ComboVid.com

Been thinking about this one. How would you define a combo to someone who has never played a fighting game? It's...really damn hard. "A series of attacks in which each hit guarantees the next?" doesn't quite cut it, but that's the furthest I got.

I usually go with the "A series of attacks that are inescapable after the first hit" explanation.

onReload wrote:Been thinking about this one. How would you define a combo to someone who has never played a fighting game? It's...really damn hard. "A series of attacks in which each hit guarantees the next?" doesn't quite cut it, but that's the furthest I got.

Actually, the hits don't have to be guaranteed - like in 10-hit combos or target combos.

I'd say that a combo is a repeatable sequence of attacks or hits.

Rufus wrote:Actually, the hits don't have to be guaranteed - like in 10-hit combos or target combos.

I'd call those strings, not combos, despite the names.

Yeah, those are poorly named - like parrying being called blocking in Japan or bringing up the reversal message during counter supers.

String, chain..."target combo..."

I've just been thinking about how to explain things to the uninitiated. I tutor people in MS Word, Excel, Windows, etc., so I'm learning a lot about how to break things down, use metaphors, and phrase things properly. That, and trying to learn Injustice without a background in MK9, is kind of daunting, so...yeah. Plus, a nice explanation video/blurb would be great for showcasing combo videos to people who don't have fighting-game experience.

I´d say a combo is " a series of hits that, once the first one hits, all the following ones are unescapable, AND that requires more than one motion to be executed".
My english may not be good enough for such a precise definition but the goal of the second part of it is to differentiate a combo from a multihit attack.
We must also notice that there may be some in-game mechanic that allows to break combos, so it may end like:
"A series of hits that, once the first one hits, all the following ones are unescapable (unless the game offers an option to specifically brake those sequences), AND that requires more than one motion to be executed".

krusan wrote:I´d say a combo is " a series of hits that, once the first one hits, all the following ones are unescapable, AND that requires more than one motion to be executed".
My english may not be good enough for such a precise definition but the goal of the second part of it is to differentiate a combo from a multihit attack.
We must also notice that there may be some in-game mechanic that allows to break combos, so it may end like:
"A series of hits that, once the first one hits, all the following ones are unescapable (unless the game offers an option to specifically brake those sequences), AND that requires more than one motion to be executed".

This is a peculiar one... I made a Ninja Gaiden combo video a long while back where, though combos were nearly never escapable, there was a chance with some that the enemy AI could just waltz out.

Would that no longer be defined as a combo?

Either way, i s'pose that's getting a bit pedantic, though we could go more so

"a string of consecutive actions, in which creates a fluent combination of attacks"

Or even more so, as combo does not necessarily have to relate to attacks or even fluency. (Bejeweled or peggle for example, or trades, sacrificing fluency for a more advanced combo)

"a string of consecutive actions, defined as the time upon a chain reaction of events instigated by the initial action & ending on the final one."

Yeah! That sentence makes it easy as pie to explain

Been thinking about this one. How would you define a combo to someone who has never played a fighting game? It's...really damn hard. "A series of attacks in which each hit guarantees the next?" doesn't quite cut it, but that's the furthest I got.

I actually hard this trouble in an argument trying to explain the "skill" involved in high level play of a video game as opposed playing a guitar. (the easiest thing i could compare to simplify it as much as possible for my musician friend)

however upon trying to explain combos from scratch, you realise that it's nowhere near that simple as a straight sentence. All the components really have to be understood, i found myself stuck, as i was trying to teach them of the fundamental mechanics. Links, cancels, Chains, hitstun, frame data. At that stage i realised that explaining that kind of thing to someone, even one whom plays games regularly (Just doesn't `learn`them) is extremely difficult.

It's impossible without *showing* it, at the very least

Pokey86 wrote:

krusan wrote:I´d say a combo is " a series of hits that, once the first one hits, all the following ones are unescapable, AND that requires more than one motion to be executed".
My english may not be good enough for such a precise definition but the goal of the second part of it is to differentiate a combo from a multihit attack.
We must also notice that there may be some in-game mechanic that allows to break combos, so it may end like:
"A series of hits that, once the first one hits, all the following ones are unescapable (unless the game offers an option to specifically brake those sequences), AND that requires more than one motion to be executed".

This is a peculiar one... I made a Ninja Gaiden combo video a long while back where, though combos were nearly never escapable, there was a chance with some that the enemy AI could just waltz out.

Would that no longer be defined as a combo?

Either way, i s'pose that's getting a bit pedantic, though we could go more so

"a string of consecutive actions, in which creates a fluent combination of attacks"

Or even more so, as combo does not necessarily have to relate to attacks or even fluency. (Bejeweled or peggle for example, or trades, sacrificing fluency for a more advanced combo)

"a string of consecutive actions, defined as the time upon a chain reaction of events instigated by the initial action & ending on the final one."

Yeah! That sentence makes it easy as pie to explain

Been thinking about this one. How would you define a combo to someone who has never played a fighting game? It's...really damn hard. "A series of attacks in which each hit guarantees the next?" doesn't quite cut it, but that's the furthest I got.

I actually hard this trouble in an argument trying to explain the "skill" involved in high level play of a video game as opposed playing a guitar. (the easiest thing i could compare to simplify it as much as possible for my musician friend)

however upon trying to explain combos from scratch, you realise that it's nowhere near that simple as a straight sentence. All the components really have to be understood, i found myself stuck, as i was trying to teach them of the fundamental mechanics. Links, cancels, Chains, hitstun, frame data. At that stage i realised that explaining that kind of thing to someone, even one whom plays games regularly (Just doesn't `learn`them) is extremely difficult.

