to avoid it. But this is where things become interesting, Venom can think ahead of his opponent and set up traps to further limit the opponents movement, or to strait beat the opponents movement attempt. For example, should the opponent attempt to jump towards, over the billiard, Venom might have tried a quick 6HS or very low airthrow. Know what this reminds me of? Ryu, that's who.

I find it significantly more dynamic when Venom is using billiard setups to force the opponent into an action that he can directly counter, than say Ren flying around like a crazy bitch in Melty Blood hoping she hits something. Billiard setups isn't the same as fishing at all, not by a long shot. This is an aggressive action that you're taking to attempt to hit the opponent. While you are still relying on your opponent to make a bad choice, the difference being is that you're not entirely waiting for the opponent to hit themselves, but instead you're taking a direct action to try and get the opponent to attempt a defensive option which you can take advantage of forcefully. And this becomes more dynamic when the opponent can do the same things, and is actively attempting to beat your attempts.

I can't guarantee that I can avoid my opponents setups, but I can try and think ahead even further than he is and do counter setups. Thus the game of Chess occurs where you are constantly putting out pieces in an attempt to predict and control and counter your opponent.

This is why I currently very strongly advocate IaMP (saw that coming, didn't you?). Everyone in IaMP, with the exception of two characters (Marisa and Hong Meirin), is Venom. Except they don't all use the same billiard patterns, in fact they all use different shot patterns entirely.

The idea behind Venom's midrange and IaMP's midrange are fundamentally the same. You are putting stuff on the board to try and force the opponent to act, and this action is what you are attempting to exploit. But at the same time your opponent is also actively attempting to exploit and counter.

Where IaMP and Guilty Gear differ is the point blank game, after the first hit/block. While there is a high/low and in some cases a left/right game, there is only one character with a throw (Youmu) so it's less RPS and more hi-lo. Additionally, every incorrect block in Guilty Gear immediately leads to a combo yielding huge damage. Meanwhile, incorrect blocks on the ground in IaMP result in a stagger which gives the opponent a second chance to block correctly, and a second incorrect block results in usually minor BnB in comparison to the situational BnBs. The incorrect blocks in the air lead to air-to-air BnB's, and getting counter hit leads to huge groundslams or wallslams, both of which are much more powerful/damaging. This strongly promotes proper movement, rather than careless movement, and balances risk/rewards which in turn discourages mindless midrange fishing and dartboard shenanigans.

However, there is staggers in the game, and some are quite powerful. This stagger game combined with the high/low game return the advantageous position back to RPS rather than just hi-lo, it's just that the "S" in RPS is replaced with the bullet/stagger game instead of throws from other games. Which, in my opinion, it's actually better that way.

The two share other similarities such as using projectiles to force your opponent to block on wakeup, thus giving you direct advantage. However, where they differ is that correctly blocking a mixup lets you escape. Incorrectly blocking a mixup puts you in a very bad situation where you can no longer airblock until your meter refills, and also staggers you so that the opponent can attempt another mixup, but technically you get a second chance to block. Additionally, there are tech rolls in the game that move your position before getting up, which allows you to somewhat avoid meaty bullets, and thus allowing you to actively choose to deal with meaty melee rather than meaty bullet (which can in turn put the wakeup game into a direct RPS, instead of like Guilty Gear's force block into favorable RPS).

My primary nitpick with Guilty Gear is that after I block or get hit by anything, I might as well set down the controller. While it's possible to block everything correctly or escape meaty okizeme and such, it's not my preferred skill to get very good at single digit frame guessing games and no-flinch stagger games. I'm not good at tiny frame guessing games and I don't enjoy it. I much rather overpower my opponent or be overpowered by superior play, not superior guessing.

Even with all its problems, the GG series always looked promising - at least from GGX onwards. They do a LOT of things right and their overall game balance philosophy is awesome. The sheer variety they managed to preserve is outright amazing. A lot of other developers would have homogenized the cast as soon as some elements started to get troublesome.

If i had to order the games i want to learn most, MvC2 would be at the top of that list, followed by whatever GGXX game everyone is playing these days. MvC2 is numba wan only because i think it's a damn shame that i never learned a Marvel game, but i'd love to learn one of the aggressive characters in GGXX. In fact, you made Venom sound perfect for me.

