hencook

I'm not asking if you can't execute because you haven't put in the training time. I'm asking if there's other gamers out there, who love fighting games but just cannot perform the required combos.

My cred:

I started playing fighting games back in 01. My execution was horrible. I could never cancel a normal into a super. My light attacks in 2d fighters never held a threat because I could never follow them up with damage. This lead me to lose a lot. I do not know a person that has a higher loss ratio in fighting games than me (before someone tries to snipe that sentence for not being implicit, I mean any gamer that has at least 10 hours of fighting games under their belt). This doesn't necessarily mean I'm hopeless; far from it! By having a huge loss ratio, it means that I've continued to endure (and lose) against a skill level higher than mine, and I still haven't quit.

Now hey, I'm not asking you for a solution. I bought a hitbox stick as soon as I heard about it. It did wonders for me, but I still can't execute higher level combos than short short super. I'm losing less, but I'm still losing a lot. I've played fighters with less execution, like Soul Calibur or Tekken. Tekken's still difficult in the combo department, but Soul Calibur was good! As much as the FGC dislikes Soul Calibur, it was the only game I could really play. SC requires a lot of move list memorization (of your enemies), so after a while of going to tournaments, I just got tired of the game because I didn't really like what it was about. Back to 2D, I've had my huge share of training combos for hours on end as well, but for every 3 hours I put into a combo, an average fighting gamer would probably only need to put 15 minutes in... and I still can't execute essential combos 9/10 times.

The last time I played a fighting game totally burned me out. I played KOFXIII (which has high execution requirements) against one guy the whole night. He and I went back and forth for 10 matches, and even though his execution was flawless, I was going 1 to 1 with him with combos that were only a third as damaging. I outsmarted him... but he caught on and adapted to my playstyle, and then after that, we went on for a total of 60 or so matches, with me losing at least 50 of them. Getting streaked on doesn't bother me, but the fact that I can't execute without dedicating a significant amount of time does.

Is there anybody out there like me?

1. Why are there so many silent protagonists? Is this a budget problem, or a conscious decision to allow the players to feel more like they are controlling an extension of themselves on screen?

2. Why is it more prominent in FPS's to have silent protagonists?

and before we begin, let's define the term: When the PC you control has multiple conversations with other NPCs, but the PC doesn't talk or even type back.

The first thing you want to get out of the way is your ability to do combos. You don't need to perform extremely difficult combos just yet. Even just two combos might be enough for a character. I think Injustice would be the best bet out of the four because you have a good and reliable controller with a healthy community to fight against. After you get that basic combo out of the way, you can work on fundamentals which carry into all other fighting games. Either learn it yourself or look up vids on these concepts.

I love KOFXIII, but damn it's hard to play when it comes to execution. USF4 has a bunch of links (timing based). I'd point a scrub to the latter. If you have trouble with execution, you can always play a 3d fighter. (Tekken or Soul Calibur)

@tariqari said:

I completely agree. You are not alone.

Pretend you're a student. Does it stop you from doing school work? Is Life:

A) Better because you are happier, having played video games and not doing homework

B) Worse because you failed to correctly allocate time for school and time for games efficiently

C) Neither because you're able to control the amount of video games

D) Super duper neither, as in, you have never ever lost your ability to control the amount of video games you consume.

I do not claim that most people are ABC or D, however, I will claim that there is going to be a noticeable amount of people in B. I blame video games, but I equally blame everything else; facebook, drugs, gambling. YMMV, but to say that everyone is not B is chronicles of riddickulous.

You should totally hold a seminar at this tattoo convention next Friday. It would be an awesome panel.

I know right, I mean I don't even know why people wear clothes with colors. What's the point, waste of dye.

Cool, now i'm deciding between RO2 and the new Insurgency game. Played lots of NS2 already. If CS:GO has a ton of recoil compared to its predecessor, I think that might actually be fun to play.

Hi, I'd like for some help finding a multiplayer versus shooter game for the PC to play. So recommend me a few! Here are the things I want, ordered by importance...

Very Important-
-Teamwork.
-Strategy. I want a high number of choices to be made during gameplay.

Important-
-Equal access, so no paying real money for better weapons, or a very light xp system.

-Guns should be fun to fire and pack a punch, and have a degree of realism with many attributes per gun. Doesn't mean that they have to be real guns, fictional is fine.

-Winning shouldn't be about who has the fastest reflexes (hard to circumvent in FPS, I know)

-A number of viable strategies; so no OP strategies.

So much debate over classification.

Mechas. Robots. Is a gundam a tank? Mechwarrior. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Whatever.

The post clearly isn't about Metal Mario, or even Metroid.It's pretty damn clear: It's about big robots that look like people. Enough semantics.

You have a good point. Imagine a game company doing a bunch of playtesting on their normal difficulty. Their playtesting eventually leads them to perfect normal difficulty: players of normal skill level are able to pass the scenario, with a tolerable amount of challenge. Other game companies follow suit, and eventually you'll be able to make a game at normal difficulty without even playtesting, simply by going by what other game companies have defined as normal. Even if global player skill increases, with playtesting, difficulty should increase accordingly. On paper, "normal" is foolproof, because it's an average that corrects itself, but unique developers will always disrupt this "normal" equilibrium. Despite the influence of unique developers, we can see evidence of this equilibrium in the history of consoles, with games today becoming easier, yet more complex. If only the "fun" games survive, then natural selection will define the best possible "normal".

Perhaps developers as a whole, have been only accounting for a win ratio per capita, and due to this, they'd forget to include the sensation of overcoming a loss against a challenging opponent. That's a tough argument to get behind, with no way to provide evidence, but I'm just throwing it out there. Perhaps Dark Souls represents the bottled up breaking point of the norm's normal difficulty being too easy, and we'll see a shift in normal difficulty in the future. Too difficult to tell.

So I will concede my argument and admit that I was mistaken. I will still be a little biased towards hard, and I'm still a little saddened to see a player beat something without really trying, but perhaps statistically, normal is right where it should be.