Double Dragon Neon

[Hagane]

I don't see why you single out combos when there are lots of other execution related aspects of fighting games. I mean, yes, you could have a button to do automatic hadouken traps with Ryu, and you could also have an anti air button that lets you instantly take someone down from a jump so you don't have to take the time and effort to learn the timings and go straight to strategy but as you said before execution is a necessary part of fighting games, and giving players higher rewards for higher efforts is only natural! Even simple positioning and ground game is execution heavy in ST.

I hope you see how reducing execution in general heavily dumbs these execution based games down. Strategy and execution aren't completely detached from each other as you seem to believe (even with combos, with all the extra situations they bring up), so if you simplify one you are also simplifying the other. Play SFIV for a while to see what making reversals and throw techs easier can do to the pacing of the game.

[Ganelon]

I'm fine with reducing complicated commands to simpler inputs to make games more about intention than about execution. There's a line where motions are too difficult, as you mentioned for bizarre early SNK commands. I'd like inputs to be simple enough that experienced players don't have trouble executing them 10 times out of 10 in a pressure situation. Not even the best players execute 720s all the time so I'd consider that motion too difficult. Even the dp motion could be more lenient from how it is in ST. You can have more buttons but then you have to weigh game balance. If a shoryuken is 1 button, then there needs to be mitigating changes that prevent it from becoming too powerful. Also, too many buttons would create too many immediate options, which makes things confusing. 6 buttons is already on the high side.

I particularly dislike long combos because they're mostly just beatmania sequences in disguise and waste time. You have a ~10-second time period to enter the buttons at the right time, and it takes as long as an annoying cinematic super. Once the combo is underway, it's almost entirely mindless dexterity on the part of the attacker and a waiting game for the defender. It's certainly an impressive physical feat to nail a difficult combo, but not something I consider fun. I know some fighting game fans relish combos, as you seem to, but I want to make sure it's clear that other fans don't. Some games offer combo breakers but they're simple burst-or-don't-burst decisions and operate solely in the context of combos. And just to make sure I give proper credit, David Sirlin was the first person I saw bring up the beatmania analogy; while I disagree with him on rebalancing a classic, I agree with many of his fighting game ideas. I would recommend reading some of his articles at http://www.sirlin.net/ for further details about my point of view.

You've yet to answer my Chess button example and why the extra situations that chess minigame brings up won't make games more strategic and fun too. Perhaps I didn't make that hypothetical example clear enough? Substitute the Chess button with a DDR button if you want to focus on execution. Wouldn't it be cool to dance a DDR routine whenever you hit the opponent to deal more damage? Let's say you can pick harder routines for more damage. Does that make the fighting game even more strategic now? By your definition, DDR dancing would be an excellent addition for fighters since it ups the execution required and ups the strategy. Let's add a Pac-Man minigame on top of the DDR routine as well for even more execution and strategy. I'd personally find all that pointless skills in a fighting game, and that's the same way I view excessive combos.

I understand how reducing execution dumbs down execution-based games (e.g. beatmania without crazy commands wouldn't be beatmania) but I disagree that fighters should be about combos. There's plenty of strategy involved in knowing properties of moves and the game engine that have nothing to do with combos. In ST, I've seen numerous tourney matches without anything more than 2-hit combos. You can always add more extraneous options to make games more complicated but that doesn't make the core fighting more strategic or fun. I already gave you examples of how everything combos add can be replicated in non-combo fashion, and I already mentioned you could add various inputs—such as QTEs—to create more games-within-games to point out how ridiculous adding these "features" would make fighters (yet sadly enough, they've nevertheless crept into the genre).

And the reason I don't play Street Fighter IV has nothing to do with the more lenient mechanics. I'm put off by the unnecessary focus attacks, tight link combos for competitive play, floaty jumps, poor invincibility on anti-airs, kara throwing, and charity ultras. None of these issues are a result of lowered execution. I didn't expect leniency to be anybody's reason for not liking a game but now I know; hopefully, you've learned a thing or two from my viewpoints as well.

[Zeether]

Majesco just announced a Steam release for the game with online co-op. I know what I'm getting next.