#the strictly vs x factor divide is real

[underatedwords]

him growing up in an x factor household makes so much sense tbh

[herzenswarme]

Fighting game difficulty and accessibility

Summary

In the recent years, the fighting game scene has been seeing a shift in design philosophies. From the casual to the increasingly competitive, we are seeing a tendency towards going back to the casual.

To do that, developers are attempting to make the game easier so new players do not get intimidated or frustrated when learning the game, which so far has not worked at all. Now, reducing the difficulty is not necessarily bad. However, as I’ll will explain, there are more than one way to do so, and not all of them are good.

In this entry I’ll go over some things regarding what makes up the difficulty of a game and what I consider the *do*s and *don’t*s of bringing in new players.

Difficulty: of complexity, information, and execution

Currently, I divide the complexity of a fighting game in 3 different factors:

Complexity

Information

Execution

Complexity

The first factor, complexity, is the one I use to denominate games as complex or simple. Which is a term that is often used in quite an ambiguous way. Here, complexity stems from computational complexity and it is defined as the function of the amount of operations required to do a task based on the size of the data.

Thus, having a lot of moves is not necessarily complex. That is only data. Complexity comes from how many operations you have to perform, intellectually and not mechanically, when using the moves. It would be represented by f(n) where n is the number of moves.

If every move were to be the same, then f(n)=1. Because it doesn’t matter which move you use, there is no real operation needed other that choosing one at random, regardless of how many there are.

A single move, however, could have way more complexity than multiple moves by having properties that require more operations. A puppet, such as that of Carl Clover, involves both a second point of reference for distance that requires you to measure 2 extra distances and evaluate your actions in relation to them, and an extra resource to be managed as these puppets are linked to their own health bar.

This is the most rich factor in difficulty, as it makes the game keep your mind more active and thus makes it more engaging. When making a game simple, you are taking the risk to make it boring straight away, or in the long term. Furthermore, complexity inherently will increase the Information factor, as you not only need to understand the nuances of your character’s mechanics but also all others.

When reducing complexity, the game will be easier to understand and learn; but you will definitely reduce the enjoyment for those who know how to play and those who eventually learn. For that, I consider that you should never reduce complexity.

Information

Here we have the raw data you have to memorise as part of learning a game. This is what makes up the data that will then be part of the complexity function. However, not all the information will have the same weight over the complexity of the game.

Let’s take as an example a mechanic in which if a happens, you do x; if b happens, you do y; and if c happens, you do z. Here, you have a table with 3 rows relating the event with the reaction. Here, the complexity is low (approximately f(n) would be O(n), though the human brain might work in such a way that it is even lower), and removing that information so for both a,b, and c can be deal with using action z could be a safe accessibility change.

As a real example, throws in Tekken can be broken in 3 ways: 1, 2, or 1+2; depending on the throw. The function of a throw is already covered by the need to tech it, so the use of 3 different inputs is not really necessary. Another example would be Guilty Gear’s character dependant wake up times. Again, this is just a table that would effectively be O(1), as you simply delay you action the necessary time or use a whole different setup if preferred. Such things can difficult learning but won’t really offer much to the player in terms of engagement.

Of course, there’s information that stems directly from complexity, such as the pull force of Kokonoe’s Gravitons, the speed and trajectory of Bridget’s yoyo, etc. To remove this it would mean removing high complexity elements thus noticeably reducing complexity, which is terribly undesirable.

Alongside this, there’s information that is necessary for the design even if not quite significant in complexity. For example, the previous {a→x,b→y, c→z} table is also present in the most standard attack types (low, overhead, throw), which are necessary in order not to make defence too easy thus balancing the effort needed for both defence and offence.

Information is a great choice for reducing the difficulty of the game, but has to be done with care as per not to reduce complexity significantly.

Execution

This one refers to the mechanical requirements in terms of speed and precision when performing inputs. Currently, reactions would be factored here as well.

Execution can really increase difficulty but cannot increase complexity, as it is purely mechanical. Some kinds of execution can be crucial to the game design, however. The requirements on reaction time are key for pressure to be effective and for mix-ups to exist. In the same way, special move inputs have some inherent properties that balance them in an organic way by making them slower without reducing responsiveness with additional startup; or make them direction dependant. Thus, some subsets of the execution factor should not be removed recklessly. If you want to have 1 button specials, you must be careful with which direction you assign to which move.

The execution requirements for combos, however, neither affect the complexity nor the design of the game. These can be removed from the game baseline safely. However, there are players who do enjoy these requirements. 

Because of that, my recommendation is to remove it from the baseline but keeping it for some characters. Having 2 or 3 characters with high execution requirements won’t affect the experience of new players and will be there to please the players that enjoy it.

Further accommodating new and casual players

During these attempts to get a wider audience, developers have tried time and time again to make games easier. Guilty Gear Xrd and Street Fighter V reduced execution; Xrd and Skullgirls added more elaborate tutorials; Blazblue and Xrd added alternative modes with 1 button specials; King of Fighters XIV and Dragon Ball FighterZ added auto-combos... All to no avail. Now, Guilty Gear 2020 seems to actively reduce complexity in yet another attempt to bring in new players, likely with no result.

What, as I see it, is being done wrong here is thinking that the intricacy of the game-play is the element that pushes people away. However, this is for the most part not the case. People with no special interest in fighting games played hard and complicated games like Marvel vs Capcom 2 without problems. SF2 was one of the most popular games of its time, too. So what happened?

To me, the differentiating factor between the older times and the current age is the heavy focus in competition. The content of the game is strictly focused on the competitive setting. The elaborate tutorials, in the end, aim to get you to partake in the competitive mindset.

Don’t get me wrong, the competitive element in fighting games is the one I consider the most important; however, if you really want the casual audience, you must offer them an engaging single player package. Because what they seek is a more laid back environment that is not so competitive. They want to play single player modes or matches against their friends. 

And thus they need good single player functionality with hopefully good replayability. With this part of the audience, the competitive route should be considered an optional part, a byproduct of the engagement with the single player component.