Parrying: Good or Bad?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I was reading something on the internet, and I know parrying is a big base breaker although SF3 and particularly Street Fighter Third Strike is regarded as amazing. What do you think?

forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/13961/parrying-good-or-bad

[JACK-2]

Classic debate, viscants criticism is the prime source of critique for parrying. Basically, it waters down positioning games and homogenizes the cast into the same range. However, projectiles are weak in SF3 since they don't stun and do crap damage. Furthermore, parries make the game more about Player Vs Player rather than Character versus Character. It's also attributed to why low tier domination is so profound in this game even though the top tiers are so op *Cough*Ken*Cough*. The game is built around parries due to unblockables which 3S has a ton of.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 24, 2015 12:14:15 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Classic debate, viscants criticism is the prime source of critique for parrying. Basically, it waters down positioning games and homogenizes the cast into the same range. However, projectiles are weak in SF3 since they don't stun and do crap damage. Furthermore, parries make the game more about Player Vs Player rather than Character versus Character. It's also attributed to why low tier domination is so profound in this game even though the top tiers are so op *Cough*Ken*Cough*. The game is built around parries due to unblockables which 3S has a ton of.

Definitely classic. Mechanics being good or bad depends on how they are utilized. Parries are definitely up there with custom combos in terms of the powerful and game changing impact it has on how a game is played.

I'd say a game where characters have less options tend to be character vs character which SF's archetype style is definitely more of vs Kof or VF where it's player vs player.

SF3's entire run had a highly compressed top tier who were able to take the best advantage of parrying. This always happens with a mechanic this strong. Another complaint was the fact that the mind games end up being dumbed down because you have the most powerful defensive option at all times, even while jumping. Classic SF2 was often about putting your opponent in a web of situations to look out for which was nullfied by parrying since they could just parry and get a reward or miss and nothing happens (or a hit at best), which made the mind games go from being more advanced to being "well I thought he was going to do this and I was surprised". With being so dominant much of the game revolves around that mechanic and less on the character or situations you put them in.

Parrying doesn't have to be like that. CvS2 parries had a tighter window and you had other more dominant grooves so you could have characters like Balrog, Dhalsim, Vega, Sagat. At the same time if everyone played p groove you'd see characters top tier who could get the most mileage out of it, basically characters who could buffer into their parries and score high damage.

It's definitely an interesting discussion.

[JACK-2]

It depends on which type of mindgames. The positioning mind games are weak, but 3S is mostly about Mix up and has some of the best mix up game in SF. Specifically, Mix up's with unblockables. I don't even want to imagine 3s without parry when characters like Denjin Ryu, Remy and SA2 Oro are around.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to which style of games you want? Universal Mechanics with a more Player Vs Player emphasis or less mechanics with a Character versus character emphasis. The gameplay styles are very different and I like both. It's apples and oranges to me.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 24, 2015 12:44:43 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

It depends on which type of mindgames. The positioning mind games are weak, but 3S is mostly about Mix up and has some of the best mix up game in SF. Specifically, Mix up's with unblockables. I don't even want to imagine 3s without parry when characters like Denjin Ryu, Remy and SA2 Oro are around.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to which style of games you want? Universal Mechanics with a more Player Vs Player emphasis or less mechanics with a Character versus character emphasis. The gameplay styles are very different and I like both. It's apples and oranges to me.

I think many mixups were made weaker, because it still ends on the whole aspect of "I thought you were doing a, but you did b".

Especially in situations like I try a crossup and you just tap either direction right before the attack and you get a block or parry. There's less incentive to make an opponent jump because of jump parry and less of an incentive to force them to walk backwards. Many characters ended up getting some hybrid/grappler moveset. They weakened Ryu's fireballs in SFV but at least they hurt.

There are ways to deal with full unblockables on wakeup design wise by giving you a window or making those cost more meter. You could also have delayed wakeup ala CvS2 with Evil Ryu's fireball. SF4 had unblockables and I definitely don't think it was good. I think most of your mixup in SF3 is high, low, or throw because parrying removed a lot of options.

Now that doesn't make it a bad game. I wouldn't change 3s just like I wouldn't change Vism in SFA3 even though it was broken, but I do realize the impact it had on the game.

