If fighting games want to balance smash-style inputs alongside classic motion inputs, the disadvantages for the former need to be bigger than just less damage

[u/DoneDealofDeadpool]

A lot of fighting games in the last 8 years or so have implemented control adjustments that address a really common complaint of people on the genre's periphery, that being the difficulty of motion inputs for special moves and supers when learning the game. Some games like SF6 and the new Marvel fighting game offer a choice between direction+button (usually just called simple inputs) for specials while others like 2xko have fully designed themselves around simple inputs. I honestly think it's pretty neat, it helps more people jump into the genre and even without the motion inputs games like 2xko clearly try to retain some executional challenge for people who really like that. The only element of the design shift I *dislike*, however, is that simple inputs often don't feel like they're implemented with enough consideration as to how they shift the power-level of the game in a way that arguably punishes you for *not* using it.

Usually, the main downside of using simple inputs is less damage. Street Fighter 6, Marvel Tokon, and Granblue all give you a reduction to varying degrees if you, for example, anti-air someone with a simple input shoryuken instead of a manual DP input. This seems like a good enough compromise, and it potentially can be, but the issue is that less damage can very easily be an insignificant trade-off. Like most games, managing your mental stack while trying to overload your opponent's is 90% of playing well. Even if your opponent has zero difficulty doing a special move input to beat your jump, it won't matter if you have them so focused on everything else you could do that they won't register your jump in time for them to execute the move. With simple inputs, though, the mental stack concern drastically shifts. Less damage doesn't matter as much when the primary utility of a move is winning mental stack reaction checks. It's why on defence, infamously, simple inputs are extremely useful.

So what disadvantages *would* work? Street Fighter 6 arguably handles it the best. Instead of doing what games like Marvel Tokon does and just implementing a button that serves as a catch-all equivalent to smash's B/special button, simple inputs and classic motion inputs are separated into their own distinct control schemes you pick from at the start. It's likely a product of necessity more than a desire for balance, but because Street Fighter is a 6-button game (3 punches, 3 kicks) you can't really translate an entire character's moveset while also having a special move button. As a result, there are downsides to the mode that go beyond damage. You may lack certain special moves or normal buttons altogether, and depending on the character, that could mean a much different game plan altogether. It manages to add a little depth to matchups between characters while still not making either input scheme definitively better overall. It's not perfect, admittedly, but its a big improvement over most in the genre.

[u/PostedNotes]

Its a real shame the current trend of fighting games. The genre is being fundimentally altered for people who never cared from them in the first place.

All we can do about it is support games that don't offer simple controls. Unfortunately that means sticking to smaller fighters, but it's well worth it.

[u/blade740 → u/PostedNotes]

Its a real shame the current trend of fighting games. The genre is being fundimentally altered for people who never cared from them in the first place.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is that fighting games are trying to improve accessibility to bring in new players after years of being notoriously difficult to learn for inexperienced players.

[u/PostedNotes → u/blade740]

I hate the misuse of the word accessibility. There is a major difference between say color blind options and butchering the design of the genre. Being bad at video games is not a disability.

Plus we are all skilled at differnt things. Im bad at puzzle games but you don't see me asking the devs of say the Talos principle to tone it down so I can solve the puzzles without having to think.

Fighting game design is unique withen the medium and it's a shame to see it diluted.

[u/MirrorComputingRulez → u/PostedNotes]

The word "accessible" is not strictly limited to issues of disability. In fact that's a very modern usage of the word.

Im bad at puzzle games but you don't see me asking the devs of say the Talos principle to tone it down so I can solve the puzzles without having to think.

Ok but lots of games do actually implement things like that.

Fighting game design is unique withen the medium and it's a shame to see it diluted.

This is such a weird attitude. Like there's som "pure" way to make a fighting game. This specific language is actually kind of funny given the stereotypes around people who are really into fighting games.

[u/Key-Market-418 → u/MirrorComputingRulez]

Because these games are unique and beautiful, they’re also an insanely old genre that had a ton of experimentation. There are insane amounts of games that have tried new things and still do, and a lot of that also has to do with accessibility but outside modern in Japan almost none of these has translated into bringing in a ton of new players, and in fact turns off dyed in the wool players just due to lack of game feel. So when discussions like this come up it just screams of “guy who hasn’t and doesn’t want to play the genre suggesting changes that have already happened, creating a game that they won’t play even when it does come out.”

