It’s time once again to fire up the Hate Speech Wayback Machine for another field trip back in time. Today we’ll be going back into the hazy, primordial era known as “oh, the last couple of weeks or so.” It was a simpler time. A better time, back when men were men, women were men, and all children were manly children.
Though records from this dark age are few and fragmented, some bits of its knowledge have been passed down to our modern age in the forms of myths, legends, and hushed whispers around our campfires. One such tale is that of the beast known as “Clean Hit,” and that is where our journey will begin.
The Fair and Balanced No-Spin Zone™
I’m on record as being opposed to the Clean Hit mechanic’s implementation, but my highly unscientific sampling of the conversations around here tells me that some people are having disproportionately negative reactions, so today I’ll be a bit of an apologist. No, I don’t like it right now, but I suspect it will ultimately become a minor gripe. More importantly, its implementation, however flawed one may think it, evinces certain positive and useful elements on which we might capitalize.
What follows will be a review of the mechanic as we’ve seen it thus far: what it does wrong, what it does right, and what we as thoughtful players can take away from these considerations to apply elsewhere and thereby gain an advantage over our opponents.
Clean Hit randomly awards bonus damage upon successfully landing one of a character’s signature moves. The most obvious objection here—and it’s a big one—is the word “random.” Certain random effects are tolerable, though hardly desirable, provided that match results are still determined by player skill. Awarding extra damage haphazardly has the real potential to affect the outcome of a match, and it’s likely that everyone who regularly plays in tournaments will eventually feel a string of Clean Hit Shenanigans (CHS, I’m coining it here!). The only reason I’m not completely up in arms about this is that the damage itself, while noticeable, doesn’t appear to be game-breakingly so. The proper attitude, then, is one of disappointment rather than fury.
Daishi’s stated rationale behind the mechanic (see: Bibulus’ interview) is twofold: it provides a “fair” mechanic for less hardcore players while simultaneously nudging players toward using the good stuff. Let’s examine them in turn, beginning with the issue of fairness. There’s a non-obvious distinction to be drawn between the words “fair” and “equal,” and negotiating this subtle definitional quirk poses something of a design challenge.
Fairness as we intuitively understand it can best be described in the words of unofficial Hate Speech mascot Ronald Reagan’s ideological arch-nemesis, Karl Marx, who wanted “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Fairness erases difference, equalizes results, and is utterly desirable in single-player games and Mario Kart.
Equality, by contrast, is far simpler—it just demands that everyone be given the same opportunities, results be damned. It’s also a wonderful guiding philosophy for a competitive game. Interestingly, Clean Hit is an equal mechanic, not a fair one. It doesn’t award any special advantage to the less-skilled player, but instead simply provides a chance, at random, for either player to gain an even greater reward than they otherwise would have. In fact, since Clean Hit only applies to moves that actually land, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that more-skilled players will land more attacks than their less-skilled opponents, it’s no further feat to assume that Clean Hit will end up rewarding cagey veterans more than anyone else. In that sense, Clean Hit doesn’t really pass the sniff test as a gift to the casual fan. It’s just unnecessary randomness.
The good of Clean Hit—no, the brilliance of it—by contrast, is in Daishi’s second major reason. Providing a roadmap of sorts that will take players to the best moves for their character is an incredibly savvy design choice. Like it or not, we’re in an age in which games are expected to teach us how to play them. Think for a second. When was the last time you purchased a game with an instruction manual taking up more than a couple of pages? Manuals are growing smaller and smaller (and evaporating entirely in some cases) because, frankly, people aren’t reading them. Players jump in, press buttons, and rely on their intuition and past experiences to get them going. As such, taking an active hand in guiding these players toward a set of useful moves demonstrates real thoughtfulness on the part of Project Soul. We as members of this community shouldn’t want our games to be intimidatingly complex. If new players languish for months in hapless scrubdom, it’ll just turn them off.
Though records from this dark age are few and fragmented, some bits of its knowledge have been passed down to our modern age in the forms of myths, legends, and hushed whispers around our campfires. One such tale is that of the beast known as “Clean Hit,” and that is where our journey will begin.
The Fair and Balanced No-Spin Zone™
I’m on record as being opposed to the Clean Hit mechanic’s implementation, but my highly unscientific sampling of the conversations around here tells me that some people are having disproportionately negative reactions, so today I’ll be a bit of an apologist. No, I don’t like it right now, but I suspect it will ultimately become a minor gripe. More importantly, its implementation, however flawed one may think it, evinces certain positive and useful elements on which we might capitalize.
What follows will be a review of the mechanic as we’ve seen it thus far: what it does wrong, what it does right, and what we as thoughtful players can take away from these considerations to apply elsewhere and thereby gain an advantage over our opponents.
Clean Hit randomly awards bonus damage upon successfully landing one of a character’s signature moves. The most obvious objection here—and it’s a big one—is the word “random.” Certain random effects are tolerable, though hardly desirable, provided that match results are still determined by player skill. Awarding extra damage haphazardly has the real potential to affect the outcome of a match, and it’s likely that everyone who regularly plays in tournaments will eventually feel a string of Clean Hit Shenanigans (CHS, I’m coining it here!). The only reason I’m not completely up in arms about this is that the damage itself, while noticeable, doesn’t appear to be game-breakingly so. The proper attitude, then, is one of disappointment rather than fury.
Though fury does have it's benefits...
Daishi’s stated rationale behind the mechanic (see: Bibulus’ interview) is twofold: it provides a “fair” mechanic for less hardcore players while simultaneously nudging players toward using the good stuff. Let’s examine them in turn, beginning with the issue of fairness. There’s a non-obvious distinction to be drawn between the words “fair” and “equal,” and negotiating this subtle definitional quirk poses something of a design challenge.
