The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Tekken, Dead or Alive, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibre.
All classed as realistic fighting games.
So what's realistic?
The graphics? yes.
The characters? well, you wouldn't often find panda's fighting but if you did, yes.
The backgrounds? realistic places, yes.
The Gameplay? No.
This old animation system is right out of date.
You tap the button sequence and they go into the animation of that move.
The animation starts and won't finish until it gets to the end or they get hit.
There's no changing your mind and the skill is of 2 forms only:
Remembering button combinations and pure timing.
This makes these "Realistic Fighters" really slow and clumsy!
You get into a move sequence, you're stuck with it.
You can't dummy (unless you do a special dummy animation which is normally obvious to spot anyway!) or feint attacks.
There's no real spontaneous, on the spot thinking or skill, it's all a case of pre learning moves and using them with correct timing.
Reasonably skillful and entertaining, but so was Doom with its "Turn Left and Right". No body needed "Up and Down" but can you imagine a modern FPS without it?
Why aren't Fight devellopers inovating instead of polishing up the graphics, and dull spoddy details like "realistic physics"?
That's not to say the animation fighting is redundant.
It works a treat for cartoony fighters like Street Fighter and Smash Brothers. Why?
Because Smash Brothers and Street Fighters' moves are quickly done and quickly finished (you're not left standing lke a sitting duck if you miss your attack). The quick animations keep up with the fast paced gameplay.
There's the odd one where you need to charge or recover but these moves are often easily avoidable and can be saved for appropiat times.
On the likes of Tekken, even the most basic kick can leave you a sitting duck if you dont get your timing bang on.
Realism is too complex for preset animation and while "Realistic" fighters continue to use this system, these games tend to suffer the worst from both worlds - unrealistic fighting AND slow, sluggish gameplay.
If devellopers want to make fighters realistic, they have to do it properly!
Technology has advanced since the early 32bit days.
Now processors are fast enough, devellopers should be giving their character models proper AI instead of simply giving them animation frames.
AI simulants should know how to move their body in various ways.
You press the punch button and the AI simulant character works out a punch (because processors are so fast, you won't notice that it "thinks").
Because it's thinking instead of following animations, it can pull it's arm back if it so desires, or decide to kick at the same time.
What's more, it can aim towards it's opponent rather than just attacking the thin air in front of it.
Ducking and jumping won't be so clumsy, you'll be thinking of your characters stance (because it's attacks based on how it's standing, it'll be in a better position to do stronger moves in certain stances - just like REAL martial arts - REAL fighting) and games will be more about fast thinking and genuine spontaneous skill rather than static timing and learning those button pressing combinations you read in the manual/magazine.
For those of you who've heard of my "Fluff Fighters" idea (about teddies fighting in my Bedroom), it's gameplay would be based around this system.
Now teddies coming to life and fighting in my bedroom might not be realistic, the fighting style itself would be.
I prefer to take my gaming elements from the best of both worlds.
Realism freaks (this especially applies boring-as-hell "realistic" racers that have no sense of excitement or danger - like GT3) seem to do the opposite nowdays...
All classed as realistic fighting games.
So what's realistic?
The graphics? yes.
The characters? well, you wouldn't often find panda's fighting but if you did, yes.
The backgrounds? realistic places, yes.
The Gameplay? No.
This old animation system is right out of date.
You tap the button sequence and they go into the animation of that move.
The animation starts and won't finish until it gets to the end or they get hit.
There's no changing your mind and the skill is of 2 forms only:
Remembering button combinations and pure timing.
This makes these "Realistic Fighters" really slow and clumsy!
You get into a move sequence, you're stuck with it.
You can't dummy (unless you do a special dummy animation which is normally obvious to spot anyway!) or feint attacks.
There's no real spontaneous, on the spot thinking or skill, it's all a case of pre learning moves and using them with correct timing.
Reasonably skillful and entertaining, but so was Doom with its "Turn Left and Right". No body needed "Up and Down" but can you imagine a modern FPS without it?
Why aren't Fight devellopers inovating instead of polishing up the graphics, and dull spoddy details like "realistic physics"?