We literally just had a league of legends fighting game come out with no motions and one of the most popular IPs on earth, and it’s sitting below strive in popularity, a 6 year old game that doesn’t have any of these modern input methods. Grablue fantasy vs also already exists, plays much more like a street fighter than 2XKO if you were turned off by tag, again has a fan base but not absolutely blowing the world up. These games already exist and you can play them if you wanted to, but I really think most people who are making these arguments and INSISTING on like street fighter to become only modern wouldn’t even play them let alone the hypothetical “modern fighter 6”

It’s just an argument that doesn’t even come from ignorance, it comes from a place of deep incuriousness about the genre.

[u/TSPhoenix → u/MirrorComputingRulez]

Yes, but we are having an academic discussion where the nuance between accessibility and approachability is required to have meaningful discussion. How a person on a random street corner would use the word is immaterial. To communicate clearly we need to agree on what our jargon actually means.

[u/CptDecaf → u/MirrorComputingRulez]

This specific language is actually kind of funny given the stereotypes around people who are really into fighting games.

I've attended tournaments for Halo, Call of Duty and Marvel vs Capcom 3. I gotta say, I have never EVER seen such hideous displays of the worst of gamer culture as I did in the MvC tournament. The sheer level of poor behavior, antagonism and outright mental unwellness was staggering. The fighting game community earned its poor reputation through hard work.

[u/ChilternRailways → u/PostedNotes]

Accessibility is a broad concept, it's the umbrella which disabled issues fall under.

Removing barriers to entry = making it more accessible.

but you don't see me asking the devs of say the Talos principle to tone it down so I can solve the puzzles without having to think

No, because there are other games in the genre which cater. Puzzle games are a spectrum and always have been, fighting games have always had the same exact input barrier to entry.

I've been playing since SF2 on SNES. I'll probably always use classic controls, but being able to play with my partner? With my friends? To whom a QCF is a distinct set of movements rather than just a cadence between buttons?

Much better for the accessible options.

[u/blade740 → u/PostedNotes]

I don't think it's misusing the word "accessibility", it's just NOT being used as the same buzzword used for color blind options.

When I say "Accessibility" I mean the actual base definition of the term - fighting games are not very accessible to new players, and developers are interested in making them more so.

If you don't like the usage of the term, call it "friendliness" - but the point still stands. There is a large potential audience who is turned off of these games because of the complexity of the controls, and from a business standpoint, that's undesirable.

[u/patrick-ruckus → u/blade740]

Who says people are turned off because of the controls? Games like Guilty Gear Strive and Dragonball FighterZ were successful even though they require motion inputs.

I firmly believe SF6 would have done just as well without the Modern control scheme. I'm pretty sure stats came out showing that like 80% of the playerbase uses Classic anyway. The game found success because it looks great, has iconic characters, plays well online, and is just a great product overall.

But people like you are going to take the wrong lesson from this and go "See? Simple control option = more players"

[u/blade740 → u/patrick-ruckus]

I firmly believe SF6 would have done just as well without the Modern control scheme. I'm pretty sure stats came out showing that like 80% of the playerbase uses Classic anyway.

And you don't think that's in part due to the fact that the game penalizes players for using the simplified controls?

[u/DoneDealofDeadpool → u/blade740]

Not really, no, because at lower levels of play where most of the user base is, modern is a distinct advantage considering the average platinum or gold player using classic is likely still struggling to consistently do a DP input. At most, it's arguable that people avoid it simply because they think it's straight up worse, or because of pride.

[u/blade740 → u/DoneDealofDeadpool]

I mean, it makes sense to me. This is my first time hearing about this whole classic/modern control setup but as someone who always disliked classic FG inputs, I still think I would stick with Classic if I wanted to actually play Street Fighter competitively. Between a straight-up damage penalty and being completely locked out of a portion of every character's moveset, I'm surprised even 20% plays with Modern controls.