There were some really funny definitions in there. It really made me laugh. Anyway, I just tried to be accurate, but I didn´t notice that maybe it was accurate but not easy to undertand. I agree in that it can be really hard to explain to someone what is a combo just from scratch.

Doopliss wrote:

Rufus wrote:Actually, the hits don't have to be guaranteed - like in 10-hit combos or target combos.

I'd call those strings, not combos, despite the names.

This is the exact point where one may start to differ.
How crucial is it that any input actually hits? In fighting games you have the common rule, that attacks may be cancelled in attacks of higher order if they hit (projectiles excluded, they can't be counter-hit either).
This however doesn't really apply to many brawlers or action games (NG, DMC, MGR, etc. etc.), so you are allowed to perform unescapable sequences of attacks without actually having a dummy (again, excluding aspects like hitboxes, pushback, model based cancels and non-existing rules of hitstun).
So it would be smart to either differ between genres/engines entirely, or lower the wall between the two terms combo and string.

With all the possibilities of resets, bug usage and so on, I'm not so sure that a global definiton can be created that easily.
However, the most general one, "a combination of moves", sounds so vague that it's hard to deny it's the one applying best.

I suppose everything that hits with more than 2 seperate moves can be called a combo.
A broken, bad, cool, flashy or boring one, but eventually it's a combo.

Well, it's just hard to put it as simply as, "two attacks in a row," 'cause that could just mean you out-guessed your opponent twice. Also, you have the problem where many fighting game engines refer to multi-hit moves as combos...i.e. Ryu's Shinkuu Hadouken is a "5-hit Combo" I guess it would be weird to see a game engine that only counts individual moves...

I agree that each game has its own set of pseudo-combos (recently, I think of Injustice's unblockable, interactive items) and sometimes they're not even truly inescapable.

You are right, I probably tried to simplify it a bit too much.
What you described is, which is way easier to define, a reset, in between of the two moves I raised. There are (mainly aerial) reset "combos" in pretty much all fighting games (HnK is an example for not being such a game); but, if one agrees to the fact that resets ultimately break a combo and do nothing but create a setup (for another combo or any other kind of offense), doesn't the characterization "everything that hits with more than 2 seperate moves, without resetting the opponent in between" explain it halfway well?

Well, even if it does, there is still this:
About the terminology used in games themselves, like the 5-hit combo for Ryu's Shinkuu Hadouken, well... it's not like they aren't allowed to define things for themselves. If it wasn't as distracting, I guess they should also label every single hit as 1-hit combo, going by the logic of i.e. SF4.

At this point it's needed to specify whether or not the player has to input two different things to achieve a "combo", or simply multiple hits being enough. Just judging by the first post, we want a definition which doesn't agree to multiple-hit attacks being combos, but we still need indicators for multiple hits to do our maths and combos properly. What I support here is the fact, that "5-hits" is more pleasing to read than "5-hit combo", to people who care about.

Would you consider this a combo? Shadow Lady is providing Wolverine with interrupts to aid his combo against her own teammate Captain Commando, but she could clearly stop the combo at any time.

How about this one? Cyber-Akuma blatantly switches between opponents mid-combo, allowing both Ken and Dhalsim to recover from hitstun at multiple points during the combo. He's essentially fooling the combo counter into staying active by keeping at least one of them in hitstun at all times.

with that first one, it's still a series of attacks where, if timed properly, the opponent is unable to interrupt the assault... barring certain game-specific mechanics (burst, mega crash, clash). the second one..the combo counter thinks it's all one, sure, but combo counters think multi-hit moves are combos. i'd say it's a series of short combos.

edit: been playing MK, and watching videos...I hope we can all agree that, despite what the MK community thinks, RESETS ARE NOT COMBOS. It's so annoying to see "Sub-Zero 80% combo" and then find out it's two separate combos.

Maj wrote:Would you consider this a combo? Shadow Lady is providing Wolverine with interrupts to aid his combo against her own teammate Captain Commando, but she could clearly stop the combo at any time.

How about this one? Cyber-Akuma blatantly switches between opponents mid-combo, allowing both Ken and Dhalsim to recover from hitstun at multiple points during the combo. He's essentially fooling the combo counter into staying active by keeping at least one of them in hitstun at all times.

The first one, yes.. The second one, no.

In my opinion, fooling a combo counting system isn't really a combo.

Maj wrote:Would you consider this a combo? Shadow Lady is providing Wolverine with interrupts to aid his combo against her own teammate Captain Commando, but she could clearly stop the combo at any time.

Thanks for linking videos in your post, it reminded me how much I like his combos. That's probably my favorite one I've ever seen from him.

On topic, I think the first one is a combo, the second one is kinda like a pseudo-combo, 'cause of the meter staying in tact, but it's kinda like that bug in mvc2 that keeps the combo meter going no matter what.

how about this two hit combo, where sagat and rose get a two hit combo

A GLITCH, DAMMIT. THESE ARE JUST GLITCHES THEY DON'T MATTER

leave me alone ;_;

Maj wrote:Would you consider this a combo? Shadow Lady is providing Wolverine with interrupts to aid his combo against her own teammate Captain Commando, but she could clearly stop the combo at any time.

How about this one? Cyber-Akuma blatantly switches between opponents mid-combo, allowing both Ken and Dhalsim to recover from hitstun at multiple points during the combo. He's essentially fooling the combo counter into staying active by keeping at least one of them in hitstun at all times.

Imo, neither of these are combos. Depends on how you look at it. If you see Shadow Lady as part of the same entity as the dummy ("the opponent"), it's not a combo. You could say it's a kind of mix-up, where the opponent's actions allow the "combo" to continue, like baiting a burst in BlazBlue, then punishing it. If you see her as a 3rd party it can be concidered a combo.

2nd one's just not guaranteed after the first hit no matter how you look at it.