That's not to say the animation fighting is redundant.
It works a treat for cartoony fighters like Street Fighter and Smash Brothers. Why?
Because Smash Brothers and Street Fighters' moves are quickly done and quickly finished (you're not left standing lke a sitting duck if you miss your attack). The quick animations keep up with the fast paced gameplay.
There's the odd one where you need to charge or recover but these moves are often easily avoidable and can be saved for appropiat times.
On the likes of Tekken, even the most basic kick can leave you a sitting duck if you dont get your timing bang on.
Realism is too complex for preset animation and while "Realistic" fighters continue to use this system, these games tend to suffer the worst from both worlds - unrealistic fighting AND slow, sluggish gameplay.
If devellopers want to make fighters realistic, they have to do it properly!
Technology has advanced since the early 32bit days.
Now processors are fast enough, devellopers should be giving their character models proper AI instead of simply giving them animation frames.
AI simulants should know how to move their body in various ways.
You press the punch button and the AI simulant character works out a punch (because processors are so fast, you won't notice that it "thinks").
Because it's thinking instead of following animations, it can pull it's arm back if it so desires, or decide to kick at the same time.
What's more, it can aim towards it's opponent rather than just attacking the thin air in front of it.
Ducking and jumping won't be so clumsy, you'll be thinking of your characters stance (because it's attacks based on how it's standing, it'll be in a better position to do stronger moves in certain stances - just like REAL martial arts - REAL fighting) and games will be more about fast thinking and genuine spontaneous skill rather than static timing and learning those button pressing combinations you read in the manual/magazine.
For those of you who've heard of my "Fluff Fighters" idea (about teddies fighting in my Bedroom), it's gameplay would be based around this system.
Now teddies coming to life and fighting in my bedroom might not be realistic, the fighting style itself would be.
I prefer to take my gaming elements from the best of both worlds.
Realism freaks (this especially applies boring-as-hell "realistic" racers that have no sense of excitement or danger - like GT3) seem to do the opposite nowdays...
I know it wouldn't be easy.
The transition of graphics from 2D to 3D was much more complex than that, though. Isn't it time people started inovating again?
The way I see it, having to see the entire animation through makes most fighters seem real sluggish. Also, moves are done exactly the same way, again and again and again...
If a develloper could manage to make a fighter that used AI bots instead of pre-set animations, the amount of control you'd feel over your character would increase dramatically.
It's not just fighters either. Any game that has you controlling an on screen character would benefit from this system.
It would make the game look more diverse, seem more life-like, reduce the restrictions of the player's control, and although it would be initially hard to program the AI, people would get the hang of it, just like they've gotten the hang of 3D worlds.
The transition of graphics from 2D to 3D was much more complex than that, though. Isn't it time people started inovating again?
The way I see it, having to see the entire animation through makes most fighters seem real sluggish. Also, moves are done exactly the same way, again and again and again...
If a develloper could manage to make a fighter that used AI bots instead of pre-set animations, the amount of control you'd feel over your character would increase dramatically.
It's not just fighters either. Any game that has you controlling an on screen character would benefit from this system.
It would make the game look more diverse, seem more life-like, reduce the restrictions of the player's control, and although it would be initially hard to program the AI, people would get the hang of it, just like they've gotten the hang of 3D worlds.
If it was that easy to get away from the animation-slave graphics, don't you think it would have been done?
The problem is one of physically modelling the human body. It's ludicrously complicated. To the extent of being beyond not only the average ability of the average programmer, but beyond the power of the current generation of machines to do in real time while running the rest of the game as well.
Animations are a simple way of getting away from having to do all the tricky maths that will take up all your processing.
The problem is one of physically modelling the human body. It's ludicrously complicated. To the extent of being beyond not only the average ability of the average programmer, but beyond the power of the current generation of machines to do in real time while running the rest of the game as well.
Animations are a simple way of getting away from having to do all the tricky maths that will take up all your processing.