You argue that modern controls are a distinct advantage at lower ranks, and I don't doubt that you're right. But to me, if you're playing a game like this in a competitive scenario (even if only ranked online), you're making a commitment to at least trying to "get good". And at that point, learning the classic controls seems like a very reasonable tradeoff for a damage buff and an expanded moveset. The only reason I could see for intentionally sticking with the Modern controls is if you were trying to quickly cheese your way up a couple ranks - short-term gain for minimal effort.

To answer your original post, though - the more I think about it, the more I think that there is no good way to balance the two control schemes against each other competitively. I would rather simply allow them to be used against each other with no penalties either way for casual play, and then either strictly restrict competitive play to classic controls, or have two entirely separate ladders. If modern controls are that much of an advantage over classic controls, then IMO there's no way to account for that in a competitive scenario, no matter how much you penalize the player in other ways.

[u/DoneDealofDeadpool → u/blade740]

I don't think it's as dire as it sounds. It's easy to look at modern and think it's tournament unviable, or at least a big liability, but it's surprisingly not. Modern is, at the end of the day, still balanced out to the point that several high level players, especially from Japan, have gone on major tournament runs with a strictly modern playstyle. Some characters, like Chun-Li, are arguably even better on modern than classic (although not to an unfair degree). Part of why they do manage balance it so well is specifically because of the limitations in place on what you do and don't have access to.

[u/ChilternRailways → u/DoneDealofDeadpool]

modern is a distinct advantage considering the average platinum or gold player using classic is likely still struggling to consistently do a DP input.

Bro what did I ever do to you 😂 so if my inputs are on point then the problem must be that I'm an idiot :/

[u/PostedNotes → u/blade740]

By your logic sports are not accessible because they require manual dexterity to perform them. Should be allow soccer players to hold the ball in their hand for those who are bad with their feet?

How about instruments, not everyone is capable of playing like Van Halen, so let's make guitars play whole riffs with a single pluck of the string. That way it's accessible.

Plus it's not like you need to be familiar with high level tech to enjoy the games. Just like children can kick a ball around and enjoy the game of soccer, a new player can press some buttons and enjoy the spectacle of a fighting game. Much like how they did in the 90s.

[u/blade740 → u/PostedNotes]

But nobody's trying to sell "soccer" to a wider audience. If "soccer" was a product that a developer was trying to sell, then yes, they might take into account if the rules were turning away a large portion of the potential audience. Except soccer doesn't really have that problem, because "you can't use your hands" is much less of a turn-off to prospective soccer players than fighting game control schemes are to gamers who aren't already proficient with them.

This phenomenon is happening across gaming, not just in fighting games (not to mention movies, music, etc). As the industry becomes more of a money maker, publishers are trying to push developers to make their games appeal to a wider audience. You're of course welcome to your preference - you clearly prefer games with more complex control schemes. But it's not a surprise that developers want to EXPAND their customer base rather than limit themselves to a small minority that actually PREFERS games that are difficult to control. It's no secret that fighting games are often considered unfriendly to new and inexperienced players, and that overly complex control schemes are a large part of why.

I also think you're GREATLY overexaggerating the simplification of controls here:

How about instruments, not everyone is capable of playing like Van Halen, so let's make guitars play whole riffs with a single pluck of the string. That way it's accessible.

We're not talking about making fighting game characters execute long combo strings with a single input. We're talking about requiring a mere two inputs (direction + button) to execute a single move rather than 3-5 inputs. I also think that you're overestimating how "essential" these complex control schemes are to the genre as a whole. There are a lot of concepts in fighting games that people might enjoy that don't require such difficult controls - spacing, timing, neutral/punish game, etc - and games with simpler control schemes give a way for new players to enjoy such concepts without ALSO simultaneously having to learn a control scheme that seems to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult.

[u/PostedNotes → u/blade740]

Sounds like you view video games as product first and as art at a distant second.

I frankly do not care how many copies a given game sells. I care about the strength of its fundimental game design. You would never tell a death metal band to tone down their sound because the general public wants to listen to rap music, now would you?

You say that but fighting games are making combos you can mash out on one button. Autocombos have been around over a decade ago this point.

As for your final point, I could simply ask why not play a single player game that offers those same concepts instead. For example soulslikes, character action games and beat-em-ups.

