Fixing Fighting Games

I personally don't think that there's much that needs fixing in today's fighting games. A developer's aim in creating a fighting game should be one thing: Making the actual fighting between 2 (or more) players as fun and balanced as possible. When a developer focuses too much on additional modes, it can really detract from the overall game. Look at the console port of Tekken 6. Remember the awful Scenario Campaign mode? Namco focused so much on it that they didn't give enough attention to the other areas, and, not surprisingly, Tekken 6 was a disaster for the community. I still remember the endless petitions to fix it. I do agree that your ideas would often lead to better overall games, but making a balanced, fun, in-depth fighting system is hard enough as it is, so, I think that developers should be given a little slack in regards to additional content. Oh, and I hope that your review for VF5: Final Showdown won't include any complaints about the lack of a story mode :P Virtua Fighter has never had a story mode, never will. :) It's better that way, believe me!

I mostly agree w/ this author. Although, it hardly gives him creditability to know that he started playing videogames when Sonic the Hedgehoge came out. He didn't get to play Mario, Metriod, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, SectionZ, Graidus, etc... But, I digress. A mode that helped me justify my 60 bucks MK's story mode. Not only because of the storyline, but because that mode forced you to play different characters in the game. That helped me with the justification of so many characters. I hope they expand on that because that was awesome in helping me learn moves for everybody and enjoy doing it as well.

great read, would love to see more fighters implement better tutorials like in SkullGirls. Basic features for online such as replay and spectator mode are a given. To bring in more casuals is going to be hard though, the best thing to capture their attention is story mode, but even then it's a hard sell with sites like youtube around. I love being part of the FGC but it's hard to get people play the games, let alone interested in the genre.

this article is retarded

I'll always love fighting games no matter what, but this article is right in a lot of ways. I think what's hurting the genre the most is the repeated editions of the same game though (See Capcom fighters and Blazblue). As of now, I bet many players aren't buying SFxT just because they're thinking: "I'll wait for the Super Ultra Complete Edition" ... and that hurts developers and players alike. Let's not get started with that game's DLC fiasco, as well... Anyway! I think FPSs should implode already. I've been tired of those for years.

@alenth In general I agree with you. I'm new to the FGC and planning to attend EVO 2012. That said, when I hear people talking about how the new FG are "dumbed down," a part of me wants to ask what they mean. My game of choice is UMvC3, which many have called "dumbed down," and I still think it takes a fair amount of skill to play. And while it may seem "dumbed down" to the FGC, it certainly looks nothing of the sort to newer players. I should know; I can remember what it was like to BE one of them. I don't personally think a detailed tutorial that goes into precise timing on combos is unreasonable so long as they don't map ALL the possibilities. The FGC can still find deeper ways to exploit the mechanics without removing training that makes new players competent. Where it becomes a problem is when players want to be MORE than competent after training mode is done, and finding the right place to remove the training wheels is certainly not easy. I also don't see why expecting more than Online Mode and Arcade Mode is unreasonable for a game like SFxT, especially considering I haven't had a chance to play online that often. Sorry. About half of this isn't related to stuff you said. But I'm glad both of us called out the same guy for insulting our scene. :)

@Maxwell Yes, I agree. Like I said, I want meatier stuff to chew on so I don't have to keep playing Arcade mode to practice. And SC2 and Mortal Kombat definitely give players something along those lines. Honestly, I'm pretty new to the FGC and I don't agree with everything they stand for. Many of them refuse to play something that changes anything up, and many of them still complain about the games they DO play. It's especially frustrating for me because the game that made me realize what fighting games were all about was Dead or Alive 4, and DOA is reviled among the FGC. So is Smash Brothers for that matter. Still, having become a SFIV and UMVC3 junkie, I can sort of understand what they're worried about. Like I said, fighting games are about balance, and I think that calls for a very different sort of development process that leaves little time left over for adding tangible content, which I'd honestly push aside in favor of the former if I had the choice. Actually, Blazblue contains some of what you're asking for: a deep story with multiple paths that can be played with each character. The problem is that nobody BUYS Blazblue. It's much more popular in Japanese arcades than here in the USA. Here's hoping someone finds a way to consistently incorporate tangible content with the necessary balance before the genre dies out and the FGC goes through another "dead era." :)