Though, to be honest, you're doing a really good job of making me feel like i'm totally missing out on IaMP, haha.

Btw, Kenji may look like a typical ninja but his moves are unique. Check out that bigass chain or the heavy shotgun. Even his intro animation is stylish, the one with the dope hat. You're right though, Japan does overuse that neck scarf accessory.

To Maj - one of the reasons I really like GG is the fact that you really are playing a very different game depending on who you pick, and that this has only become more pronounced over the course of the series. For Accent Core in particular, it appears they looked at how each of the characters was being played and made them stronger in that area, even to the point of giving Anji back unblockables and more moves that look similar to each other.

Xeno - I must be playing a different Guilty Gear, or something. I guess I'm just confused because I don't see the aspects you mentioned being successful in most of the matches I play or watch. Eddie is designed around RPS, sure, but he's got nothing else. Wakeup projectile pressure is present, but not universal or even that common.

To explain it in general...
- You can throw on the first frame of wakeup. Combine this with the relatively strong anti-throw measures (namely, that you can't be thrown for 7 frames after waking up, 6 frames after any hitstun, and 5 frames after any blockstun) as well as the fact that you can tech throws in AC, and the throw game is greatly reduced. Also you can't Slashback (parry) for 10 frames on wakeup, so the nullification of meaties from 3s isn't present. There is also option-select throwing where you attempt a throw in conjunction with another normal, to lessen your risk.

- You can reversal backdash on wakeup, which gets you out of absolutely everything unless they went for oki to punish it, not to mention if you mistime it it turns into blocking. This is a universal option, although some, like Eddie's, suck because he's designed to not be able to get himself out of pressure easily. This, reversal DPs, and instant blocking makes wakeup-into-projectile not much of a problem. As well, some characters (Robo, Bridget, etc) can choose to delay their wakeup or not, and everyone can tech if they are hit OTG.

- Fishing with projectiles in general is much more likely to get you killed than to win you the match, unless your character was designed around it (Dizzy, Millia).

- RPS - the basic tool for getting out of RPS is Faultless Defense. It more than doubles pushback, so you pretty much only have to FD 1 or 2 hits before they're out of pressure range. Combining this with Instant Block to create holes, and endless RPS is very very rare. Also, there is Slashback, which carries a heavy penalty for missing (not being able to block at all for 1/3 sec) and requires such tight timing that the basic use of it has become to get out of predictable RPS pressure or blockstrings. You can buffer it into the motions for supers or specials if they leave a hole when you attempt one, as well. Lastly, most of the high options are slow enough that if you hit something after the low option would have connected, you beat the high option clean (ex. Testament's net into 2k/6p mixup).

- Combo damage...only in Accent Core has the damage from practical combos approached or exceeded 1/2 life, and that's only for some characters (Jam, Pot, Slayer). That's also ignoring the fact that you take less damage as your health goes down, pretty dramatically. Damage in ST, in terms of number of times you have to get hit before dying, or even getting thrown, is higher than GG as far as I've seen. Even AC Potemkin has to hit Chipp (at least) 3 times, which is about what you get in ST. As well, you can burst, tech, mash out of staggers, and then there are tech traps, etc.

Holy crap I derailed my own thread,
Mike Z

Mike Z wrote:Xeno - I must be playing a different Guilty Gear, or something.

I guess we are.

Wakeup throws don't beat meaty projectiles. IAD's in general stop every option other than a DP (and DP's won't work if you IAD FD). Wakeup backdashes don't beat things like I-No FRC note airdash or Millia FRC disc TK dive/roll. And these are just a few examples. Backdashes are punishable due to their recovery period so they lose when the player uses a simple option select to cover both spots.

It's true Bridget and Robo have ways around this but then some characters also have counter measures to that as well, such as Millia setting disc FRC then intentionally OTG'ing to force them to recover early. It's common practice for Chipp players to hit with an OTG as well so that they can use a high teleport left/right mixup.

