The Core of a Fighting Game or System of a Fighting Game

[TakedaZX]

The situation that brought this up, has cooled off but apparently I must not understand what the "core" is or the "system" of a fighting game is. I assumed it had to deal with the things that make it up, like in the case of DOA: Strikes, Holds, Grabs, Slow Escaping, Forced Techs, Juggles, etc etc.

I know it can go deeper than that, but do I have the wrong idea? Is there a difference between the core and the system?

 

[Yaguar]

Well for strikes you can use triangle or circle on the playstation controller. I've not worked out what all the other buttons do yet, sorry.

 

[CrimsonCJ]

Honestly, part of wonders the term philosophically. I definitely understand the terms you use as the game mechanics, and often use the term system as a proxy for the way in which all of the elements come together. But since many of these elements are discussed and mitigated by the players, I sometimes think they're actually part of the system too. Or at least, it would seem that way based on the way people discuss the game system.

The distinction is not entirely ivory tower, though. On the one hand, it seems necessary to mention these tools (and, indeed, those in other fighting games) are meant to react to the actions of other players and so any notation of the game has to reference that basic fact. On the other hand, I see some players react against others who use psychological proxies of feeling to discuss mechanic potential. I'm not sure where the to put that line myself.

 

[shinryu]

It's the frames, hitboxes, priority, all that. The system is absolute numbers and is defined primarily by the frame data and the options available to a character in a particular state, so you can break it down into subsystems (the wakeup kick system, the force tech system, the throw system) based on particular states. Glitchy shit happens but this is system too; it may just not be intentional. 2D fighters actually tend to thrive on glitchy shit (e.g. Viper is ass in SF4 except that she breaks the rules of the game. Lots of people can set up reverse unblockables where you if you block you get hit or if you don't you actually are safe, etc.). If you can quantify it in the software of the game it's system.

Psychological proxies aren't relevant to system discussion except to the extent system design (e.g. the guessing game instituted by the stun system) tends to favor particular psychological situations over others. Tekken is a very poke-oriented game because you get sodomized if you make a mistake. DOA actually is almost exclusively mind games with the addition in DOA5 of being able to reduce the mind games with smart choices; this is a system decision (e.g. sit-down stuns) that has implications for the mind game (now people might tend to guess to hold the sit-down stun moves more from a critical state if they're worried about them). It's when people say a move "feels" fast or strong are the kind of thing serious players get irritated with because we know exactly how fast the goddamn move is if we have frames and how much damage it does. There are fuzzy areas where glitches do make something behave oddly or we don't have system data readily available (e.g. precise hitboxes in some 3d games what exactly does beat a BKO duck, say, is not annotated in the frame data) but frequently that can be worked out.

It's the frames, hitboxes, priority, all that. The system is absolute numbers and is defined primarily by the frame data and the options available to a character in a particular state, so you can break it down into subsystems (the wakeup kick system, the force tech system, the throw system) based on particular states. Glitchy shit happens but this is system too; it may just not be intentional. 2D fighters actually tend to thrive on glitchy shit (e.g. Viper is ass in SF4 except that she breaks the rules of the game. Lots of people can set up reverse unblockables where you if you block you get hit or if you don't you actually are safe, etc.). If you can quantify it in the software of the game it's system.

Psychological proxies aren't relevant to system discussion except to the extent system design (e.g. the guessing game instituted by the stun system) tends to favor particular psychological situations over others. Tekken is a very poke-oriented game because you get sodomized if you make a mistake. DOA actually is almost exclusively mind games with the addition in DOA5 of being able to reduce the mind games with smart choices; this is a system decision (e.g. sit-down stuns) that has implications for the mind game (now people might tend to guess to hold the sit-down stun moves more from a critical state if they're worried about them). It's when people say a move "feels" fast or strong are the kind of thing serious players get irritated with because we know exactly how fast the goddamn move is if we have frames and how much damage it does. There are fuzzy areas where glitches do make something behave oddly or we don't have system data readily available (e.g. precise hitboxes in some 3d games what exactly does beat a BKO duck, say, is not annotated in the frame data) but frequently that can be worked out.

 

[TakedaZX]

and the core of the system mechanics is how all these tie in together then? Or am I actually wrong this time because that's the exact stuff I've been talking about with the exception of me complaining about Hayate taking a step down, while people say he's still good.

[edit]Apparently I'm wrong about everything though since I "apparently" haven't played DOA since 2(dreamcast, and 2U with a competitive mind set and forward from there). Apparently I never touched DOA4, or at least didn't play it enough to know that my character took a major downfall. Apparently that's the case.

 

[CrimsonCJ]

and the core of the system mechanics is how all these tie in together then? Or am I actually wrong this time because that's the exact stuff I've been talking about with the exception of me complaining about Hayate taking a step down, while people say he's still good.

