PlusHeart Issue #14: Constructing a mainstream fighting game (Part 1)
In which we look at what's wrong.
I've been taking a bit of a social media break this week, and it's been pretty positive, but not that earth-shattering kind of experience that you write a blog about.
My life doesn't feel all that different, but I've found it easier to just get out and do things; I've crossed some things off my gaming backlog, and had some good conversations with friends.
One of those conversations turned to topics I wanted to write about for PlusHeart, and I brought up something that's been kicking around in my head for a while: "What would it take to make a mainstream-friendly fighting game?"
Their response: "Never going to happen."
I'm inclined to agree. But hey, let's ponder, shall we?
The rap sheet
I wanted to briefly go over what I view as barriers for traditional fighting games to get mainstream acceptance. I also want to mention that my definition of "fighting game" is a 1-on-1, 2D or 2D-planed fighter like Street Fighter, Tekken, Guilty Gear, and similar.
I will be mentioning Super Smash Bros. in certain contexts, but not as the form that I want this hypothetical game to take; Smash succeeds because it isn't a traditional fighting game, and the thought experiment is to try to make that "traditional" format work.
Where this is going to get cagey (and probably spark some debate) is the generalization of the gamer I'm talking about that qualifies as “mainstream”. Since the demographic of gaming has changed over the last decade, my hypothetical Zoomer/Late Millenial is a pretty wide age range, and it kind of has to be: anything "mainstream" right now has to permeate gaming's entire culture, which is becoming very broad.
Anyways.
The skill ask
Players are asked to learn a new way of locomotion to learn of a fighting game. Instead of handling a controller or mouse and keyboard in a common way, they're learning new mechanics in ways that other games don't use; while animation frames and input latency can matter in League of Legends, it is not engrained as deeply as knowing what a 3-frame jab is in Street Fighter V, and when to use it.
This means a player needs to learn these new skills, and they're going to be self-directed to do it. This also involves a lot of community-created resources, as being successful at fighting games relies on being knowledgeable and efficient with your execution: sometimes, the design of a character is completely contrary to how they're best played, and external resources are going to be how you learn that.
Some games, like ArcSys' Guilty Gear and Future Club's Skullgirls, provide excellent tutorials and combo challenges, but these don't emulate the environment of a real match. That environment can only happen when the player feels confident enough to queue up for a match, and then develop with proper feedback.
Getting feedback
If you're bad at a competitive video game, there's three things that contribute to not getting discouraged and quitting:
Having the strong ego or desire to improve.
Receiving strong benefits to playing, regardless of the result.
Getting good feedback, which allows the player to feel like they're improving, or know that they're objectively better than they previously were.
Fighting games struggle with those last two. Games like League of Legends, Fortnite or Apex Legends have a more direct system of social benefit (queuing/partying with friends) or in-game benefit (battle passes, skins, skill trackers, challenges) to make you feel like you're still having a good time regardless of your skill.
I could queue a dozen Apex games where I die immediately after dropping, but there's a good chance I'll be having fun with my friends in the process. I'll also be enjoying the loot hunting aspect of the game, and contributing to challenges that unlock further cosmetics ("Play X matches", "Do X damage with assault rifles", etc). There's progress there that isn't tied to wins; with Dota 2, one of the main critiques of their Battle Pass is tying progress quests/challenges to whether you win the match you achieve them in or not.
In fighting games, my main marker of progress is seeing that skill rating go up or down; without a good third party (training partner, coach, rival), it can be hard to know if you're losing bad habits, becoming more efficient, or executing faster. This requires an ask of the player to seek that (potentially harsh) feedback out, and believe that it's a good use of their time compared to alternatives.
I kind of think back to one of the things Team Fortress 2 did really well; after every death you'd get a feedback message, maybe saying "you stayed alive longer than your previous best as this class" or "you almost killed more than your previous best" to at least give you an idea that you were improving. If that life felt easy, you could internalize "Wow, it took me a lot to get those 5 kills before, but that's nothing, now!"
Again, it isn't a matter of creating a fighting game that is going to produce a legion of amazing players: it's about creating a fighting game that encourages players of all skill levels to keep playing the game. Without player base, these games die.
Social, culture and aesthetic
I think the best chance of a mainstream fighting game actually working is Riot Games' "Project L." I think this is because of the familiarity of the characters, and Riot's knowledge that good online means a good playerbase, and a good playerbase means more people of all skill levels to play against.
If a new player can feel like they're not hopelessly outmatched by everyone they're playing against, they'll keep playing. That only happens when you have enough of a pool to draw from for matches.
The ability for a game to develop culture hinges on whether people think a game's aesthetic is cool, and whether they can find similar people to drive their involvement in the game. People who are bad at League of Legends still play it because their friends do; people use Fortnite as a glorified chatroom, just because it's convenient and fun to do so.
With fighting games, that culture is largely coming from offline events, mostly because fighting games are still playing catch-up to what a good online experience is. Yes, I know games have rollback netcode now, but being able to play a game isn't the only thing that gets people to come out. Part of the reason that Valve's Artifact failed was because there wasn't a reason to play beyond enjoying the gameplay, and sad to say, that isn't enough anymore.
A plus for fighting games is that they do have a legacy when it comes to idenfiable characters and driving attachment to them. If you look at the "platform brawler" genre that Super Smash Bros. dominates, alternatives can’t gain market share because, well, they don’t have Nintendo characters. Smash is terrible from an online experience and technicality perspective, but because Pikachu isn't in Icons, Brawlhalla or Rivals of Aether, there will always be that cultural barrier preventing people from getting attached.
While people are attached to Ryu, Chun-Li or Akuma, Street Fighter as a whole has to find the middle of that “culture/infrastructure/feedback” Venn-diagram that allows people to attach, and attach strongly.
While we're rewinding a bit, I also thought about Mortal Kombat and why it seemed so big in the 90s, and that likely had a lot to do with the advancement of gaming tech allowing for unique selling points: blood and gore and controversy. I'm just not sure that Mortal Kombat hits that middile of the Venn Diagram I'm looking for, mostly because Midway (or NetherRealms now) made their choice to stick with that semi-grim, "gore spectacle" design. Judging by today's standards and demographics, I can't imagine an aesthetic like Mortal Kombat capturing major cultural attention.
I'm not sure if I'm just saying "this isn't bland, so of course it's not going to be accepted by a mass amount of people", but that's the thought experiment: it informs the features that it would need to break through.
In the next PlusHeart, I'll go into what I feel would be the list of what a game would need, instead of what fighting games aren't right now.
Thanks for reading.
Housekeeping
Again, on a bit of a social media break. I'm not sure how long it'll continue. I kind of didn't stream last week because of some scheduling stuff and general burnout (I've had a lot of social bandwidth needed from me lately) so I kind of just took Saturday to do nothing. I should be back this week, though.
Have a good one, people.