A move which costs no meter, can be done indefinitely, builds, meter, has no whiff animation, can be done in the air, and leads to huge reward definitely doesn't incrase character options or playstyles. It merges them together. I think that's why the og players complained about it so much.

[JACK-2]

Cross ups are character dependent, but since you mean air cross ups you're right about that it's watered down for shotos. But jump in can mean anything in 3s. It can be a parry bait as well, alot of times you just jump in and the person will move forward which leaves them free. Or you weren't doing a parry at all but an attack. There's alot of fake outs and anti-parrying where you think your opponent does A but he did B instead. Some characters do alot of jumping like oro because he has a double jump, air throw, air chicken kicks which lead to his bnb.

I don't think Delayed wake up would work because Denji Ryu's charge denjin has much more control than evil Ryu's. You also have much more time:



This video highlights alot of what I'm talking about. look at all the miss parries. When Kokujin walked into the denjin he was trying to parry. Frankie baited him. I like using this video as an example of how parries can be baited. The parry actually doesn't need a whiff animation because moving forward kinda left you open.

[JACK-2]

I forgot to add that most cross ups are done from the ground. 3s has an auto air recovery which you cna use to mix your opponent up since you could do a hard knockdown or the auto rec from a juggle. We see alot of on the ground cross ups.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Although even with Evil Ryu's fireball there is a time where you can get out of it on wakeup even if it is right on you.

The problem people had with parrying is that it forces you to play around the parry. You have no choice because it's just so overwhelmingly strong. Your basic mixup comes down to "I'm going to make him think I'm going to hit A, but I'm really going to hit B.". This is why people say the mindgame aspect is dumbed down because you have the most powerful defensive/offensive mechanic in fighting game history freely available to everyone at the press of a button. It's like giving everyone Geese's or Gouken's counter or something similar except you press a button with no combination and have no whiff animation, if you guess right you get a free combo. The risk is much lower than with a dp or something similar also.

There are many times where a person guesses wrong and eats huge damage just for attacking, even on a wakeup mixup. Some people might like that gameplay but I can see why some don't. If the parrying weren't so advantageous I think it could be fine, much like if Custom Combos weren't so rewarding those could be fine too. I'm not sure if the developers could do it. Then again just defend wasn't broken so I'm not sure.

I wonder how they'll handle SF5's parry with Ryu, his seems under control as the advantage isn't huge.

[JACK-2]

I guess the timing window is a tad bit different with CVS2 vs 3s. A delayed recovery would be ideal, but at the sametime you can tag the person on blockstun. But, yeah. Alot of people didn't like that unlike older games where you would build meter or position someone to a point where your best option was available. With parry it was always available. I think Garou was just a better game than 3s, that's why. SNK fighters have always been well made. Then again, parry's in double impact and new generation weren't that op. So, maybe it's a 3s thing.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 25, 2015 11:58:50 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I guess the timing window is a tad bit different with CVS2 vs 3s. A delayed recovery would be ideal, but at the sametime you can tag the person on blockstun. But, yeah. Alot of people didn't like that unlike older games where you would build meter or position someone to a point where your best option was available. With parry it was always available. I think Garou was just a better game than 3s, that's why. SNK fighters have always been well made. Then again, parry's in double impact and new generation weren't that op. So, maybe it's a 3s thing.

I'm almost certain you can escape Evil Ryu's fireball on wakeup but I'll check to make sure. In CvS2 you have delayed wake up, quick rise, roll, dodge, plus parry and just defend. No game had that amount of options and I don't think even the Denjin Hadoken would cover all of them either.

I am however surprised you said MOTW was better. I know it's a good game you just seemed to be very pro Third Strike and I'm used to the crazy fanboys worshiping that game.

Parrying in and of itself isn't bad, but I would never have a parry like 3s' parry ever again.

[JACK-2]

Does Evil Ryu's Metsu Hadouken charge like Denjin, though? Because I remember that the charge was automatic and you can't control it. Yeah, MOTW is a really good game and Just Defend is much more well made system. Even though, I love Third Strike it's definitely nowhere near the best. It's not even the best Street Fighter, Hyper Fighting is. It's slightly up there with CVS2 and Alpha 3. I think it's better than Alpha 1 and 2, but not 3.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 26, 2015 11:33:45 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Does Evil Ryu's Metsu Hadouken charge like Denjin, though? Because I remember that the charge was automatic and you can't control it. Yeah, MOTW is a really good game and Just Defend is much more well made system. Even though, I love Third Strike it's definitely nowhere near the best. It's not even the best Street Fighter, Hyper Fighting is. It's slightly up there with CVS2 and Alpha 3. I think it's better than Alpha 1 and 2, but not 3.