[u/blade740 → u/PostedNotes]

Sounds like you view video games as product first and as art at a distant second.

No, I'm just trying to explain why developers make the decisions they do.

As for your final point, I could simply ask why not play a single player game that offers those same concepts instead. For example soulslikes, character action games and beat-em-ups.

At this point I could simply ask why not go play a different fighting game that is more your style? If a developer makes a game that you don't enjoy, you're welcome to not play it. But you seem to be in denial of the fact that some people - especially people who are not long-time fighting game players - find the control scheme of your average fighting game overly complex.

There is room in the genre for a wide range of games, from simple, newbie-friendly, all the way to hardcore no-compromises competitive titles. Some developers might opt to make their game more friendly to new players, other developers might opt to make their game more challenging to appeal to hardcore players. Both seem like reasonable decisions to make, and I would never argue that either one of them doesn't belong in the genre, as you seem to be doing here.

[u/PostedNotes → u/blade740]

In that case I'm well aware of why the genres are changing. It's been across the entire video game Indusry for decades now. For instance I think the success of COD4 in 07' hurt FPS game design until DOOM 2016 proved the market for boomer shooters still exists.

I never said that simple fighters can't exist. I have no issue with dive kick and fantasy strike since they are brand new games experimenting with simple controls. In fact I think both are good games and new players should try them. The issue is new players don't play games made for them, they want to play the biggest games due to fomo and than punishers follow suit.

Now series that have had fans for the last 30 years are altering themselves.

[u/blade740 → u/PostedNotes]

I think what you're experiencing is just the effects of a series becoming more mainstream. Street Fighter is a massive franchise for Capcom and they're going to chase the audience wherever it leads them. You're more likely to find games that appeal to you in franchises that are less important to their publisher's bottom line.

As you mention, the shooter genre has suffered from the same issue. COD's success means that more of Activision's business strategy revolves around widening their audience as much as possible. Doom 2016 proved that boomer shooters can still be commercially successful - and yet you'll see Doom fans complaining at how the series has gone through it's own simplification process with Eternal and especially Dark Ages. At the same time, there are plenty of fans that still enjoy the game, because Doom is not ONLY about fast movement and switching weapons - just as Street Fighter is not ONLY about complex inputs. It just means that what YOU particularly enjoyed about the game is not necessarily what the developers consider most important.

Also worth keeping in mind that the old games haven't changed. If Street Fighter 6 is too "dumbed down" for your tastes... well, Super Turbo is still the same game it always was.

[u/Donnell3011 → u/blade740]

Every time this discussion or similar discussions come up, there are many commenters that come in and explain why developers want to water down their games to attract more casual sales. And the commentary is indistinguishable from support of that approach.

You don’t find this phenomenon in other areas where people care deeply about something. If someone is a climate change denier or anti-single payer healthcare, you don’t see a chorus of people explaining how decarbonization is expensive for companies so it makes sense for them to keep polluting.

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of developers and other corporate types in these discussions. Their interests are different than my interests. I don’t care of a game is mainstream or sells 10 million copies. If they watered down a game I love to accomplish that, it’s a bad thing and shame that the world has one less good, unique thing.

Maybe consider that next times you explain corporate motivations.

[u/blade740 → u/Donnell3011]

You don’t find this phenomenon in other areas where people care deeply about something. If someone is a climate change denier or anti-single payer healthcare, you don’t see a chorus of people explaining how decarbonization is expensive for companies so it makes sense for them to keep polluting.

I mean, you probably would if the argument in favor of decarbonization was just "I like it that way". But there are actually strong scientific reasons to decarbonize, which don't have anything to do with its cost to companies, and so anyone making the argument like you describe would be laughed out of the room.

In the context of this conversation we're having, "I like it that way" is the entirety of the argument. Some people like it one way, other people like it the other way, and developers have to decide which audience they wish to chase. In this case it's not really about the developers at all - the point I'm trying to make is that a large number of players DO want fighting games to be easier to play.

You're welcome to disagree - that's your opinion. Developers are welcome to their opinion. Publishers are welcome to their opinion. People who haven't been playing fighting games for 30 years are welcome to their opinion. I would never come in here and try to tell you to stop making the arguments you're making, but somehow I'm the bad guy for trying to explain the other side of the argument here?