Apparently I'm wrong about everything though. I haven't played DOA since 2(dreamcast, and 2U with a competitive mind set and forward from there)

That's what I would assume. It does tie into the distinction between character performance and character mechanics. That said, it is hard to say that a character has poor mechanics if they almost certainly lead to superior performances. But there is a wide range for someone to succeed with mechanics that are not equal to that of their opponents'.

 

[TakedaZX]

I mistyped that last sentence lol!

 

[d3v]

Viper is ass in SF4 except that she breaks the rules of the game.

Off course, this all depends on what the term "rules" means. To most competitive FG players, the "rules" are simply whatever is allowed by the code, down to any unintended glitches and exploits. Off course, some other folks might not agree with that and will point out how certain things violate the "rules" based on what they interpret is the "spirit" of what the games rules want to enforce. To use the SF4 example once again, the game is clearly designed so that knockdowns don't put players in as big a disadvantage as in previous SFs (thanks mostly to larger reversal windows and invulnerable DPs). However, the current nature of the game where knockdown into ambiguous cross-ups are the main form of offensive pressure clearly goes against this.

What ties this into the topic at hand is that, how a game is played often defines the "core" of its system. Defining the "rules" and how the game is played vis-a-vis those "rules" is the first step to defining a game's "core."

 

[CrimsonCJ]

Off course, this all depends on what the term "rules" means. To most competitive FG players, the "rules" are simply whatever is allowed by the code, down to any unintended glitches and exploits. Off course, some other folks might not agree with that and will point out how certain things violate the "rules" based on what they interpret is the "spirit" of what the games rules want to enforce. To use the SF4 example once again, the game is clearly designed so that knockdowns don't put players in as big a disadvantage as in previous SFs (thanks mostly to larger reversal windows and invulnerable DPs). However, the current nature of the game where knockdown into ambiguous cross-ups are the main form of offensive pressure clearly goes against this.

What ties this into the topic at hand is that, how a game is played often defines the "core" of its system. Defining the "rules" and how the game is played vis-a-vis those "rules" is the first step to defining a game's "core."

Quick tangent; in this anecdote, it's really quite poetically displayed how game players are not game designers and vice versa. But enough on that.

Reading clearly, then, you would consider the core system the basic interactions that happen between the players at the highest level of play. How much of that core do you think is built on top of player consensus and decision as opposed to player individuality during the match? (For example, interactions between players and established tier lists as part of the game itself vs. a guess made during the neutral game.)

 

[Prince Adon]

Really. The core of the game would be the basics, and how you take them to a high level to transparent in advance tactics. That would think that's pretty much it.

 

[d3v]

Quick tangent; in this anecdote, it's really quite poetically displayed how game players are not game designers and vice versa. But enough on that.

Reading clearly, then, you would consider the core system the basic interactions that happen between the players at the highest level of play. How much of that core do you think is built on top of player consensus and decision as opposed to player individuality during the match? (For example, interactions between players and established tier lists as part of the game itself vs. a guess made during the neutral game.)

IMO, the core of a game is somewhere between it's mechanics and how the game ends up being played. In this way, you can (going back to our previous example) say that, at it's core, SF4 is about good wakeup pressure as this is what the mechanics have led the players to play the game as.

 

[Brute]

It's quite complex and multi-layered, but if I were to pin-point it, I'd say the core of the game is anticipating what your opponent will do next, and punishing them as much as possible for doing it while miniziming the risk involved by guessing wrong (ie: deciding when to take a large risk for large damage or playing it safer).

 

[shinryu]

Off course, this all depends on what the term "rules" means. To most competitive FG players, the "rules" are simply whatever is allowed by the code, down to any unintended glitches and exploits. Off course, some other folks might not agree with that and will point out how certain things violate the "rules" based on what they interpret is the "spirit" of what the games rules want to enforce. To use the SF4 example once again, the game is clearly designed so that knockdowns don't put players in as big a disadvantage as in previous SFs (thanks mostly to larger reversal windows and invulnerable DPs). However, the current nature of the game where knockdown into ambiguous cross-ups are the main form of offensive pressure clearly goes against this.

What ties this into the topic at hand is that, how a game is played often defines the "core" of its system. Defining the "rules" and how the game is played vis-a-vis those "rules" is the first step to defining a game's "core."

Yeah, exactly. She's "glitchy" in the sense of having meterless FADC, or jump canceling into Ultras, say. Nobody else can do that (Ibuki?). Whether that's an intended consequence of her design or just because somebody didn't think through the implications of super jumps is an open question. But it's all system, it's all there. It seems that 3d fighters tend to stick a lot more to their "intentional" system design vs. 2d fighters which seem to be a lot more dependent on a high level on exploiting things like the ambiguous cross-up or the TAC glitch. There's really not an equivalent in DOA excepting possibly Jann Lee's reset that comes to mind.

