Did everyone give their nieces and nephews New Year's money before reading this post?

Today, after seeing a post and reactions about fighting game design on the channel,

I'm going to take this opportunity to briefly organize my thoughts and share my own perspective.

First, shall we define what a fighting game is?

We often casually call things fighting games, but 

fighting game users have their own intuitive criteria, right?

Have you ever felt resistance to calling a game that doesn't meet those criteria a fighting game...?

We've already had that happen once, right?

When Sifu was nominated as a fighting game, we felt resistance, right?

But what was the reason Sifu wasn't a fighting game?

Isn't it a fighting game if it's a game where you fight using martial arts?

What exactly were the criteria we used to call something a fighting game?

What we usually call a fighting game can be

defined with a simple criterion:

"A game where users can battle each other using martial arts, weapons, or magic."

That's about right, isn't it?

"Daigue-ssi... why are you talking about definitions when we're supposed to be talking about fighting game design?"

"Daigue-ssi, are you getting senile?"

GAL!!!

In order to talk about the design of fighting games,

a brief definition of what a fighting game is must come first!!!

If we delve into the history of fighting games, the definition becomes even more ambiguous.

The fighting games we know today are a combination of various elements, right?

For example, the first fighting game is generally considered to be Heavyweight Champ, released in 1976.

However, since there is no user-versus-user battle, it can be considered a fighting game like Sifu.

However, the first game to attempt user-versus-user battles was Warrior in 1979.

But it's a little different from the fighting games we know, right?

So, a game with user-versus-user battles 

and that resembles the fighting games we know 

could be called Karate Champ, the first fighting game.

This is what I want to talk about.

Even when selecting the first fighting game, we could add various elements and say 

"This isn't the first fighting game!" right?

Just like how Karate Champ uses a score system instead of a health bar,

we could say that the later PVP-enabled version of Yie Ar Kung-Fu is the first fighting game.

Just as modern games are complex combinations that are difficult to define as a single genre,

the fighting games we play now are also very complex when you break them down and organize their elements.

So, shall we briefly examine the elements of fighting games that everyone can agree on 

through fighting games?

The most basic element of a fighting game is, of course,

battles using fighting techniques.

Among them, the essence of fighting games is summarized as

'Footsies'.

It's difficult to deal fatal damage without hit confirming,

guarding puts you at a disadvantage,

and recklessly throwing out attacks can lead to a whiff punish.

It's a game that blends the fundamental elements of fighting games well.

But isn't turn-based psychology also important in fighting games?

Then how about trying MegaKnockDown?

It's a fighting game that turns the turn-based psychology using fighting game frames

into a literal turn-based system.

Of course, combos are also possible depending on the frame advantage or disadvantage.

Speaking of combos, the element that comes to mind is canceling, right?

Canceling is an element of some fighting games,

but many 2D fighting games have it almost entirely,

so let's find out about it.

According to an interview with Akira Nishitani regarding canceling,

there was a problem where moves wouldn't come out if the player pressed the button too quickly.

To solve this, they increased the input leeway time,

and as a result, the phenomenon of canceling occurred, where special moves quickly followed basic attacks.

They didn't intend it, but they decided to include it in the development process,

so they didn't call it a bug.

The fact that the cancel system, which made a big mark in fighting game history, actually started as a bug.

Isn't it too difficult to define what a fighting game is?

But various fighting games are coming out as these elements are well blended and developed.

This differentiation and development process has also been present in other genres,

so I won't go into more detail,

Call of Duty is simply called an FPS genre, but so is Doom, right?

It's very difficult to describe both games with just the word FPS.

Then how about a game where you ride tanks, helicopters, and other equipment, use modern weapons, and play in squads?

Battlefield? SQUAD? You might get answers like that, right?

As much as modern games are a combination of various elements,

it's difficult to say that fighting games are a difficult genre just because they contain many elements.

Well, if I talk about it briefly to pique your interest,

you'll probably understand what a fighting game is roughly now.

Then it's our turn to talk about how fighting games have changed

according to changes in technology and the market, and what the problems were, right?

First, shall we talk about the most important change from the arcade market to a PC/console-oriented market?

My personal opinion is reflected from here,

so please organize your own thoughts while reading the article.

Fighting games started in the arcade market and continued their legacy until the 2000s.

This was the same for various genres such as rhythm games and belt-scroll action games.

However, with the advent of console versions, there was less need to go to arcades and put in coins to play games,

and the speed increased as PC versions were also released.

Tekken 7 can be seen as the most successful example of this market transition.

Conversely, it is also a game that can be seen as a representative example of the decline of the fighting game arcade market.

There is a unique point that arises from the market shifting from arcade-centered to PC/console.

Do you know what it is?

It's information sharing and standardization.

This isn't a change unique to fighting games,

but considering the arcade era where even training mode cost money,

the amount of information and the speed of development are incomparably vast and fast.