I play one fighting game: Super Smash Bros. Brawl. That is literally the only series I've ever enjoyed in that genre; I bought Marvel vs Capcom 2 for Venom. X-D

@ quartercircle I hear you about lackluster rewards--I think it's lame to work through a series of extremely challenging missions, for example, and only get an alternate costume or a single piece of concept art, etc. However, having multiple modes allows a player to utilize the fighting system in new and interesting ways--ways that even a hardcore fighting game fan can appreciate. I guess the point that I want to make is that alternate modes don't HAVE to be just for the flaky, indifferent casual gamers.

One Street Fighter game that somewhat got it right was Street Fighter Alpha 3, which had a lot of modes to unlock and a very lengthy(if not challenging) world tour mode. I remember in the world tour mode, not only must you defeat your opponent, but you must fulfill certain rules like a time limit or defeat all of the clones(which weren't very smart)

You forgot the gem Shaq-Fu from the 90's. Now that was a fighter! Secpndly, Marvel vs. Capcom 3 undersold because it was worse than its predecessor. Less champions, no unlock shop, pay per character dlc, outdated and unfun single player, ect. Mortal Kombat was amazing and very accessible Maxwell, it did just about everything right. Street Fighter 4 just wasn't fun as past Street Fighters for me as a casual fighting fan, I didn't care for the art style, nor the game mechanics. Also, there wasn't much to do and no story mode is not fun.

The thing that takes the most in learning fighting games is the execution part. Beacuse you haven't practiced with a arcade stick your nerves can't function the right way beacuse they haven't been required to do the things you now need it to do. It takes time and practice to develop these new nerves and neural pathways to become "good". But after you've learned your rist to do rapid motions in sequence it will transfer to any other fighting game and all fighting games will become easier. It will take time and you won't even notice the progress as it's happening. You'll just one day be able to execute combos you couldn't do before.

How about you integrate tutorials, training and story. It could be like a story of how each character had learned all of their skills and moves. I'll use street fighter 4 as an example. You would start with just LK, LP and defeat a challenge with these then you would learn about chaining these. After that you would learn about links. etc. All done in chapters. There would be chapters for footsies, learning the shoryuken, B&B; combos, mix-up, resets, fadc, cross-ups, Fadc ultra. all the time getting a bit more challenging. There could also be "belt tests" or dan rankings or levels with each level having certain things to learn and certain objectives. While at a certain level you could go online and fight against others who are learning the same things you are. Also for the challenges the ai would be set for certain situations so you would learn different situations to do the thing being thought. Full explanation for the concepts... Each character would have this and after completing thorugh many of the characters stories you would have a wider understanding of what kind of options you have for different situations. I think this would be really cool. Earning throphies when leveling up/earning a new belt. etc.

The truth of the matter is that all these minigames and extra modes won't make the game easier or any different. NetherRealm knew MK9 would explode out the gate because it's Mortal Kombat and the series has never been genuinely technical in the sense of other fighters. Even MKvDCU sold incredibly well (despite being a crap game) and it didn't have nearly the wealth of content MK9 does. The point is, it sold on brand recognition and so did SF4 initially, but most casual fighter fans have had their fill of the genre and are leaving it to those of us who have kept it alive for 10+ years, playing on GGPO and attending Evo, because let's face it, casual fighting fans aren't the ones who brought fighting games into the spotlight again. They weren't the ones playing 10 year old games with the hopes that Capcom will make another Street Fighter. Sure, I understand and appreciate the concern of another genre implosion, but let's not lose focus of what made fighting games popular again.