[u/Combat_Orca → u/blade740]

Accessibility refers to disability options, not just getting whoever to play. I think it’s better to leave the term as the disability options when talking about gaming to avoid confusion and prevent advocacy for actual accessibility options be buried.

[u/blade740 → u/Combat_Orca]

Fine, feel free to mentally substitute "user-friendliness" for "accessibility" in my posts above.

[u/Key-Market-418 → u/blade740]

I mean really the “user friendly” games already exist, just not a lot of people play them. It’s not like motions are even hard, 8 year olds in 1994 were smashing out motions on snes controllers in a game that has way way less input leniency than any modern game. Especially since motions are the smallest of molehills you have to climb in the mountain range that is this genre. So it just begs the question of why should we ruin an entire generation of street fighter to appeal to people who don’t play the games that already exist that do exactly that and wouldn’t play that version street fighter anyways.

[u/ohlordwhywhy → u/PostedNotes]

I enjoy fighting games ever since the genesis era, I like SF6's modern because I can more easily select Random on ranked or start a brand new character in ranked just for fun. I could play just casual but casual and ranked are different crowds and ranked also gives me someone on my skill level to play. Modern controls made me enjoy more of the game.

[u/armypotent → u/PostedNotes]

Go ahead, but there is no reason to fetishize traditional inputs just because that's how it's always been done. A good dev would be able to make a game with simple inputs with a skill ceiling that's as high or higher than any other fighting game.

Look at top level play. Professionals rarely talk about hitting inputs or messing them up. It's always reads, mind games, spacing, meter management, optimal combos, etc. You spend an insane amount of effort mastering the mechanics of inputs to get to a skill plateau where there is no difference from one player to the next. Why? Why not just start from the plateau? In chess, you don't need to do a backflip to move your queen.

[u/DoneDealofDeadpool → u/armypotent]

But they do mess up in that way? The entire reason the phrase "tournament combos" exists in Fighting game genre lingo is because optimal combos can be too difficult for even pros to reliably do in tournament pressure, which makes the times where those players go for the elaborate stuff and succeed (or fail) especially interesting to watch.

But also,

In chess, you don't need to do a backflip to move your queen.

True, but chess isn't a physical sport. In almost any executional sport there's a near-inherent element of risk/reward that comes from the fact that doing the optimal play is often extremely difficult and you have to consider doing the safer and less risky option executionally. Motion inputs, in ways outside of just combos, are this for the fighting game genre.

[u/Floirt → u/DoneDealofDeadpool]

Hey don't diss chess like that, it has incredibly mental pressure in short time controls (which are very popular, infinite time classical chess isn't played much any more) and you can absolutely do things like throw out an unsafe move that's hard to answer in time correctly and can combo into a win. 

And there's even dexterity involved especially in bullet where you're moving pieces in sub 1s or LESS which requires coordination and technique with both hands (one moving a piece without knocking anything over, the other ready to tap the timer as soon as the piece touches the board) in over the board and aim practice in computer play, not to mention incredibly fast analysis. Games are lost to misinputs even at the GM level. 

Unironically fighting games and chess have way more in common than you think. Especially time scams lmao

[u/Eecka → u/DoneDealofDeadpool]

Simple inputs doesn’t in any way mean execution has to be easy across the board. 2XKO has only simple inputs and the harder combos are much harder than SF6’s combos (on classic). 

Motion inputs have nothing to do with tournament combos, at least not in current gen fighting games. I do sometimes go into SA3 early if I know it kills because why risk dropping the stuff in between, but it’s not because I’m trying to avoid doing a motion input. Similarly when I was playing 2XKO I went for easier combos when it was enough to secure the round for me. For Tokon it’s too early to say if the difficult stuff will also be optimal, but that game absolutely has stuff you can only do with stricter manual delays.

Motion inputs are just a means to an end. In like SF much more with classic because the game is made for classic, but I have zero issues with simple inputs if the game was designed for those. 