Well my point was that it doesn't hit you guaranteed if you have ways around it (I'll test that though, because I know it's a perfect sweep setup if I'm not mistaken). Either way CvS2 has many wakeup scenarios, and also people said they liked parrying because it got "rid" of fireball traps.

I'm surprised you said that. Why do you like Hyper Fighting the most? I think that SNK does many thing better and Capcom gets all of the credit when they steal it and do it worse.

Ah well.

[JACK-2]

Hyper Fighting is Street Fighter in it's purest form. That game is 100% fundamentals.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 26, 2015 17:28:00 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Hyper Fighting is Street Fighter in it's purest form. That game is 100% fundamentals.

I've heard people say that, but what do you mean when you say that?

[JACK-2]

Jun 26, 2015 18:53:27 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I've heard people say that, but what do you mean when you say that?

Hyperfighting and many OG fighting games were more barebones, they felt more pure. You could only win with fundamentals and fundamentals only. As opposed to over powered gimmicky universal mechanics like: supers, parries, and cc combined with projectiles that did less and less damage and did not stun. Were watering down the metagame.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 26, 2015 19:31:50 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 26, 2015 18:53:27 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I've heard people say that, but what do you mean when you say that?

Alot of people feel that the addition powerful of universal mechanics like: supers, parries, and cc combined with projectiles that did less and less damage and did not stun. Were watering down the metagame. Hyperfighting and many og fighting games were more backbones and felt more pure. You could only win with fundamentals and knowing your character as opposed to gimmicky universal mechanics.

Usually what I hear when I hear SF2 was the most "pure" one was that it had less "mechanics" although they did have supers later on. I don't think less is better necessarily. I loved CvS2 for it's vast options, but at the same time I don't like gimmick mechanics either. Modern fighting games feel the need to "throw" something in there just to attract new audiences or to say they did something different. This is what focus attack was, also Kof XIII would have been way better without HD combos. I like the less approach if it feels tacked on, but at the same time I like a lot of options.

Some people don't like the character emphasis of SF, some like a player emphasis, which is why I hold VF in high regard. I don't like losing at the character select screen. However I think that SF3 took away options by adding mechanics to make it more about "the player" since many character styles were lost, while I feel KoF adds to the amount of options while making it about the player.

Good stuff.

[JACK-2]

Yeah, I forgot to mention that my bad. SF2 is very character oriented and you often have match ups that are so bad you might as well put down the controller: Guile Vs O.Sagat in HF...that was horrible. Then you have play-styles that degenerate into flowchart because the character mechanics are so overpowered that everything boiled down to doing x when he does y. That's what I hate about SF2 and what I love about 3, the parries get rid of flowchart gameplay.

I don't want it to seem like I hate Universal mechanics, because I don't. I love Super Arts from SF3 for example and V-ism or A-Groove. But, early supers were just auto combos as opposed to manual combos where you needed timing on your inputs you just did one input and you got an automatic combo. Later on, they added cinematic elements to make them look "Cool". But, eventually they figured it out and made Supers compliment your gameplay. I prefer how SF3 uses meter which is why it's my favorite SF game among many other reasons. I'm not a SF2 purist and I think balancing between mechanics that tilt the game from Player to Player and Character to Character is good. Too bad SF4 is more about Scrub Vs Scrub lol.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 26, 2015 19:50:57 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Yeah, I forgot to mention that my bad. SF2 is very character oriented and you often have match ups that are so bad you might as well put down the controller: Guile Vs O.Sagat in HF...that was horrible. Then you have play-styles that degenerate into flowchart because the character mechanics are so overpowered that everything boiled down to doing x when he does y. That's what I hate about SF2 and what I love about 3, the parries get rid of flowchart gameplay.