Fairness as we intuitively understand it can best be described in the words of unofficial Hate Speech mascot Ronald Reagan’s ideological arch-nemesis, Karl Marx, who wanted “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Fairness erases difference, equalizes results, and is utterly desirable in single-player games and Mario Kart.
Notice how you never get stuff that shoots behind you when you’re in first place? Communism.
Equality, by contrast, is far simpler—it just demands that everyone be given the same opportunities, results be damned. It’s also a wonderful guiding philosophy for a competitive game. Interestingly, Clean Hit is an equal mechanic, not a fair one. It doesn’t award any special advantage to the less-skilled player, but instead simply provides a chance, at random, for either player to gain an even greater reward than they otherwise would have. In fact, since Clean Hit only applies to moves that actually land, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that more-skilled players will land more attacks than their less-skilled opponents, it’s no further feat to assume that Clean Hit will end up rewarding cagey veterans more than anyone else. In that sense, Clean Hit doesn’t really pass the sniff test as a gift to the casual fan. It’s just unnecessary randomness.
The good of Clean Hit—no, the brilliance of it—by contrast, is in Daishi’s second major reason. Providing a roadmap of sorts that will take players to the best moves for their character is an incredibly savvy design choice. Like it or not, we’re in an age in which games are expected to teach us how to play them. Think for a second. When was the last time you purchased a game with an instruction manual taking up more than a couple of pages? Manuals are growing smaller and smaller (and evaporating entirely in some cases) because, frankly, people aren’t reading them. Players jump in, press buttons, and rely on their intuition and past experiences to get them going. As such, taking an active hand in guiding these players toward a set of useful moves demonstrates real thoughtfulness on the part of Project Soul. We as members of this community shouldn’t want our games to be intimidatingly complex. If new players languish for months in hapless scrubdom, it’ll just turn them off.
See! I told you DOA was more pro than stupid old SC!
Following the Breadcrumbs
Smart thinking on the designers’ part, even if the implementation is flawed in this instance, does more than simply tell us that Project Soul is being conscientious. It should also remind us of something I pointed out a couple of weeks ago (you didn’t think we were done with the Wayback Machine, did you?): games are intentionally designed environments, and elements of that design provide us with clues for how to play better. For a case in point, let’s switch gears a bit and look at a new mechanic about which I’m very excited: CE/BE.
As we all know by now, BE properties are as varied as the moves to which they are attached. We have also seen, however, that CE attacks also come in distinct flavors which will ultimately have implications for both how they’re applied and how each character is played overall. Based on what we’ve seen so far, I’d divide CEs into three broad groups: grabs, conventional, and utility.
Grabs are, well, grabs. They’re also ridiculously fast, from the look of it. Combined with the fact that they can’t be blocked or broken, this opens up a number of intriguing possibilities for application. First, they probably combo off of a lot of things you might not suspect. A super-fast grab CE could possibly change an innocuous counterhit BB from a mild setback into a first-class ticket to frown town. Second, these supers will likely punish some “safe” moves, which dramatically changes the tenor of a match once the player with that CE has a little meter. Finally, they may interrupt certain unpleasant traps or sticky situations. We’ll need to do plenty of experimenting.
“Conventional” CEs are things like Maxi’s, Ezio’s, Pyrrha’s, etc. They hit fast and hard, and are likely best as punishers or in parts of combos. We’ve seen people having success with random CE as a defensive interrupt in the open field, but at least a couple of these CEs appear to be unsafe, so that will limit their usefulness in this regard.
Nightmare’s counter-CE provides the perfect example of a “utility” move. Its special GI properties compensate for its poor speed and linearity, lending it to creative use within specific contexts. I’m deeply interested in finding out if other characters have similarly exotic CEs, but in the meantime I would think of Patroklos’ as also being at least partially a utility move because of its ring out properties.
Beyond these wide ranging categories, CEs need to be evaluated in much the same fashion as we would any conventional move. How safe is it? What’s the damage? Can I combo into it? Does it provide strong wakeup options? A CE that isn’t necessarily huge damage may yet become an invaluable tool for a character if it allows players to create massively favorable situations when it hits. Conversely, a CE that appears good in a vacuum might not have as much of a place in a given character’s movelist. Take, for example, Nightmare. His overall design since SC3 has dictated that the best way to defeat him is to do as little as possible while he kills himself trying to open you up, and SC5 Nightmare still appears vulnerable to punishment, 2A interrupts, and the like. Given all that, there appears to be less incentive to attack him than certain other characters, thereby diminishing the usefulness of his counter CE outside of situations wherein an opponent’s guard is about to break. Does this make his CE bad? No, but it does tell us that Nightmare players should generally be basing their meter usage around BE moves unless they know their opponent has to start getting reckless.
Just as the Clean Hit flash guides new players toward solid moves, the properties of a character’s CE will guide veterans toward advanced techniques of offense, defense, and overall meter expenditure. Remember, we’re dealing with a designed environment. Move properties weren’t given to Namco on stone tablets from an otherworldly source—they’re all created with specific intention. A little thought and experimentation on our parts will help reveal that intention, and it will certainly help us kick the crap out of the “lol 3B->CE so good!” crowd.
Urghhhhhh brain hurtsssss...
Wtf Hates, where is the article about CaS?!!?!?!?!?!
Homework:
Weigh in on Clean Hit, fairness, balance, etc. if you care to. I’d love to get a discussion going. While you’re at it, take a crack at doing what I did in the second part of this piece: break down a move and let it tell you how it should be used, then share. I’d particularly love to hear from those of you who got to spend some time playing SC5 at NEC. Give your impressions!