There's lots of things that stop anything you try and do on wakeup. Venom billiard shot will force the player to either instantly block on wakeup or backdash through it, but all Venom has to do is hit with 5S or 6HS immediately afterwards to either hit backdashers or keep the opponent in blockstun. Wakeup DP's and throws lose to this because Venom is out of range and not attacking with melee until after the ball would normally connect. And there's lots of moves in the game that provide similar results, such as Robo missiles, Sol gunflame, Dizzy bits, Ky stun edge and j.D, Eddie summon, or if Millia lands a combo she can do a bubble setup, and so on (most of the cast has at least something). Please let me know how to DP one of these setups, which would be funny considering the opponent can be blocking outside of throw range (or in the air) while the projectile connects meaty, and has ways of covering/punishing backdashes.

Even when a character doesn't have a good move to do this with, ambiguous crossovers help prevent an opponent from spamming wakeup backdash and DP's, and even if they backdash anyway the aggressor lands immediately afterwards and can connect a dashing or long range attack before the backdash fully recovers. Like even against a good Axl or Jam player, you just aren't going to be able to wakeup-throw or backdash, not when they are good at positioning and timing.

Instant Blocking, FD, backdashing, and Dead-Angles are good defensive tools if your opponent wasn't anticipating it, but given the player knows you at least have those options (and may or may not use them) then they can take counter measures to cover all options. Potemkin's backdash just happens to be abnormally good.

Backdashes with invulnerability frames are in 4 of the 3 games that I currently play (the 4th being a game a quit playing), so I've had to do extensive research on ways to stop it. But after a while you begin to realize that wakeup backdashes are actually extremely bad against the right setups. Please let me know where you see players abusing wakeup backdash, because I certainly don't see it in Japanese play, and the reasons why are right there, too. They take measures that would prevent DP's and backdashes even if you did them or didn't do them.

A long time ago I use to think players were getting hit in the air too much, getting hit with bursts too much, and not using enough dead angles, but things have changed. Sometime during the height of #R players started getting extremely good at baiting bursts and using air FD. They also started using DA's with a lot more success. I may have thought backdashing was also something they needed to use more if I didn't already understand why they refrained from using it, due to my experiences in other games (namely Melty).

But nowadays I can (just did before typing this) pick any random 5 Japanese matches to watch and not see a single wakeup backdash or DP. And also see some advanced burst baiting and punishing and good use of air FD, which wasn't always the case.

---

However, this wasn't really my point. My original point is what happens after you block. Block something against Testament with meter and all your defensive options aren't going to mean much against a proper barnie rushdown. You will have to deal with his extremely fast high/low/throws and staggers and you aren't escaping even if you block correctly -- not until he's out of meter. And should you get hit by one of these stupidly fast options then you're eating a huge damage combo and getting put right back down on the ground where he can try again.

But he isn't the only character that is like this. I don't see how you could possibly deny that GG is mostly a momentum based game. It is plain as day (to me, anyway).

Maj wrote:In fact, you made Venom sound perfect for me.

Though, to be honest, you're doing a really good job of making me feel like i'm totally missing out on IaMP, haha.

Come to think of it, I guess you could liken Venom's moveset and playstyle more to Guile than Ryu, in a way (long range narrow normal moves, billiards=booms, etc).

As far as IaMP goes; I watched some vids of it at first and didn't know what to make of it, then blip wanted to try it so I downloaded it and tried it too, and still didn't know what to make of it. Then a good player beat the crap out of me online, and I knew then that I wanted to learn it. Since then my opinion of it has shifted a great deal.

It's odd though, the fighting game players that I know that have tried to get into IaMP seem to fall flat on their face pretty hard at first (and most of them still do). Apparently the same doesn't hold true in reverse though, a few of the players that started with IaMP as their first game have learned other fighting games (and quickly, too).

I'd like to tell everyone to try it a least a little bit before deciding whether they like it or not, but people are naturally apprehensive towards doujins so I don't really try.. c'est la vie.

P.S. And i quote, "Guy: Probably one of the coolest characters ever." There you have it, 5+ minutes of irrefutable proof condensed neatly into two.

It's still very irritating to see invalid combos in an SFA3 video. Especially for a character with an enormous repertoire of valid juggles.

What made it awesome for me was the mouse cursor in the last clip. :^) But I understand what you're getting at.

Mike Z