I don't want it to seem like I hate Universal mechanics, because I don't. I love Super Arts from SF3 for example and V-ism or A-Groove. But, early supers were just auto combos as opposed to manual combos where you needed timing on your inputs you just did one input and you got an automatic combo. Later on, they added cinematic elements to make them look "Cool". But, eventually they figured it out and made Supers compliment your gameplay. I prefer how SF3 uses meter which is why it's my favorite SF game among many other reasons. I'm not a SF2 purist and I think balancing between mechanics that tilt the game from Player to Player and Character to Character is good. Too bad SF4 is more about Scrub Vs Scrub lol.

Ok, I thought I read you wrong at first. So you think Hyper Fighting was the best example of an SF game, but you prefer 3s.

I definitely don't like flow chart gameplay. I like that SF was about positioning and deep mindgames, but when characters are so deficient you might as well not pick them in many matches and it can hurt the game. I think SF2 required more honesty and thought in this regard vs SF4, although SF4 was more balanced it had more braindead gameplay.

I think KOf XIII beat SF3 in this regard, it gave characters universal mechanics without making them play identical but at the same time you had options. I think it was because you had a better risk/reward system with the defensive mechanics. You didn't always want to spend the meter on GCCD or GCAB. You didn't want to roll at a bad time or you would be punished. Things like that. I think that's what SF3 could have done better along with balance. Give a better risk assessment on the parry mechanic.

Virtua Fighter found a way to do everything mechanically sound. I wish it was on PC and it's a shame people respect it but never play it.

[JACK-2]

How do you think MOTW stacks up against KOF XIII?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 26, 2015 21:12:33 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

How do you think MOTW stacks up against KOF XIII?

I'd probably be better comparing Kof XIII to Kof 98 and Kof 2002 because of the engines.

Kof 98 was the SF2 of the games, it was the most simplistic and had the most neutral specific style gameplay. You had combos but the game wasn't focused around them and they were quick and to the point. The game had more mobility than SF2 and many more characters. People like this for the reason people like SF2. Also characters had plenty of moves in this game that were missing in XIII.

Kof 2002 gave you more mobility and combos while still having the neutral focus. You still had the moves and strong anti air normals, but you had a max mode now which was a custom combo system. This allowed you to do more damage but the game wasn't built around it like Kof XIII was built around drive cancels. This was the in-between point of 98 and XIII in terms of design.

Kof XIII gave the characters a makeover and while it was a great game it took a step back in gameplay. The weaker normals and neutral game put the focus very heavily on the corner and landing extended combos. HD mode was the centerpiece of the game and allowed you to do touch of death combos or more practically "80% from a low poke" combos. This drastically shifted the playstyle and jumping was also rewarded more due to weaker ground normals. Single hits did less damage also which left you in a situation where you outplayed someone and they won out of attrition because they had more meter.

A great one, but it's the Marvel of the series and I'd say it's the worst "good" KoF for this reason.

[gstar]

I like the parry system in sf3..its good for offense and defensive measures.Stops anti-airs...chip damage by supers and specials..it stops one dimensional play.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 30, 2015 7:13:44 GMT -5 gstar said:

I like the parry system in sf3..its good for offense and defensive measures.Stops anti-airs...chip damage by supers and specials..it stops one dimensional play.

That's what I don't like about it. I don't like that a person can make a bad jump and still counter a well timed anti air. I don't think chip is generally too overpowering but in SF5 you can't kill with special chip anymore.

I do feel that parrying makes the game more one dimensional since it renders many play styles obsolete and homogenizes the cast. The game becomes less about using the stage and your mind against the opponent in a multi leveled way and all about beating the parry and guessing. Games with a powerful parry mechanic have a much more tight top tier and much less diversity. Characters who use parrying the best are the best characters.

This all comers down to how the game is done though. Parrying can work fine if it has a larger penalty, cost, startup time, or something else. Just defend was executed fine, but 3s parrying was just too much. Reminds me of V-Ism custom combos. They could work if they weren't so overpowered in implementation.

[JACK-2]

Jun 30, 2015 8:14:52 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That's what I don't like about it. I don't like that a person can make a bad jump and still counter a well timed anti air. I don't think chip is generally too overpowering but in SF5 you can't kill with special chip anymore.

I do feel that parrying makes the game more one dimensional since it renders many play styles obsolete and homogenizes the cast. The game becomes less about using the stage and your mind against the opponent in a multi leveled way and all about beating the parry and guessing. Games with a powerful parry mechanic have a much more tight top tier and much less diversity. Characters who use parrying the best are the best characters.

