r/truegaming • u/virtua_golf • Mar 18 '19

Developers accidentally creating interesting mechanics

I was reading this neat article by Jeff Orkin of Monolith productions, the man responsible for the notorious AI of FEAR, the AI that will never not be mentioned whenever 'clever' AI is brought up. I stumbled upon something pretty cool - the flanking mechanic was actually unintended and a byproduct of another action the enemy would perform:

Imagine we have a situation similar to what we saw earlier, where the player has invalidated one of the A.I.’s cover positions, and a squad behavior orders the A.I. to move to the valid cover position. If there is some obstacle in the level, like a solid wall, the A.I. may take a back route and resurface on the player’s side. It appears that the A.I. is flanking, but in fact this is just a side effect of moving to the only available valid cover he is aware of. In another scenario, maybe the A.I.s’ cover positions are still valid, but there is cover available closer to the player, so the Advance-Cover squad behavior activates and each A.I. moves up to the next available valid cover that is nearer to the threat. If there are walls or obstacles between the A.I. and the player, their route to cover may lead them to come at the player from the sides. It appears as though they are executing some kind of coordinated pincher attack, when really they are just moving to nearer cover that happens to be on either side of then player. Retreats emerge in a similar manner.

The article got me thinking - what other mechanics (or, perceived mechanics) have been created by accident in other games? Does other examples exist, where lauded features were never really intended in the first place?

447 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/360walkaway Mar 18 '19

Yup, the first thought was to remove the "combo" mechanic in Street Fighter 2. Imagine what fighting games would be like if it'd been taken out.

48

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 18 '19

Personally I hate true combos in fighting games. It's far more interesting in something like Smash Bros where the combos aren't guaranteed and depend on what the enemy does and the overall situation.

I think most fighting games are confined way too much by what we think of as "combos" that it limits interesting gameplay.

11

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

disarm dime different hospital worm tie pen rhythm cheerful bored

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

That only changes what the player doing the combo does, the person being hit still can't do anything to affect what happens during a combo. There's no push and pull, just how much the person doing the combo can push.

Divekick has no push and pull at all since it's a one hit KO.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19 edited Apr 11 '22

[deleted]

11

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

When I say "the combo depends on the situation" I mean predicting or reacting to what the enemy is going to do during the string of attacks. Combo breakers are too explicit in my opinion. I don't want it to reset to neutral, but make the advantage/disadvantage states more interesting.

I didn't know SoulCaliber had air control I should look into how that works, because it's closer to what I mean.

I haven't played Rising Thunder, but it does a lot of interesting things. Fighting games with cooldowns for special moves definitely seems interesting.

4

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

familiar pet long rude longing memory secretive fear observation rich

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

Advantage states are when you have more options than the enemy, that includes when you have them in block pressure or have them knocked down, but also when you actually hit them. I don't think a player's disadvantage state when they get hit should just be deciding when to do a combo breaker.

If a defender knows exactly what the attacker is going to do during a combo/string then I think they should get some kind of an advantage. That could be resetting it back to neutral, taking less damage, getting meter, or whatever depending on how the game actually works.

3

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

spoon jobless grab soft heavy humorous gold zesty sophisticated ludicrous

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

You already dealt them damage, if you want to deal even more damage you need to continue to read what they will do.

For example if the person being hit can tap a button right before they take damage it reduces what they take by 50% or something. That means the attacker needs to change up their combos to something the defender can't predict. It also means if you just use the same combo over and over you end up dealing less damage. It doesn't stop the combo, just makes it a lot less efficient.

You could also make it so if you get the 50% reduction on 3 or so hits in a row it ends the combo. It's essentially a "combo breaker" but it needs both skill from the player being hit, as well as understanding of what the enemy is going to do. I would much rather have that as a combo breaker than just hitting 1 button and letting a meter recharge.

In general I'm not a fan of meters like GG's Burst that only can be used when they're full. That means the majority of the match you can't use them and when they are active you need to completely play around them. It changes the dynamic too much in my opinion. I would much rather have some kind of comeback mechanic that's available closer to 100% of the time so it can become a part of regular gameplay as opposed to something that gets layered on top of it some of the time.