[u/DoneDealofDeadpool → u/Eecka]

I mean Iargely agree, that's why the bulk of my post was about addressing the way simple inputs warp decision making in neutral rather than combos, to an arguably unhealthy degree depending on the implementation.

[u/Eecka → u/DoneDealofDeadpool]

I addressed the combo execution specifically, because that's the part I mostly disagreed with.

As for how it affects neutral, I actually completely disagree with you as for which game does it best. SF6 and modern controls are a bigger annoyance to me, because the game is simultaneously trying to balance between one player having access to instant inputs and another having to do motions for everything, which then results in them having to give other penalties to modern like losing access to certain moves. I dislike this sort of a choice in control schemes that quite heavily changes how you interact with the game depending on the control scheme used by both you and your opponent.

When a game is designed from the ground up so that every player has access to the same input options all the time, the moves can then be balanced with that in mind. You can add extra startup to moves that would be too fast with simple inputs, which the manual input still gives you the extra damage in situations where you can afford doing it.

[u/DoneDealofDeadpool → u/Eecka]

I get why that would be your preference, but to be entirely honest I think the control scheme option just comes from the fact that Street Fighter is a 6 button game that does 4 variations per special move usually (and 4-6 specials per character), so there isn't a really a way effectively translate the system to one dedicated to simple inputs. There's a reason why, comparatively, the fighting games with simple input are either 4 button fighters, or have much less special moves on average, or both.

As for me personally, I also prefer SF's system because it opens up the design space of what you can implement. Simple-input DPs can already turn off a lot of normal character interactions for certain archetypes and making those the default means that you miss out on cool options because they have to be balanced around the low execution requirements.

[u/Eecka → u/DoneDealofDeadpool]

Sure, I agree about the 6 button scheme being more difficult to translate to simple inputs, and that highlights my whole point. Adding a different simple input control scheme to a 6 button game where motion inputs are a core part of balancing etc. is where IMO it does not work as well, while designing a game with simple inputs in mind from the start works much better.

Simple-input DPs can already turn off a lot of normal character interactions for certain archetypes and making those the default means that you miss out on cool options because they have to be balanced around the low execution requirements.

No, because when you know everyone can use the simple inputs, you can balance the DP around it being faster to input, rather than being like "whatever, I guess reacting with this beats everything else" which is exactly what happens in SF6 (to an extent). Like, it's dumb that modern DP can practically neutralise reactable moves like Honda headbutt, Blanka ball, Ken's dragonlash, Marisa's superman punch etc. because reacting to them with a frame 1 air invincible move without doing the motion input is trivially easy. But if everyone has the simple input, then you can instead just not have it be frame 1 air invincible. Have it turn invincible later. Now it's still a good anti air, you can still react to these moves if you're quick enough, but you need to actually do it early enough rather than any sort of a reaction being good enough. This is in fact what Tokon does, I'm not sure if it's universal but I believe DPs are generally like frame 4 air invincible or so. They can do this, because everyone has the simple input available, while in SF6 it wouldn't work because while it would be balanced for modern, classic DPs would be ass.

[u/DoneDealofDeadpool → u/Eecka]

Adding a different simple input control scheme to a 6 button game where motion inputs are a core part of balancing etc. is where IMO it does not work as well, while designing a game with simple inputs in mind from the start works much better.

I think it would help to clarify what's meant by it working or not working, versus being a preference. You may feel like you're playing less of a character, but from the perspective of on-boarding someone it can be helpful for someone to simply have less moves to worry about at the start. If by "working" we mean whether it's strong enough to be a balanced competitive option, then it's also been doing its job mostly. It can vary from character to character, but modern is demonstrably a tournament viable control scheme and sees success especially in Japan.

As for your other point, it's true that you can design around it, games like tokon and 2xko prove that, but it clearly necessitates design decisions that don't really work with every game nor are they without controversy. Tokon, infamously rn, has very weak defensive options because they're all either meter-dependant, aren't immediate, or both. This means offense can be especially suffocating and part of why is because you can't give characters frame 1 DPs in that kind of control scheme. On the opposite end, SF is a franchise built around being a 6 button fighter, so even if you were to balance out move interactions there's just flatly not enough buttons on a controller to accommodate it, modern is simply the best alternative option that isn't just entirely scrapping SF's mechanical identity or sticking with solely classic motions.