Weirdly, though, I think there's an analogy between how DOA ends up being played and the safe wakeup/ambiguous cross up game. People hate stuns and holds, and in a large way DOA5 has been intentionally designed to give players a lot of workarounds. Same with wake up kicks and force techs. The sitdown stun is kind of the ambiguous cross-up of DOA, though I'd argue it's a much more "intentional" design element.

I suppose if I had to differentiate core from system I'd say it's probably the most important, common subsystems or consequences thereof. VF has the core elements of advantage/disadvantage, high/mid/low/throw and the core strategy of p to elbow/throw and using 2p to get out of bad situations. DOA I'd say is more obviously the triangle system and the stun system on top of the hit levels. But much less emphasis on advantage/disadvantage.

 

[d3v]

Yeah, exactly. She's "glitchy" in the sense of having meterless FADC, or jump canceling into Ultras, say. Nobody else can do that (Ibuki?). Whether that's an intended consequence of her design or just because somebody didn't think through the implications of super jumps is an open question. But it's all system, it's all there. It seems that 3d fighters tend to stick a lot more to their "intentional" system design vs. 2d fighters which seem to be a lot more dependent on a high level on exploiting things like the ambiguous cross-up or the TAC glitch. There's really not an equivalent in DOA excepting possibly Jann Lee's reset that comes to mind.

Getting off topic here, but 2D in general has tended to me more "emergent" especially when it comes to glitches and other unintended tech. This is something you can clearly see when the top guys or old schoolers talk about it, like for example what former Capcom special advisor for SF/EVO founder Seth Killian had to say regarding infinites.

I take them as a necessary sign of a good game, because what it suggests is a certain amount of creativity and a certain amount of freedom to do things that the developer didn’t intend. That’s one of the best things about a combat system.

For a lot of players, including guys like me, the first thing I do when I sit down with a fighting game is [try to find out] what’s the stupidest thing I can do to the opponent? What’s the worst thing I can do? ‘Oh, this move looks like it might combo back into itself. That’s going to be a bug. I’m going to go right for that.’ For a lot of players, there’s an attraction. The infinite combo is sort of like the goal.

http://shoryuken.com/2012/04/18/seth-killian-talks-to-kotaku-in-defense-of-infinite-combos/
http://kotaku.com/5902839/in-defens...ruins-street-fighter-matches-some-of-the-time

 

[CrimsonCJ]

Getting off topic here, but 2D in general has tended to me more "emergent" especially when it comes to glitches and other unintended tech. This is something you can clearly see when the top guys or old schoolers talk about it, like for example what former Capcom special advisor for SF/EVO founder Seth Killian had to say regarding infinites.


http://shoryuken.com/2012/04/18/seth-killian-talks-to-kotaku-in-defense-of-infinite-combos/
http://kotaku.com/5902839/in-defens...ruins-street-fighter-matches-some-of-the-time

Killian barely sounds like he's barely convinced his own argument holds water. He should be skeptical; freedom to exploit the excesses within a system are interesting explorations in and of themselves, but they should act as illustrated critiques of the system, not as validations of the system itself. In theoretical and lived-in models in which the explorers are not placed within the system itself, this integrity holds up. In models where they are both actor/explorers, the level of integrity collapses and justifications for lack of integrity become rampant.

But before I take this thread way off topic into economic analogies (ahem), I would note that this discussion can even happen ("to infinite or not to infinite") is indeed validation of a mindset that suggests that a fighting game system is often very well understood (if not defined) by its excesses. Perhaps this should not be, but if not it becomes increasingly hard to define exactly at what level of play it should be understood. It therefore becomes easier to understand a fighting game less for the intent put into it and more into the result.

I would question whether that is a healthy habit, however.

 

[d3v]

We really need a general fighting game thread/forum for discussing these things.

 

[CrimsonCJ]

We really need a general fighting game thread/forum for discussing these things.

Something in general, I presume. But agreed.

 

[TakedaZX]

Yea. I think everyone should learn this kind of thing and it'd be great if they had stickied topic about this explaining it so that people can know.

 

[Tones]

System are things that makes the game. Core ideas is the philosophy behind one's approach.

For example, Chiropractors.

The testable principle - The untestable metaphor​

Chiropractic adjustment - Universal Intelligence
↓ ↓
Restoration of structural integrity - Innate intelligence
↓ ↓
Improvement of health status - Body physiology​

Then you have Gonstead practitioners, Thompson practitioners, mix practitioners etc.
​

​

 

[XV MR ARMANI]

(OFF-TOPIC)
Finally, I see some well spoken people on the Internet. Could've sworn I was the only one lol.

But I think the core of a fighting game resides in how the makers develop the system. System and core go hand and hand because you can't have a core without a system and vice versa. It's up to the players to expound upon the system and find what matters to achieve the end result. Maybe I'm wrong lol.