The biggest difference, IMO, between fighting games and any other genre is accessibility. I can't honestly say how many people have told me they don't play fighting games because of how difficult it is to learn combos and match-ups or how many times they've been blown up online, and then when you mention frame data their minds implode. It takes skill to actually win a match against a skilled player, and while that may be true as well in Call of Duty, you can still sneak in a few kills to feel consummate. Besides, after a few spins with Street Fighter or Soul Calibur, most people I know don't even bother with the next fighter *because* it's a fighter and not their preferred genre. (TBC)

Judging from what everyone wants from a fighting game, what they really want is not a fighting game at all. MK9's mission tower, IMO, got stale after about 50 missions because shooting zombies with fireballs or fighting upside down felt more like a gimmick than a genuine challenge to the engine. It was fun for a moment, but I couldn't bear the 300 monster tower just to be rewarded for a costume for Mileena. It felt too similar to SC2's weapon master mode, where a new rule only marginally changed the mechanics of the challenge and I didn't feel I was being tested against the core engine of the game. Besides, if a developer wants to attract and retain a new audience does it not seem antithetical to do so with modes that aren't even what fighting games are about? I doubt anyone bought Tekken 6 with only the intent to play scenario campaign. They know it's a fighting game just like they know Madden is a football game or Call of Duty is an FPS. By the same argument, should EA/Madden also include marching band minigames for all casual football fans, and should Activision/Call of Duty be sensitive to the needs of people who like deer hunting? (TBC)

The thing is that at heart, fighting games are VERY hardcore games, you have to play with others to get better, period. Stick with FPS and QTE games if you have no patience for fighting games.

I think tutorials/training modes need to be more advanced. There are a lot of techniques in fighting games that are not even mentioned in-game e.g. footsies, spacing etc. I have to learn my stuff from online videos.

He's comparing two versions of the same game that were released within close windows. Is it reasonable to expect similar profits/units sold of a $40 sequel to the original $60 version? Not at all. Sequels are made to fix problems of the first, which means they cater to the FGC, not to casuals. That's the nature of the beast.

Hasnt this article already been posted once? Eitherway fighting games are very much community based. No matter what kind of tutorial is put it, it's not the same as fighting people. That is the whole point of getting better and learning combos, etc. The reward is beating other people after taking the time to learn a game.

The answer to fixing fighting games: http://www.ign.com/blogs/teeniestchaos_jaden/2012/04/02/game-and-watch-gallery-of-glory/

I don't know about everyone else, but I stopped buying fighting games when they required me to buy all these small little items like costumes and extra characters which I used to get when beating the game or achieving some accomplishment. Having to pay extra for stuff like that completely steered me away from fighting games

I think better tutorials might help gamers make the transition from single player noodling to competitive play, but what about the gamers who plainly and simply don't care about competitive play? Who just want to noodle? I think Max is right: grooming casual players for competitive play won't work. Rather, if they enjoy playing the game enough on their own, they might want to make the transition to competitive play naturally. I don't propose developers dumb down fighting game mechanics, I just suggest they give casual gamers like me something to chew on.

The problem isn't the game, it is the poorly prepared tutorials in these games. Novices have a hard time grasping these type of games because the tutorial does a poor job in explaining and most don't explain anything at all about the theory and concept of playing fighting games. I do agree that there is a saturation in the fighting game market and that's due to Capcom, they are more Capcom games than there competitors. Capcom and other companies like Capcom, are not focusing on improving the online experience and the offline content. Casual players love content and if a fighter doesn't have a lot of diversions and content then they won't care.

bs article

For example, out of those aforementioned 35 total moves, let's say you'd only be able to use 10 in a given match, and you'd have the option to fully customize which moves you wanted to include. For casual players, a couple of presets could be included, such as Long Range or Brawler so that people could just jump into a match. The end result would be that my quickbeam might potentially look very different from your quickbeam. And let's say that you could save 3 or 4 different configurations of each fighter, and you could change your configuration mid-match after building up enough meter or something. This way, there would always be the element of surprise, which I think would really give something for tournament fighting game veterans to chew on. At the same time, it'd also offer up plenty of opportunity for customization and character development for those who value a deep and involving single-player experience.