Tekken is a superb 'realistic' fighting game despite some of the characters :-P
however I think Dead or Alive fits your discription perfectly, there's little skill involved in this game (apart from learning the moves) it's basically down to how fast you pull the moves off, one of the VERY few games I took back, pants!!
however I think Dead or Alive fits your discription perfectly, there's little skill involved in this game (apart from learning the moves) it's basically down to how fast you pull the moves off, one of the VERY few games I took back, pants!!
I'm struggling to understand why you think modern beat-em-ups like Dead or Alive and Soul Calibur are sluggish and lacking in fluidity.
The gameplay of these games has become almost too fluid. When I first played Soul Calibur I was astonished at the slickness of the character animation: the fighters fought with the fluidity and subtley of violent balley dancers.
And also, do we really want so-called "realistic" fighting games to be "realistic"? - I don't. Graphically yes, but realistic gameplay - no. The best beat-em-ups have over-the-top gameplay.
Obviously the AI of the opponents can always be improved. That goes without saying.
The gameplay of these games has become almost too fluid. When I first played Soul Calibur I was astonished at the slickness of the character animation: the fighters fought with the fluidity and subtley of violent balley dancers.
And also, do we really want so-called "realistic" fighting games to be "realistic"? - I don't. Graphically yes, but realistic gameplay - no. The best beat-em-ups have over-the-top gameplay.
Obviously the AI of the opponents can always be improved. That goes without saying.
Single-arm-blocks-everything would be another thing this system would cover. I would have gone in to more detail only I'd already rambled on a bit and I wanted to leave further details open to discussion.
Sonic, the whole point is that instead of characters being controlled by preset animation instructions, the "entity" sort of thinks to do the command.
When I said aiming punches, that was just an example. Naturally, because I want to encourage skill I wouldn't have an up-down auto aim (so blocking and jumping would still be effective), but it would stop characters from stupidly punching into mid air when the opponent is OBVIOUSLY not there.
The main point of this system is to speed up the control and make it more fluid. As it stands in current 3D fighters, you do a move/step/jump and have to wait until the animation ends before starting another one.
This makes gameplay sluggish and robotic.
Having a simulant who can shift their position and do a move as you command it would be much more fun to use.
Like you said, this poses hundreds of countless challenges to the develloper from AI calculations to the AI/Human control aspect.
Obviously, a LOT of work and testing would have to go into it.
But ultimately, if one could pull it off, they would make a fighter that make the current bunch of "state of the art" fighters like Tekken 4, DOA 3 and VF4 look slow, sluggish, out-dated and obselete.
It would become a genre stealing franchise.
And if it hasn't been done within the next 10 years, I shall go and do it myself!
Sonic, the whole point is that instead of characters being controlled by preset animation instructions, the "entity" sort of thinks to do the command.
When I said aiming punches, that was just an example. Naturally, because I want to encourage skill I wouldn't have an up-down auto aim (so blocking and jumping would still be effective), but it would stop characters from stupidly punching into mid air when the opponent is OBVIOUSLY not there.
The main point of this system is to speed up the control and make it more fluid. As it stands in current 3D fighters, you do a move/step/jump and have to wait until the animation ends before starting another one.
This makes gameplay sluggish and robotic.
Having a simulant who can shift their position and do a move as you command it would be much more fun to use.
Like you said, this poses hundreds of countless challenges to the develloper from AI calculations to the AI/Human control aspect.
Obviously, a LOT of work and testing would have to go into it.
But ultimately, if one could pull it off, they would make a fighter that make the current bunch of "state of the art" fighters like Tekken 4, DOA 3 and VF4 look slow, sluggish, out-dated and obselete.
It would become a genre stealing franchise.
And if it hasn't been done within the next 10 years, I shall go and do it myself!
The topic grabbed my title as it promised so much. Perhaps it would attack the unrealistic "arm blocks everything" philosophy, or the restricted nature of the stages.
Instead I find a curious critism of the transistion of 2d to 3d fighting...
I agree with some of the points you make- fighters being allowed to hit thin air and all. However, surely part of the idea of having complete control of the fighters means that this is all part of the game. If the enemy is ducked, and you punch high, it's your fault.
What you suggest is interesting, having your character possess a certain level of intelligence as to allow it to take moves back, or adjust moves as required. Perhaps this could be mixed with a training mode (ala VF4) whereby you can train your character to correct more and more of what you do.
