Forum Overview :: Sigil :: I think we've both been making too many assumptions about each other.

[quote name="Dream Cast"]I kind of self-sentredly assumed you'd played exactly the same set of games as me, and would have no trouble extracting general principles from my dramatic oversimplifications. Whereas you seem to think I'm a space dummy from planet dum-dum. We're both going to have to mentally stretch if we want to reach out across the digital void and cybertouch the glowing tips of our fingers together, triggering an orgasmic electric explosion of mutual understanding. The alternative would be a fight to the death like Highlanders for our explosive electric orgasms, but in that case I think you know there can be only one. [quote]1. 3D fighters don't usually utilize the vertical axis anywhere near as much as a 2D fighter. You generally stay grounded except for small hops and when you're juggling dudes. So, still mostly 2D. 2. 3D fighters have walls, corners, and ring outs. I'm not aware of any 1-hit loss elements in 2d fighters that work like a ring out. 3. 2D and 3D in fighting games refers to the axes of movement available, not the rendering tech. Most 2D fighters made today are using polygons.[/quote] I wasn't talking about 2D and 3D fighters, though I certainly didn't make that clear enough. I was talking about Street Fighter and Virtua Fighter. That Street Fighter is 2D and Virtua Fighter 3D is ancillary to my point that Street Fighter gives players more tools to limit their opponent's options in gameplay than Virtua Fighter does, and leverages its two-dimensional nature to provide some of them. This makes Street Fighter less of a guessing game, which I tried to imply was a good thing. I also acknowledged that most 3D fighters don't play like Virtua Fighter ("the most popular 3D fighters quantize their third dimension away," which is about the most obtuse phrasing to ever make it outside of someone's own head). Do you play Virtua Fighter at all? I'm fucking terrible at it, and I think we've already established I'm ill-equipped to explain it on even the most fundamental level, so here's what I got googling <a href="https://virtuafighter.com/threads/virtua-fighter-is-easy-vf5fs-basics-for-new-players.20282/">'virtua fighter basics':</a> [quote]One last thing to know: if you're coming from another fighting game, throw out whatever you know and start over, mentally. VF is a very different game compared to literally everything else. Concepts learned from other games often become baggage that holds you down from accepting new knowledge and the old stuff you know wont be useful until you at least learn how VF works at a basic level. For example, (imo) VF is literally the opposite of street fighter in every way. VF is not a game based primarily on footsies, like SF or Tekken (though VF does have footsies). Unlike other games, especially other 3D games, it is a very fast-paced, close-range based game where you manipulate and overwhelm your opponent by using constant frame traps and mix-ups. Being wrong means praying that you can get out of the next mix-up unscathed (if you can catch it). Getting a read on your opponent is pretty important in VF. That being said, I'd say to new players, the best thing about VF is its sheer freedom. Unlike other games, none of the characters here can be shoved into an archetype box. For example, some people might call Wolf a "grappler" like Zangief, but that's simply not true. In fact, you can theoretically can take Wolf, primarily use him as a "striker-type" character, focused purely on mixups and frame traps, and literally win an entire tournament without ever using a throw (I wouldn't count on it, though). You could even use a "striker-type" character like Jacky or Sarah and play them in a "grappler style", if you want to (its a hilarious, if dangerous, way to throw somebody off). That's the beauty of VF, you can play the game however you want -- you are not shoved into a character archetype or playstyle, and can play completely differently from game-to-game, no matter what character you pick. Its not unusual to see two different people pick the same character and they play completely differently. VF characters are essentially just paintbrushes for your own style and personality to shine through. (y)(y)(y) What's even MORE amazing, is that when you consider that Yu Suzuki and AM2 came up with such a beautiful, complete system back in the early 90s for VF1, most companies (yes, including Capcom) had absolutely no idea what they were doing when making a fighting game (since the genre was still brand new; but yeah, VF1 balance was pretty busted, though, lol). Yes, that Yu Suzuki guy is actually a genius.[/quote] (You can ignore that last paragraph; Virtua Fighter fans tend to go overboard trying to sell their boring, unpopular game.) When I use terms like 2D and 3D, I'm speaking strictly of gameplay, not graphics - I'm well aware that you can have 2D gameplay with 3D graphics. Though I'm unsure of the reverse, because I admittedly have no idea how graphics get drawn to the screen, or what a programmer would consider truly 2D graphics (as opposed to "2.5D", which honestly sounds to my non-technical ear like it should be a misnomer). I think as long as I stick to discussing gameplay I should be okay. [quote]4. 2D and 3D fighters have a wildly different feel gameplay-wise. I think you're trying to argue this for 2.5D shooters, but are somehow ignorant of the fact that 2.5D is just shitty 3D born entirely of hardware constraints.[/quote] Plenty of Doom's contemporaries tried to implement 3D or pseudo-3D gameplay, which is just ONE of the reasons why titles built on Gresko's Jedi engine or Silverman's Build engine haven't aged nearly as gracefully. Their reach exceeded their grasp. Whatever technical pressures forced Doom to play like first-person Smash TV, it's hard to argue they didn't produce a diamond from a lump of coal. I'm keeping that last sentence because it sounds good, even if it does sort of erroneously suggest Doom was made by time and tide instead of John Romero, the Yu Suzuki of that one guy's post about Virtua Fighter of the best levels from the first couple Dooms. [quote]5. How dare you compare shitty 2.5D rendering engines to my beautiful 2D fighting games top of head flies off 6. 2.5D as an aesthetic aged like milk. 2D games still look great, even to the point that shit tons of games are still made entirely with sprites.[/quote] 2.5D rendering engines! Now you're using the third dimension to talk over my head. I'm literally wrapping bandages around it so the top doesn't fly off from contemplating how something can be inbetween dimensions. Remember, I'm not a programmer, and I already conceded Quake was probably much more interesting to look at than Doom. I even posted screenshots! They're in a post down below somewhere. That being said, I still think Doom looks great. I love how identifiably colourful the monsters are, and how colourful they remain in any lighting conditions, and I especially love how their single-frame flinch animations are instantly readable from any angle with no transition state. I think it's part of why locking monsters down with hitstun feels so fucking good all the time. Compare it to something like the way those inexplicably British punks in Rage sprawl and flop ambiguously all over the place when you shoot them, only to sometimes get back up again for no other reason than they could only afford to render a few of them simultaneously, and it's just no comparison. Doom is the best.[/quote]