If we're talking about breathing fresh air into a stagnating genre, why not a combination of Smash Bros. Brawl and Phantom Dust, where each fighter is fully customizable instead of pre-packaged by the developer? I know, I know, hear me out. So, it'd work like this: in this hypothetical game--let's just call it Ent Brawl--there are only 5 or so fighters, rather than the rather larger rosters of Guilty Gear, Street Fighter, etc. At the beginning of Ent Brawl, each fighter would have a very bare-bones selection of moves, maybe no more than 4 or 5 moves per fighter. Then, by beating certain challenge modes/missions/single player campaigns/etc., the player would sequentially unlock new moves for each character. Let's say a fully unlocked character in Ent Brawl would have 35 or so unique moves. But here's the twist: rather than have all these moves at the your disposal at any given time, you'd have to pick a set of moves out of a larger selection. TBC

@masakri50 I like this idea a lot. An online training mode would do some of what you're proposing, but having a competitive element that's not the traditional health bar would give it a very distinct feel. @Devin-B Having not just a balance of game modes within fighting games, but a balance of fighting games themselves will only help the genre grow. Whether it's Street Fighter or Smash Bros. so long as players are finding joy in the fighting genre that's what counts. @cachinscythe Wow, thank you for the extensive response! I agree that there is a definite attraction to fighters that runs deeper than a mere list of game modes. However, how do you get new players to discover those unspoken joys? In order to "get more gamers can look at the genre the way the FGC does" I believe a strong balance of game modes is required. Some players need the goofy missions in SoulCalibur II or Mortal Kombat to ease them into a fighter before they decide to go competitive. When done well, these modes can be an important stepping stone towards greatness. @capsj Thanks! If anyone is interested in a second opinion, Michael Andronico over at Fight Your Rival wrote a response to this piece; you can find it here.

capcom literally ruined the fighting genre again with its constant milking. lucky midway gave a nice formula for awesome fighting games, so hopefully the genre wont die. Skullgirls looks honestly very promising so Im happy about that.

Can't handle actually playing a game to figure it out? Back in the day we didn't have move lists and strategy guides, we had to learn by playing the game. Finding out new moves and combos with out looking them up online or in a book is the best part of fighting games. The more you play the better you get and that is why fighters are still great games. They are best played when you have actual friends come over your house and you can take turns playing each other and talking trash. It goes back to the old days of looser pass the stick. Now most kids don't have have real human not-online friends to play with (reason for lack of local multi-player on so many games) get some friends and invite them over. Fighters are better that shooters for a pizza and beer filled all nighter.

@ RaiKageRyu these games are still played by thousands of players around the world, KOF 98/2002 is still popular in asia and latin america (on GGPO and Supercade), SF3: third strike still has a good competitive community, Vampire Savior in Japan, Soul Calibur in France, etc, etc, not everyone follows "flavor of the Month" games, even the new FG are still good but everyone likes to complain about the most ridiculous things, and people are entitled to get free DLC, DLC is optional it shouldn't stop people to enjoy the game, i think that selling DLC specially core gameplay aspects (characters for example) is terrible and is DLC done wrong imo. If the engines are perfected then explain to me why people complain about the learning curves, motions, hitconfirms, etc when nobody complained about them on 15 years? suddenly a lot of players complain about the lack of accesibility, from a gameplay perspective the games are dumbed down already, and these games are still suffering balance problems, believe it or not even if you add a lot of offline modes people still wants to compete or win against others, you guys should ask for different offline modes and explain what do you want, but complaining about the lack of offline modes is silly, if you people want something different that's another case and i agree, i will suggest some modes: legion mode (BB), tower of challenges( MK), chronicles of the sword (SC), a good color edit mode (KOF), bosh rush mode, kumite, AI mode, etc.

Personally, I don't buy many fighting games because many of them are just too damn silly. It's a case of a set of mechanics turning into a genre - 2d plane, lots of jumping, magic moves, quarter-circles and so on. It's so abstract that the term "fighting game" no longer refers to games about people fighting, but rather specifically means a variation on the mechanics of Street Fighter II. (It's similar to how JRPG implies similarity to Final Fantasy.). Due to catering to the conservative fighting-game fans, the genre has lost the basic appeal of simulated physical combat that made it popular in the first place, in favor of turning out joystick proficiency tests like MvC and Blazblue. If this keeps up, the people who want a game ABOUT FIGHTING will go with UFC or Fight Night games, and traditional fighting games - with some exceptions like the awesome MK - will be doomed to be niche.

KoF 13 was well done and worth the money. Nuff said.

I agree better tutorials, better netcode, and better AI in single player that does not cheat. Add a lot of challenges and trials too. Show us how to execute combos instead of just some cryptic small move name I have to look up in a different page how to even do the move. Then timing is just left to me to figure out.

