Investment in learning the specifics of a video game...

tresto

[09] Warrior
Sharing some thoughts...

As you all know, video games evolve and new versions are released every year (or two or more, it depends on the franchise...)

As you know, to be good at any complex game like soul calibur requires a combination of two trainings:
1/ general fighting game mechanics such as spacing and others
2/ game specific things: what are the frame traps, what is safe/unsafe/to punish, character combos, ...

I played SC4 competitively and did alright. I invested a lot of hours learning it, and while I didn't have very good reflexes or execution (got hit by lots of 'slow' lows for example), I was able to destroy absolutely anyone who hadn't trained in the game. I just knew all the tricks. And do OK to good against trained players who had trained but weren't the very top in my community (say, people just outside the top 10).

Then SC5 was released. All 90% of what I knew... Wasn't valid anymore. Different frames, new characters, old characters gone, different mechanics, etc. And I realized I had spent 2-3 years learning something that was just gonna totally vanish.

I thought about other games or activities that I had learned. I learned tennis, it will always be useless. Or math, chess, jiu jitsu, etc. If I pick up a tennis racket today, it will still be the same game I learned, and within a couple weeks of getting used to it, I'll do good again...
But a video game disappears in just a couple years, and while some things are transferrable, a lot are totally lost.

What are your thoughts on the ephemeral nature of playing any video game competitively? Were you frustrated if you trained in a previous game and then had most of your knowledge become useless?
 

ZeroEffect317

[13] Hero
It's an interesting topic. Honestly, it really depends. What specifically wasn't valid in SC5 that you relied on to win in SC4? I get that it's different, but the shift shouldn't be overly drastic unless your basics weren't fine tuned enough. Sc5 changed a lot of things from 4, but the fundamental gameplan should be the same. Characters change, frame data, move properties, etc. It also helps if the character style you played before is present in the new game. (I went from Talim to Leixia, whereas Sophie players went to Pyrrha. Much easier transition)

But good habits tend to remain the same. Especially if we're talking about a sequel and not switching games entirely. (SC5 to SF5 for example).
 

Crash X

[14] Master
Much can change from one game to another. When I first started playing SCV I struggled on trying to get used to the changes that it had, such as character movesets, mechanics, etc...however as I continued to progress throughout my years of SCV I started to get the hang of it and improve over time and develop a better understanding. Now I'm not really great at V but that doesn't stop me from playing it and looking for ways to get better.
 

Frayhua

[14] Master
Changes happen from game to game is fine, but when Project Soul purposely destroyed Setsuka's style by replacing her with that injustice A. Pat & having a really bad story mode I lost a piece of myself. Then, I found amazing Leixia tech. Using it in a tournament will be the start of my revenge on PS for destroying Setsuka's style. Pat is #10 Watch Mojo List of Worst Fighting Game Characters.
 
Last edited:

linkorz

Super Moderator
I should preface this by saying that I've only ever committed to being good at one fighting game (SCV), so what I say lacks experience to back it up.

I think an important part of learning is knowing HOW to learn. Once you have that down, it becomes significantly easier to figure everything out. So, with that in mind, learning the specifics of a game is definitely not useless for other games.
 

scvn80

[08] Mercenary
I agree with Tresto. When Namco create new game version, ofcourse they have to make new content (mechanic, character, move etc, fighting style..) . But they should keep old char for old fan, new char for new fan. There are some changes that cause player dislike. Example: Ivy SC5 command throw change too much (completely new)

I also know that Soul series is console game but I hope some day Soul series can operate like Dota2, League of Legend (they are PC game ofcource). The Producer can add new character, weapon model , new mode,adjust game balance when Game updates. If Namco can do that, everyone (old fan and new fan) is satisfied. Player can choose what they like. It is a effective monetization which most of PC game did
 

twiggywales

[08] Mercenary
old thread but a good point.

maxi in SCV was just ruined. i mean he was technically better (at least at launch) but he lost so much of what maxi was to me. his Pure soul loops and ways to exit in to 5 potential stances was reduced and PSL 4 was removed completely it was a big blow and really put me off. i felt the switch from IV to V for almost all characters was a huge dumb down. hoping that 6 actually raises the bar a little and not just makes it easier for the masses.
 

ZeroEffect317

[13] Hero
hoping that 6 actually raises the bar a little and not just makes it easier for the masses.
You know, I hear this argument every time a new game comes out and I will never, ever, understand this train of thought. Easier for the masses? Why because easy execution? Fewer moves?

Do you really think the casual "I'm great cause I beat all my friends" random will suddenly become great without understanding the game on a deeper level? Isn't it a good thing that a game, especially one with as small of a community as ours, could potentially bring in more players who, maybe, were intimidated by seeing 70+ moves to memorize?