This all comers down to how the game is done though. Parrying can work fine if it has a larger penalty, cost, startup time, or something else. Just defend was executed fine, but 3s parrying was just too much. Reminds me of V-Ism custom combos. They could work if they weren't so overpowered in implementation.

What's interesting is that at the sametime 3s is known for it's low tier domination whilst having a good top tier. Because it has a large mid-tier. I'll add to what you said, imo it's less about the stage and characters but more about your opponent. I take it you prefer Character Vs Character type games vs Player Vs Player? But, you also dislike flowcharts. I think less mechanics equals better mind games. Third Strike unfortunately doesn't have the real mind games that are based on reaction to what your opponent does rather it's on anticipation, you have to guess too much. [Granted it's a skill, like Psychic DP.] But, you can't do elaborate stuff like: Safe jumping, Meaties, and Press Advantage properly.

I don't have a prefrence, even though I love 3s.

[JACK-2]

Jun 30, 2015 7:13:44 GMT -5 gstar said:

I like the parry system in sf3..its good for offense and defensive measures.Stops anti-airs...chip damage by supers and specials..it stops one dimensional play.

Cons: It destroys the archetypes: Ranged character, Charge character, poke character, etc. Destroys positioning games and homogenizes gameplay.

Pros: No flowchart gameplay, with character playstles watered down it's more about the player.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 30, 2015 11:37:54 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 30, 2015 8:14:52 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That's what I don't like about it. I don't like that a person can make a bad jump and still counter a well timed anti air. I don't think chip is generally too overpowering but in SF5 you can't kill with special chip anymore.

I do feel that parrying makes the game more one dimensional since it renders many play styles obsolete and homogenizes the cast. The game becomes less about using the stage and your mind against the opponent in a multi leveled way and all about beating the parry and guessing. Games with a powerful parry mechanic have a much more tight top tier and much less diversity. Characters who use parrying the best are the best characters.

This all comers down to how the game is done though. Parrying can work fine if it has a larger penalty, cost, startup time, or something else. Just defend was executed fine, but 3s parrying was just too much. Reminds me of V-Ism custom combos. They could work if they weren't so overpowered in implementation.

What's interesting is that at the sametime 3s is known for it's low tier domination whilst having a good top tier. Because it has a large mid-tier. I'll add to what you said, imo it's less about the stage and characters but more about your opponent. I take it you prefer Character Vs Character type games vs Player Vs Player? But, you also dislike flowcharts. I think less mechanics equals better mind games. Third Strike unfortunately doesn't have the real mind games that are based on reaction to what your opponent does rather it's on anticipation, you have to guess too much. [Granted it's a skill, like Psychic DP.] But, you can't do elaborate stuff like: Safe jumping, Meaties, and Press Advantage properly.

I don't have a prefrence, even though I love 3s.

Well one of the reasons I like Kof XIII and VF more than SF4 was because it was less about the character. I don't mind character games, but I just don't want silly 8-2 matches or anything of the sort. That said the archetype style of SF can have its pros and cons. VF is going to be about the character as much as you can get. The difference with the SF3 approach and the KoF XIII and VF approach was that you still had lots of options in those games whereas parrying was so strong that it just neutered a lot of options. I'd like options more than anything.

I don't like playstyles becoming useless or characters becoming useless, because if certain matchups are hard in SF2 style I think mechanics making characters useless is worse.


I think mechanics can lead to mind games if done properly, just not fluffy mechanics or op stuff. I mean I remember Frisky saying Ultras were good because "once you got one it changed the matchup". I hate that artificial style of mind game where you just shut down an opponents options just because.

[JACK-2]

Well, I don't think parry's where as blatantly scrubby as ultra's though. It's sad to see people O.K. with mechanic that rewards poor behavior to the extant of Ultra's. At least parry's had some level of skill. Ultra is completely brain dead.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 30, 2015 15:16:57 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Well, I don't think parry's where as blatantly scrubby as ultra's though. It's sad to see people O.K. with mechanic that rewards poor behavior to the extant of Ultra's. At least parry's had some level of skill. Ultra is completely brain dead.

Well Ultras just rewarded you for losing and shut down options while allowing randomness. CvS2 had parries and didn't have the aforementioned problems since they toned it down quite a bit.