1st rule; dlc ruined everything 2nd rule: too much milking (ie: street fighter 4 revisions) as for blazeblue same crap with new characters with a little new mode so whos the jack-ass gonna support it unless its a 5 bucks game which is not

i think the mode options you have suggested are great, seems like if all fighting games had these modes they would feel like more complete games other then just some thing to play in short burst's when your bored. don't get me wrong i love fighting games however i always come away thinking ''is that really a full game'' thumbs up Maxwell i think certain game developers should have a look at this page

Other than that, the biggest problem comes from 2D fighters, which are too generic, basically they all play the same, really slow, all characters have like 10 moves and that's it, there's no diversity in tactics you can employ with one character, I think they don't really offer any urge for new players to start playing. There's not exactly seeing that much change from earlier SFs compared to SFIV. Or between KoFs. And really not even that much difference between KoF and SF in general. Few game mechanics which they added over time, and that's it. Out of those I've had more fun with their experiments with 3D systems than their core sries (SF EX+a, KoF:MIRA). At least 3D has good excuse for being slow, and while going for 3D they've also change combos a tad, and adding regular combo styles for 3D games along to 2D's combos. 2nd kind of 2D fighters has fast play, flashy anime styled characters, and are generally more fun to play to people who are casual gamers. But what they have in common in actually combo systems that make them inaccessible to casual gamers, press five arrows and single button to perform a combo or some flashy move, which brings even higher degree of button mashing than it does in most 3D fighters. CS which actually becomes even worse if you're playing again AI, since AI doesn't actually have to press those arrows to perform such moves. That combo mechanics paired up with strapping content for online play really kills them.

As far as DLC goes, it's way too cheap tactic to earn money, some people barely scraped enough money to buy game that was first released, shouldn't be enough that people actually paid for game so much already, and it's not even the worst thing about DLCs, it's that most content for SF4 was already on the disc? Soon they'll release simple patches that we'll have to pay for >_>. Or maybe they'll introduce monthly payment and give us "free" patches and DLCs. Anyway how I see it, the biggest problem for fighting games is actually online play, since developers don't care about single player content anymore, like it's clearly visible in T6, developers actually encourage you not to play offline. In T6, easiest way to earn money was either Story Mode which wasn't that bad, but Arena part of the story mode actually sucked, 4-5 battles and you're done, or 2nd best was online mode. If you play enough online you'll actually unlock every ending without even accessing story mode. And limiting ranks for ghost mode was additional kick in the nuts, I've actually bothered getting everyone to Tekken Lord in T5. It's not like everyone want's to be lamed by jugglers that are online, and it's not like everyone has internet or decent internet connection. In general if it wasn't for content strapping because of online aspects, I'd be perfectly happy with today's 3D fighting games.

I was happy with Soul Calibur 3, only thing I missed in that game is actually Team Battle Mode which was for some weird reason removed, otherwise game was perfect. It had multiple interesting characters, plus loads of styles for creating your own characters, Story mode which was worth playing again (to get to Night Terror), practice mode had all game mechanics explained, it didn't really give you tactics, but equipped you perfectly for creating your own, which is even better IMO, and Chronicles of the Sword which was based around custom styles, with decent story and loads of content. And along with all that there was mission mode, which was fun too (or however it was called). And while gearing up for online play they've strapped SC4 from most of SC3's content, loads of characters, and custom styles, and even removed character like Olcadan, which was randomly getting styles from other fighters.

@RaiKageRyu The "core" of fighters has NOT been perfected down to a science. If that were the case, there would be nothing but perfectly balanced fighters on the market. There aren't any. It's never been done. Sorry if that seems semantic; I just wanted to point it out. I don't think our scene is all that stagnated...if you look in the right places. EVO 2012 is just around the corner and there's plenty of people still going nuts for Super Street Fighter IV and Marvel Vs Capcom 3. King of Fighers XIII is also scheduled, as is SFxT. SoCal V is making an appearance as well. Look online and you can find all kinds of videos talking about new technology discovered in the games and watch many competitive matches. (TeamSpooky's a pretty good stream.) And many of the top players are able to handle getting the board yanked out from underneath them pretty regularly. As for the rest of what you said...yeah, I tend to agree. We DO need better incentives to keep playing. I'm just not sure what they could be. (See my MUCH longer post.)