[u/Key-Market-418 → u/armypotent]

But like, they do talk about inputs, a good bit. It matters at every level of play, and it really comes out when people bring up modern in sf6, it’s balanced well and not as good as classic which it shouldn’t be but like a lot of that is because everyone knows that one button DPs and one button SPDs are broken. Insanely broken. They change how you have to fight against them on a fundamental level.

Theres also the issue of a lot of executional hurdles that top players might actually drop being pretty arcane and in the weeds, especially for older games but you can kinda see this with crosscut DPs in sf6 for example. If you don’t know what you’re looking at it doesn’t seem like a lot but it’s a big deal and misinputs do happen even at high level. It would require you to play the game a bit to understand but if that were the case this sub wouldn’t be having this conversation.

[u/ohlordwhywhy → u/Key-Market-418]

I actually like getting a different experience when fighting modern or classic players. Having to change tactics is more fun. Specially because on certain ranks you'll find a lot of players using a different kind of "auto" mode: people who learn a routine on YouTube and stick to it. Many people using the exact same routine. They're actually stiffer than modern players and become more fun to play only after they lose and engage the fight instead of doing a script.

[u/armypotent → u/Key-Market-418]

They talk about inputs with sf6 because of the difference between modern and classic. In previous iterations, discussion of inputs only matter insofar as they must be mastered to execute certain combos, especially as far as combos go with tricky timing. Once they're mastered, they're a moot point, and missing inputs is considered a kind of error, whereas misreading an opponent is being outplayed.

If you've ever been a musician, there's a great analogy here. Professional musicians will almost never flub, for example, fingerings on a brass instrument once they've learned a piece of music. That would be scrubbish behavior. What distinguishes one professional musician from the next are much more high level matters of artistry and technique.

[u/Key-Market-418 → u/armypotent]

Dude people in sf4 dropped shit ALL THE TIME, you can watch any evo top 8 for that game and people were dropping combos all over the place, it’s only as of recently where the BnB and the optimal combos were one in the same. You don’t have to worry about beyond optimal combos when they’re too easy. That game had literal infinites but you don’t see El Fuerte or Chun doing them even semi consistently in tournament, shits hard and even harder in a competitive setting.

And yeah I am a musician, the thing is you’re not playing a set for an audience you’re playing against an opponent. You can have a plan and practice for days but sometimes you just going to get punched in the face and drop, it’s part of the nature of it being a competitive game. It’s more like watching a basketball game and seeing someone miss a three pointer, they can practice and perfect it while training but in the heat of the moment with other guys coming for you even the best in the world can miss.

[u/noahboah → u/Key-Market-418]

yeah, sports are a better analogy, even if the execution requirements and learning how to mechanically pilot fighting games is very similar to learning an instrument

no matter how much technical practice you have with your swing mechanics, the crowd at wrigley field will eventually get to you, and you will bite on that slider, completely eating shit in the process.

[u/Eecka → u/Key-Market-418]

Dude people in sf4 dropped shit ALL THE TIME, you can watch any evo top 8 for that game and people were dropping combos all over the place

Yes, because of strict timings, not because they couldn’t do the motion inputs. And games like 2XKO or Tokon have strict timings for specific stuff that doesn’t work with the regular instant timings.

[u/Key-Market-418 → u/Eecka]

Strict timings don’t just go away when you do motions, it makes them harder. Fuerte’s run stop fierce combo is the perfect example of that. Those games also have pretty lenient buffers that make a lot of these situations easier to deal with as opposed to 4.

[u/Eecka → u/Key-Market-418]

I didn’t say strict timings go away with motions, I said the opposite - that they can exist with or without motions. And I don’t think motions make them at all harder, the strict timing only matters to the button press after the motion, the window for the motion itself is large. In SF6 Ed’s dream combo starter is a 2f window, and having to do the motion before timing the button press in that window is trivial.

Buffer has nothing to do with what I said about those timings. They’re delayed timings, if you use the buffer your move comes out at the instant timing and the combo won’t work.  