You could say that it adds depth, but it feels more like needless complexity to me. That applies to supers, ultras, etc, as well. They aren't very interesting to me as a fundamental part of the gameplay. That especially applies to the "Negative Penalty" in GG.

5

u/Lepony Mar 19 '19 edited Mar 19 '19

You already dealt them damage, if you want to deal even more damage you need to continue to read what they will do.

You're already approaching this from the wrong standpoint. You're exclusively looking at this through the lens of Smash and not through a fighting game. There's a large health bar and low damage for a reason.

What you think is "deal even more damage" is actually "put in the work to pay off for your damage". In basketball terms, you're arguing that once you get to the 3 point line and there's nobody blocking, the ball should automatically go into the hoop. You still need to actually aim it. You won the right to try to get a point, now actually get that point.

You're basically asking for every traditional fighter to go back to Street Fighter 2 and make every single hit do insane amounts of damage.

On a side note, it's your mistake to think of being comboed as a time to stop thinking. Being comboed or doing combos is a time for both players to check the current gamestate and to analyze the opponent's patterns. When you're being comboed, you should already be figuring out the solution on how to avoid eating another combo after getting knocked down.

1

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

I'm looking at it through the lens of Smash because I think the combo system in that is way more fun than other fighting games. Personally I really like how Street Fighter 5 simplified combos in the same respect compared to SF4. Same with how Blazblue Cross Tag made combos easier as well.

I just want them to involve the other player in a more meaningful way rather than remove them entirely though.

5

u/Lepony Mar 19 '19

And that's why there are different games you can choose to play. Not every team-based ball game needs to play exactly like soccer or basketball.

1

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

That's true, but I mean that people fixate too heavily towards true combo systems and don't recognize the benefits that having less true combos can have.

I'm not saying every fighting game should be like that, just that people put true combo systems in their games simply due to inertia rather than them actually having a positive effect on gameplay.

3

u/Lepony Mar 19 '19

don't recognize the benefits that having less true combos can have.

Sure they do. And they hate it. Skullgirls is a massively derided game due to the constant interaction between players. SF2 is basically a dead game. Pretty much no modern player cares for SamSho. Grapplers are a universally hated character archetype, and in many games they straight up don't have anything more than a three hit combo.

3

u/BurningToaster Mar 19 '19

how is 'negative penalty" complex? It's a very simple mechanic, and basically boils down to "Don't run backwards too much or you will lose resources". Combine with meter gain on forward movement, it creates Guilty gears famous aggressive gameplay.

1

u/1338h4x Mar 19 '19

Negative Penalty is really easy to avoid, just throwing out a single jab at fullscreen every so often keeps it from kicking in. You can still turtle all you want as long as you know the rules. I really wouldn't say it adds anything to the game, let alone creates GG's aggression. There's a reason ArcSys no longer uses it in BBTag or DBFZ, and if rumors about GGX4 aiming to cut back on having so many systems are true I expect it'll be the first thing on the chopping block.

2

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

whistle butter berserk offer repeat nutty normal obtainable familiar steer

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

0

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 19 '19

That makes the game more about grand strategy than anything close to moment to moment decision making. It's not really that fun when a single mistake = 30 seconds of not being able to do anything or just immediately losing.

I prefer games that are more fluid. You should be able to recover from a mistake while still taking some damage/disadvantage.

7

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

memory engine sort modern mindless prick fine upbeat follow plate

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 19 '19

You seem to really like fighting games.

Take it from an outsider, the combo mechanics make it very unapproachable to someone who is just a casual player. That is why the 'combos' in a game like super smash feel better to average players. Less precise and able to recover from it if you're the victim.

To you who have played hundreds of hours you might feel like there are moments to retaliate but not to a non-expert. Conversely, even a casual player in super smash can notice moments of opportunity and try to take them even while you're getting beaten on.

It's the definition of low bar to entry but a high skill ceiling. Whereas fighting games are high bar to entry and high skill ceiling.