(continued) I like the idea of your New Standard Mr. McGee, but I also think you misunderstand what gives fighters their depth. A lot of depth in other genres comes from those tangible rewards that you want more of in fighters, but fighters are more about DISCOVERING depth than unlocking it. Everything is laid out for players to find: the mechanics, the moves, the characters...all there to be experimented with. All players have to do is FIND it; by trying unusual things in training mode. So the easiest solution to the problem is that we should encourage players to look at the genre differently and stick with it even when it gets a little tedious. I never understood what fighters were about when I played MvC2, but today I can play UMvC3 and SSFIV without getting ANY tangible rewards because I view it so differently from how I did when I was younger. If more gamers can look at the genre the way the FGC does, it will go a long way towards "fixing" what's wrong with fighters. WHEW! Sorry, had a lot to say! :)

(continued) Fighting games have to contain a diverse roster of characters that are distinct but also balanced, and when you have something like 50--or even 20--characters, making them all play different without ruining the scale is insanely hard for developers. Considering that, I'm not surprised that we don't get deeper modes of play and instead get something designed strictly for multiplayer competition. When we're talking RPGs, where characters level up and gain DISTINCT advantages over their enemies, or shooters where some weapons are more powerful than others, or action games like Bayonetta with their unlockable abilities, it makes sense to include that tangible content. But in fighting games it's MUCH more tricky. Even SC2's weapon master mode has drawn criticism for providing players with ways to change the mechanics with different unlockable weapons, which is why there has to be a separate arcade mode for the use of those weapons. (TBC)

(continued) And to top it all off, even though MvC2 is tournament viable, you know how many of those characters get used by the pros? 10 at most. Why? Because all those unlockable characters that make the game so "meaty" also make the game so unbalanced. Most players just use Iron Man, Storm, Magneto, Psylocke, Cyclops, and/or Iron Man. Now it's true that we could just insist on no unlockable CHARACTERS, and that's fine, but then what are players going to unlock? New colors/costumes? Who cares if they don't change the way the game is played? New stages? Same problem. New missions or stories? Maybe, but most developers are too busy trying to make the game balanced to implement those aspects. Concept art and/or making-of videos? Not bad, but not a great incentive either. In other words, most tangible rewards are either bad for balance or not interesting enough to keep playing. What I'm saying Mr. McGee is that while I fully understand your points and agree with several of them, the hard reality is that they won't solve the genre's main problems as well as many gamers think they will, and they could leave a significant chunk of the fanbase VERY unhappy. I'd LOVE to have more tangible rewards for playing my fighting games, but the genre doesn't function like most gaming genres where balance isn't a crucial component. (TBC)

(continued) If you think that's a lone instance you're sorely mistaken. There are tons of people pissed that they have to unlock extra characters and features in Smash Brothers Melee and Brawl. They complain that they bought the game so they own what's in it, and that if they invite friends over, those friends are going to be frustrated that they can't play with all the characters. Meanwhile Street Fighter IV followed a similar route of locking most of the roster...and most players HATED that because it was too hard to unlock them. So what happened? Capcom made ALL characters available in the upgrades. But there's STILL more. Over at Namco, the leader of Tekken 6 made a press release stating that he would not provide any unlockable characters in Tekken 6 because "unlockables are outdated. They were used to get people to continue pumping quarters into arcade machines, but today most people play on consoles." I can't imagine him reaching this conclusion unless there was some kind of uproar from the Tekken community. Finally, the Kurrency system in the most recent MK games has been around since Deadly Alliance...and NONE of the games from that prior era (Deception, Deadly Alliance, or Armageddon) are considered tournament viable. Noticing a pattern here? When you provide unlockables, something else has to go out the window to accommodate them. (TBC)