Such a game is a unique idea- a mecha game where the mecha isn't under yourr control- it has it's own defense mechanisms. However, this would be hard to implement. To what degree would the computer take charge... finding the balance would be a feat indeed.
But more importantly, in the traditional beat em up, would players welcome the entry of a computer intervention. Isn't the whole point that the player's skill is ALL that matters?
So, it appears that your idea would be well suited to a new breed of games, but beat 'em ups... perhaps not.
Sonic
Instead I find a curious critism of the transistion of 2d to 3d fighting...
I agree with some of the points you make- fighters being allowed to hit thin air and all. However, surely part of the idea of having complete control of the fighters means that this is all part of the game. If the enemy is ducked, and you punch high, it's your fault.
What you suggest is interesting, having your character possess a certain level of intelligence as to allow it to take moves back, or adjust moves as required. Perhaps this could be mixed with a training mode (ala VF4) whereby you can train your character to correct more and more of what you do.
Such a game is a unique idea- a mecha game where the mecha isn't under yourr control- it has it's own defense mechanisms. However, this would be hard to implement. To what degree would the computer take charge... finding the balance would be a feat indeed.
But more importantly, in the traditional beat em up, would players welcome the entry of a computer intervention. Isn't the whole point that the player's skill is ALL that matters?
So, it appears that your idea would be well suited to a new breed of games, but beat 'em ups... perhaps not.
Sonic
I tend to disagree with you on this matter. If your talking about realistic fighting games then I would think that Tekken and Soul Calibur are very realistic indded. I don't know what you want? If your want a proper 3-D fighting game with a camera that goes all round the character then I think ity wouldn't work.
I also think that games like Tekken and Soul Calibur have got great gameplay value. For a fighting game, they are way ahead of their time and they deserve some recognision for it. Personally, I could play fighting games for ages, because you have to unlock loads of things. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.
I also think that games like Tekken and Soul Calibur have got great gameplay value. For a fighting game, they are way ahead of their time and they deserve some recognision for it. Personally, I could play fighting games for ages, because you have to unlock loads of things. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.
Tekken, Dead or Alive, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibre.
All classed as realistic fighting games.
So what's realistic?
The graphics? yes.
The characters? well, you wouldn't often find panda's fighting but if you did, yes.
The backgrounds? realistic places, yes.
The Gameplay? No.
This old animation system is right out of date.
You tap the button sequence and they go into the animation of that move.
The animation starts and won't finish until it gets to the end or they get hit.
There's no changing your mind and the skill is of 2 forms only:
Remembering button combinations and pure timing.
This makes these "Realistic Fighters" really slow and clumsy!
You get into a move sequence, you're stuck with it.
You can't dummy (unless you do a special dummy animation which is normally obvious to spot anyway!) or feint attacks.
There's no real spontaneous, on the spot thinking or skill, it's all a case of pre learning moves and using them with correct timing.
Reasonably skillful and entertaining, but so was Doom with its "Turn Left and Right". No body needed "Up and Down" but can you imagine a modern FPS without it?
Why aren't Fight devellopers inovating instead of polishing up the graphics, and dull spoddy details like "realistic physics"?
That's not to say the animation fighting is redundant.
It works a treat for cartoony fighters like Street Fighter and Smash Brothers. Why?
Because Smash Brothers and Street Fighters' moves are quickly done and quickly finished (you're not left standing lke a sitting duck if you miss your attack). The quick animations keep up with the fast paced gameplay.
There's the odd one where you need to charge or recover but these moves are often easily avoidable and can be saved for appropiat times.
On the likes of Tekken, even the most basic kick can leave you a sitting duck if you dont get your timing bang on.
Realism is too complex for preset animation and while "Realistic" fighters continue to use this system, these games tend to suffer the worst from both worlds - unrealistic fighting AND slow, sluggish gameplay.
If devellopers want to make fighters realistic, they have to do it properly!
Technology has advanced since the early 32bit days.
Now processors are fast enough, devellopers should be giving their character models proper AI instead of simply giving them animation frames.