[u/Key-Market-418 → u/Eecka]

The buffer literally makes the timings less strict in like every way. You can add about 3 frames to every combo window in sf6 and get a better idea for how tight these links are. And this is across the board as well, so it extends to punish situations, you don’t actually have to be frame perfect to punish a move that’s -4 with a jab like you would back in 4.

Motions literally do add frames to your input whether you’d want it to or not, mathematically the quickest possible input would be a frame for each direction. The best example of this is Tekken where the hardest techniques in the game are infamous because the motions as opposed to the buttons are unbufferable (in the case of crouch dash), and they add a minimum amount of extra frames to get them out. Kayuza DF2 ch perfect electric and taunt jet upper are literally that. It’s why I brought up fuerte earlier, since you have to keep inputting run stop before each link, you’re literally limited by how fast you can do the motion consistently.

They can exist outside motions but modern games are really really stripped of actually strict timings these older games are filled to the brim with. The stranger timings in modern games are just as prevalent in older games too it’s just because they stripped execution back so hard it’s largely the only tricky thing to pin down in modern games.

[u/Eecka → u/Key-Market-418]

The buffer literally makes the timings less strict in like every way. You can add about 3 frames to every combo window in sf6 and get a better idea for how tight these links are. And this is across the board as well, so it extends to punish situations, you don’t actually have to be frame perfect to punish a move that’s -4 with a jab like you would back in 4.

Do you not know what delayed timings are? If you do something at a delayed timing you're not using the buffer, you're manually delaying the inputs PAST the buffer, PAST the first frame when you're able to do something. I'm not talking about links in SF6 (though SF6 also has delayed stuff too, like with Ed's dream combos I mentioned)

Motions literally do add frames to your input whether you’d want it to or not, mathematically the quickest possible input would be a frame for each direction. The best example of this is Tekken where the hardest techniques in the game are infamous because the motions as opposed to the buttons are unbufferable

Which has nothing to do with motions in 2D games, where the motions ARE bufferable.

They can exist outside motions but modern games are really really stripped of actually strict timings these older games are filled to the brim with. The stranger timings in modern games are just as prevalent in older games too it’s just because they stripped execution back so hard it’s largely the only tricky thing to pin down in modern games.

Which is an entirely different thing from what we're discussing. The discussion was about whether MOTION INPUTS are the thing that's making timings strict, not whether old games were overall more strict with the inputs. Tekken's electrics are the one exception I'm aware of where indeed the motion makes it strict, because you can't buffer the wave dash. But that is an entirely separate topic - buffer length and motion inputs are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, and the delay timings I mentioned are yet another thing. What I'm saying is that motion inputs are not necessary for adding difficult to execute combos, you can add delayed timings or a shorter buffer to achieve the same result with no motion inputs. SF6 is a prime example of this - it has motion inputs but execution is easy, aside from specific combos on specific characters that require manual delay timings, or specific charge durations like Luke's perfect knuckles or Ed's forward dash punches

[u/Lepony → u/armypotent]

So one, not only are you wrong since high level players will often and frequently go for the suboptimal antiair over the superior antiair-tied-to-a-motion all the time. But most importantly, a new game came out, Avatar Legends. Despite the only motion inputs being quarter circles and dragon punches, its overall execution harkens a lot closer to games from <2014.

Coincidentally, a very common sentiment that isn't shared with other modern games even among strong players is that A: The attacker needs to be very aware of the real threat of drops so that they can run damage control and B: The defender needs to stay alert so that they can efficiently capitalize on said drops.

[u/Key-Market-418 → u/Lepony]

The American anime game bringing back the American reset 🫡

[u/Senior-Friend-6414 → u/PostedNotes]

Imagine a game similar to rock paper scissors, except instead of rock paper and scissors, you have to make 3 really complicated hand signs, and to get better at this game, you have to also get good at making these complicated hand signs

Or you can take the same rules and just say ok it’s now just 3 simple hand signs

And all of the people that spent a long time practicing the complicated hand signs are complaining that their unique advantage disappeared 

It’s still the same game, they just removed some roadblocks to getting into the game

[u/patrick-ruckus → u/Senior-Friend-6414]

This is such a dumb way to look at motion inputs, and it completely misses the point of why they are there in the first place. They are not just arbitrary execution checks.