(continued) Finally, while I again totally agree with the whole "in-game currency" and "unlockable rewards" stuff, a lot of the player base--once again--finds that idea horrible and unacceptable. See, my entrance into fighters was a little game called Marvel Vs Capcom 2. I bought it for Dreamcast and spent more than a hundred hours playing it. A big part of the reason I played it so much for so long was that it featured a whopping 56 characters and over half of them were locked at the start. The player points offered for playing functioned similar to MK's currency and I was constantly opening up new characters to play. It was a blast for me. But when MvC3 was announced, I posed the question to a bunch of friends, "Should Capcom lock any of the characters for the new game?" The response from EVERYONE I asked was, "No way. That's a cheap way to add value. Fighting games are about fighting, not unlocking funzie bull****!" I had a long argument with them about this and they wouldn't budge on it, even when I mentioned that none of them had a problem with unlocking the characters in MvC2. (TBC)

(continued) Second, you're implying that the FGC is actually getting catered to. That may be true Mr. McGee, but I'd recommend searching for an article by Ultradavid called "Momentum Matters: A Historical Perspective on Fighting Games" and read what he thinks of Capcom's treatment of the core fanbase. Ultradavid specifically condemns Capcom for not doing more to support the scene and criticizes them because they are making games that appeal more to CASUAL PLAYERS. Call this ridiculous if you like--because it kind of is--but almost any time Capcom tries to make a fighter that appeals to more people than the hardcore crowd, the hardcore crowd starts whining about being ignored. In short, your implication that it's possible to please both crowds simultaneously seems lacking in understanding of how the Fighting Game Community operates and feels. SFxT, which you are saying does little to appeal to the more casual crowd, has actually made the FGC quite angry for its incorporation of "gems." They are concerned they will totally screw up the game's balance and make it non-viable as a competitive fighter. As for your example of Mortal Kombat, I'd have to agree. The problem is the FGC DOESN'T. A bunch of high profile FGC players (like Justin Wong) tried it for a while and had to admit it was tournament viable, but not many of those same players have stuck with it. They've gone back to Street Fighter instead. (TBC)

(continued) But here's the thing Mr. McGee: companies have TRIED many of these things before...and they've met with severe criticism from either casual or competitive players for screwing with something that works. And usually when they DO try doing these things, it doesn't change things enough to make a huge difference. Let's start with Soul Calibur 2, your prime example of a game that includes a deeper story mode. I recently went back to play through Weapon Master mode, and I'll admit that there's a fair bit of content. However, I've since stopped and I'm not sure I care enough to continue. Because while the mode definitely has a ton of different missions with various conditions for completing them, I honestly don't feel like they change things up enough that I feel like I'm playing something different each time. It's still just me versus another guy, performing the same combo strings with the same characters, with slightly tweaked rules that only occasionally change the way I play it. It's still fun, but I just feel like I'd much rather learn and understand the battle system before working with these strange rule variations, and since the system is the barrier to entry for most players, I doubt they'd be interested enough to learn the system before bothering with those longer modes. (TBC)

Okay, I must say that half of me wants to rage at this article, and the other half wants me to applaud. Though to be fair, the part that's telling me to rage is doing so more because of the PLAYERS than because of the author's points. I'll start with applause. Yes, the fighting genre is stuck in a rut, and kind of has been since its inception in the early 90's. It has almost always amounted to a short series of one-on-one battles completed in a matter of minutes (or seconds) that add up to half an hour before the credits (on single player) and are focused primarily on the arcade-style competition. I personally find this irritating, and it's a reason why I generally delay trying new fighting games. Generally, they don't have meaty modes of play that provide significant tangible rewards to players for participation, and as such, unless you're really into the fighting system (i.e. a competitive player), the games tend to get old fast. It's also ridiculous that fighting games can't incorporate more involving Training modes that really teach people how to play instead of letting them screw around and figure it out for themselves. The Mission mode in MvC3 and SSFIV is definitely a step in the right direction, but more is needed to make these games better accessible. (TBC)

@UniversalPie That's called hitting the nail on the head, my friend, good post. Look at GTA4. The Euphoria engine there is so fully integrated that, when watching machinima of it, you're always thinking "Is that gameplay?". To this day I'm still seeing cops fall in completely new ways in that game. It's that emergent gameplay that arises out of completely adaptive animation systems. It literally could revolutionize the fighting game genre.