AI simulants should know how to move their body in various ways.
You press the punch button and the AI simulant character works out a punch (because processors are so fast, you won't notice that it "thinks").
Because it's thinking instead of following animations, it can pull it's arm back if it so desires, or decide to kick at the same time.
What's more, it can aim towards it's opponent rather than just attacking the thin air in front of it.
Ducking and jumping won't be so clumsy, you'll be thinking of your characters stance (because it's attacks based on how it's standing, it'll be in a better position to do stronger moves in certain stances - just like REAL martial arts - REAL fighting) and games will be more about fast thinking and genuine spontaneous skill rather than static timing and learning those button pressing combinations you read in the manual/magazine.
For those of you who've heard of my "Fluff Fighters" idea (about teddies fighting in my Bedroom), it's gameplay would be based around this system.
Now teddies coming to life and fighting in my bedroom might not be realistic, the fighting style itself would be.
I prefer to take my gaming elements from the best of both worlds.
Realism freaks (this especially applies boring-as-hell "realistic" racers that have no sense of excitement or danger - like GT3) seem to do the opposite nowdays...
All classed as realistic fighting games.
So what's realistic?
The graphics? yes.
The characters? well, you wouldn't often find panda's fighting but if you did, yes.
The backgrounds? realistic places, yes.
The Gameplay? No.
This old animation system is right out of date.
You tap the button sequence and they go into the animation of that move.
The animation starts and won't finish until it gets to the end or they get hit.
There's no changing your mind and the skill is of 2 forms only:
Remembering button combinations and pure timing.
This makes these "Realistic Fighters" really slow and clumsy!
You get into a move sequence, you're stuck with it.
You can't dummy (unless you do a special dummy animation which is normally obvious to spot anyway!) or feint attacks.
There's no real spontaneous, on the spot thinking or skill, it's all a case of pre learning moves and using them with correct timing.
Reasonably skillful and entertaining, but so was Doom with its "Turn Left and Right". No body needed "Up and Down" but can you imagine a modern FPS without it?
Why aren't Fight devellopers inovating instead of polishing up the graphics, and dull spoddy details like "realistic physics"?
That's not to say the animation fighting is redundant.
It works a treat for cartoony fighters like Street Fighter and Smash Brothers. Why?
Because Smash Brothers and Street Fighters' moves are quickly done and quickly finished (you're not left standing lke a sitting duck if you miss your attack). The quick animations keep up with the fast paced gameplay.
There's the odd one where you need to charge or recover but these moves are often easily avoidable and can be saved for appropiat times.
On the likes of Tekken, even the most basic kick can leave you a sitting duck if you dont get your timing bang on.
Realism is too complex for preset animation and while "Realistic" fighters continue to use this system, these games tend to suffer the worst from both worlds - unrealistic fighting AND slow, sluggish gameplay.
If devellopers want to make fighters realistic, they have to do it properly!
Technology has advanced since the early 32bit days.
Now processors are fast enough, devellopers should be giving their character models proper AI instead of simply giving them animation frames.
AI simulants should know how to move their body in various ways.
You press the punch button and the AI simulant character works out a punch (because processors are so fast, you won't notice that it "thinks").
Because it's thinking instead of following animations, it can pull it's arm back if it so desires, or decide to kick at the same time.
What's more, it can aim towards it's opponent rather than just attacking the thin air in front of it.
Ducking and jumping won't be so clumsy, you'll be thinking of your characters stance (because it's attacks based on how it's standing, it'll be in a better position to do stronger moves in certain stances - just like REAL martial arts - REAL fighting) and games will be more about fast thinking and genuine spontaneous skill rather than static timing and learning those button pressing combinations you read in the manual/magazine.
For those of you who've heard of my "Fluff Fighters" idea (about teddies fighting in my Bedroom), it's gameplay would be based around this system.
Now teddies coming to life and fighting in my bedroom might not be realistic, the fighting style itself would be.
I prefer to take my gaming elements from the best of both worlds.
Realism freaks (this especially applies boring-as-hell "realistic" racers that have no sense of excitement or danger - like GT3) seem to do the opposite nowdays...