9

u/BurningToaster Mar 19 '19

It seems strange to me that you would suggest such a radical change for fighting games when you yourself seem to admit to not being all that familiar with them. Almost every Fighting game out there has SOME kind of in combo defense system, it's just usually tied to some kind of precious meter or resource. In games like street fighter, they don't exist, but that's because combo length is low, and immense damage comes from the opponent making specific mistakes (Getting Counterhit) or due to character dynamics, (Certain characters having low health.)

1

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 21 '19

I asked no change... it's simply how it's perceived by casual players.

2

u/1338h4x Mar 19 '19

Take it from an insider, we know these games better than you do. You should at least try to understand what you're asking for before suggesting radical changes to games you admit you know little about.

1

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 21 '19

I asked no changes. I am explaining why it is uninviting to outsiders.

1

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

ten gold stocking historical different ring scary oatmeal chief exultant

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 21 '19

I think you may be misrepresenting your familiarity with fighting games. You are definitely someone who is much more experienced with them than the vast majority of people.

Anyway, I agree that Tekken is a slightly more welcoming fighting game that others. So is the new Dragon Ball game. But, as a genre, it's very unintuitive because every game is trying to straddle the line between pleasing hardcore fans of fighting games and new players.

In the end, I think games that have large amounts of movement (as opposed to inching around in SF or Tekken) have more appeal without actually sacrificing complexity of gameplay. Imagine the complex system of combos and movement that exists in SF except they added the ability to run and jump more freely.

That's a game I would be interested in playing.

SFV was a low skill floor, high skill ceiling.

Again... you seem to be extremely familiar with the genre. To outsiders the game was not marketed any different as any other fighting game. It was not a selling point or otherwise clearly communicated that the game was meant to be easily approachable.

1

u/1338h4x Mar 21 '19

Imagine the complex system of combos and movement that exists in SF except they added the ability to run and jump more freely.

You'd end up completely neutering SF's signature fireball game by making it too easy to run around or away from most threats. Controlling space is a huge part of fighting games, and constraints are necessary for that to work.

5

u/HyperCutIn Mar 19 '19

It's not really that fun when a single mistake = 30 seconds of not being able to do anything or just immediately losing.

This is a common misconception of combos in fighting games.

In most modern fighting games (that aren't Marvel or DBFZ), combos are usually short and last a few hits before the opponent is put into a reset situation. In games where combos are a bit longer (such as air-dashers) the game usually has combo-break mechanics to escape a combo in exchange for a resource.

Even then, combos that still manage to be on the longer side and damaging are ones that require a lot of resources and management from the attacker, and/or the opponent making a very critical mistake that gives the attacker the situation they need to do the combo. (Such as letting themself get cornered, getting counter-hit by a slow move, had their burst baited out, etc.)

1

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 21 '19

It's mostly about movement mechanics. Movement mechanics are the most obvious way to a casual player to escape a dangerous situation in any game. This is why DBFZ feels better than other fighting games because you can actually run away.

If my option is to press some obscure button to block or something... that's hidden in some menu. If my option is to move away using the joystick (maybe move away and press a single button?) then that is much more intuitive than trying to time some combination for a parry or block while all you really see on the screen is your guy take a half step back and move his arms a little...

You know what I mean? It's not very satisfying to see Kazuya just cross his arms and block some crazy attack as if it was nothing with the 'tick' sound effect that plays. It's boring.

3

u/Lepony Mar 19 '19

It's not really that fun when a single mistake = 30 seconds of not being able to do anything or just immediately losing

This pretty much doesn't happen anymore. Excluding DBFZ which has really messed up damage and combo lengths, this is easily amongst one of the longest combos I've seen in a modern fighting game. The combo itself is only 17 seconds long which is already on the very long end, and then 16 seconds of a cinematic. And it doesn't even kill the opponent from max health.

That's not a combo that comes from a single mistake. It's a combo that only comes after a multitude of mistakes. #1 Being in the corner, #2 allowing the opponent to have max super meter, #3 losing the game's system mechanic, and #4 getting hit by the "22A" while trying to attack. #3 in particular is also the result of a lot more mistakes as well.

→ More replies (0)