I do get that it gives less chance of creativity, but I mean, the learning curve shouldn't be buried in the mechanics anyway. There's still the mindgames and move application to learn. That's where those masses will either fall or decide to improve. A game shouldn't be viewed as "bad" just because you don't need to be a long time vet to play it.

Hell, that's why a lot of people don't migrate to Guilty Gear. Or play Tekken 7 as their first competitive Tekken game. Legacy skills and whatnot, lol.
 
Last edited:

Marginal

Chikara Sashimi
That is true. Rising Thunder was super easy to play on the accessibility level. Experienced FG players were still tearing it up due to understanding the strategy behind the game. As long as the masses still lose, accessibility isn't going to matter.

Soon as the masses can win, there will be no reason to play the game because winning or losing will amount to a coin flip in that case and will be completely meaningless.
 

WuHT

Premium Moderator
I also know that Soul series is console game but I hope some day Soul series can operate like Dota2, League of Legend (they are PC game ofcource). The Producer can add new character, weapon model , new mode,adjust game balance when Game updates. If Namco can do that, everyone (old fan and new fan) is satisfied. Player can choose what they like. It is a effective monetization which most of PC game did
Thats a huge change in how the company will operate. If anything, FGs will likely follow whatever business model Capcom and Street Fighter (being the unquestioned grandfather of the genre) take, with minor tweaks.

Having "season" passes with new characters and some balance patches is decent. How was Tekken 7 done ? I didn't really follow the series but I heard it was the first successful PC launch of a FG series.

A game like Dota has had an absurd number of balance patches and thats something I would like the FG genre to start trending towards. Telemetry on picks/bans in competitve games gave a very good basis for what needed nerfing/buffing in Dota. Being restricted to consoles meant it was harder for the developers to figure out what was being abused and what was underpowered for the earlier non-PC versions of the Soul Calibur series. My gut feeling is that Project Soul mostly consulted with local japanese tournament scenes to decide what to do (there was unfortunately only 2 notable balance patches in SC5, iirc).
 

twiggywales

[08] Mercenary
You know, I hear this argument every time a new game comes out and I will never, ever, understand this train of thought. Easier for the masses? Why because easy execution? Fewer moves?

Do you really think the casual "I'm great cause I beat all my friends" random will suddenly become great without understanding the game on a deeper level? Isn't it a good thing that a game, especially one with as small of a community as ours, could potentially bring in more players who, maybe, were intimidated by seeing 70+ moves to memorize?

I do get that it gives less chance of creativity, but I mean, the learning curve shouldn't be buried in the mechanics anyway. There's still the mindgames and move application to learn. That's where those masses will either fall or decide to improve. A game shouldn't be viewed as "bad" just because you don't need to be a long time vet to play it.

Hell, that's why a lot of people don't migrate to Guilty Gear. Or play Tekken 7 as their first competitive Tekken game. Legacy skills and whatnot, lol.
i dont mind them thinning the move list down a little. i agree that some chars move sets were just insane but it felt like SCV was about 5-6 moves for every character. its didn't have the same vibe as IV which to me (ive played every soul game since soul blade) IV felt like the most intuitive to play, even with some difficulty to get in to. After IV i felt V was just dumbed down too far.
 

Maedhros

[12] Conqueror
I should preface this by saying that I've only ever committed to being good at one fighting game (SCV), so what I say lacks experience to back it up.

I think an important part of learning is knowing HOW to learn. Once you have that down, it becomes significantly easier to figure everything out. So, with that in mind, learning the specifics of a game is definitely not useless for other games.
This... Is too true. The unfortunate part is that everyone's experience differs. Take mine, for example.

I had picked up sc4 and played it actively online from 2010, so I had only two years until sc5 to figure out how to play the game. I was barely able to learn sc4 Ivy's numerous combos by February 2012, and then the unwelcomed change to sc5's dumbed-down Ivy came, and I was, like
@tresto , who started this thread, moderately successful (with her), albeit a bit disheartened... Furthermore, I was terrified by frame data. Until sc6 was announced, I somehow managed to be a nasty mofo with Ivy, even though I never really learned them.

I am approaching my point.
My approach to learning the game was lacking, and for a very long time at that. After sc6 was announced, I reached out to some of the players I regularly fight, and they explained the frame data to me, and then it opened a door toward an understanding of the game that I couldn't imagine a year earlier. As a result, I now welcome sc6 to be a reboot button on my learning process. I am welcoming the challenge of mastering stuff all over again. I wish to see if I will adapt successfully. If this was such a bad formula, the designers would have abandoned it.