I think that the standardization of games has arisen from this aspect.

There are parts that are almost accepted as the norm in fighting games,

like the so-called 00 meta.

Shall we take Street Fighter 6 as an example?

Noah's burnout meta was praised for being original, right?

Of course, the frame advantage/disadvantage changes in the burnout state, 

and guard damage also accumulates, so it can be said to be absolutely disadvantageous,

but if you succeed in attacking until you get burned out, and if you succeed in recovering your gauge again,

you can play the game more aggressively than anyone else.

Nevertheless, Noah's burnout meta was perceived as foreign and an operation that shouldn't be done...

You can easily experience these points after a DLC character is released.

'Finding the optimal combo and sharing specific operating methods.'

Until a specific technique is discovered, all possible cases are compared,

and it is quickly shared that this combo is the best in terms of damage and resources, right?

Therefore, except for the time it takes to learn how to counter the character and get used to it,

most of the information about the character is shared in less than a week.

Of course, this is a common phenomenon in not only fighting games, but also PVP and PVE games.

However, the fact that we were able to reach that stage

is largely due to the fact that fighting games moved from the arcade market to the PC/console market.

I think that one thing had a big impact.

Shall we also think about changes in the revenue structure?

Sony is checking Call of Duty's monopoly and creating Concord for independent live service games.

Why is this phenomenon happening?

That's because the revenue structure of live service games is attractive.

Most live service games are free to play, with only skins or some content purchased as DLC,

and they can generate steady revenue through things like season passes.

However, I think fighting games are still behind in this area.

Of course, games like MultiVersus have tried it, but....

Most fighting games sell DLC in a package game sales model, right?

However, this package + DLC sales method is not a very good method for long-term service.

Unless there is a specific trigger, DLC sales will continue to decline as users leave, right?

To break away from this, Tekken 8 and Street Fighter 6 have introduced a pass system.

Of course, if you complete the pass to the end, you get a pay-back, so it's essentially the same as one free manual DLC,

but this is also a similar method to some live service games, so let's move on.

And whether you can think positively about skin sales is also ambiguous.

Considering that the total population is small and only some of them will purchase skins, unless the development cost is very low,

it becomes difficult to release skins for all characters, and there is a high possibility that the phenomenon of being biased towards certain characters will occur.

Of course, I still don't understand the method of only releasing avatars that you never see in battles,

but there are places that do business that way...

However, I think fighting games are just now introducing the methods of live service games.

I think the methods I mentioned earlier are part of that change.

However, the number of users is too difficult to compare.

Street Fighter 6, which does business in a strange way but somehow does well,

can be said to have met the conditions to change like other live service games.

However, if you think about whether the fighting game genre is in the stage of moving to the next BM stage, I think it is premature.

Street Fighter 6 is the king of fighting games, but it doesn't have that many users compared to other games.

Let's talk about money only to this extent, since it's up to the boss what we users do,

and now let's talk about the differences between fighting games and other games.

First, shall we compare it to team-based games?

Team-based games include League of Legends and Valorant, right?

One of the fun elements of these team-based games is the fun of carrying.

In order for the fun of carrying to arise,

there are differences in the growth of individuals and the growth of teammates in the game,

and there is also the thrill of winning in a one-versus-many battle.

However, fighting games have none of these elements.

Since it's a genre that's based on 1-on-1 unless it's a 2XKO duo mode,

the only element that differs is the difference in skill between me and my opponent.

Also, the growth element is not in the game,

but only the user's direct growth through the external training mode.

However, I don't think these differences keep fighting games as a niche genre.

It's a genre for veterans, so it's hard for me to do it.

I understand combos? But I don't understand psychological warfare.

If you think about these questions by applying them to things like boxing and UFC,

it's all difficult for me to do directly,

and there are many cases where I don't know the detailed psychology other than hitting and fighting until I hear the scene commentary, right?

In the end, fighting games are simply an unpopular genre among games,

but it's difficult to say that they're unpopular because they're fighting games...

Huh? Why play a dead game genre where veterans bully newbies?

That's a misunderstanding. It's just that the gap in skill-based matchmaking feels large because there are so few fighting game users.

Street Fighter 6 has very good skill-based matchmaking?

Of course, there are cases of malicious bullying by smurfing with alternate accounts or sub-characters,

but that's the case in other games too, right?

It's just that fighting games are more publicized because there are fewer users, right?

I've been talking for a long time today,

so let's summarize again...

What are the elements that make up a fighting game?

I hope you take the time to think about how those elements develop within the series

and how they influenced other fighting games.

And if the number of fighting game users increases?

While thinking about what kind of BM would be good,

have a happy Lunar New Year holiday...

Then Daigue has to go instill manners into his nephews with Street Fighter, so bye!

This is an article by Eliza of the Archive Fighting Game Channel.

Original https://arca.live/b/fightgame/162614137