Do Combos Weaken Depth In Games?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

This is a branch off of another discussion and something I've wanted to talk about for some time.

I notice there's a divide in games, specifically between people who love execution and a newer age of players who think that execution and combos hurt the game and make it "dumb".


How do you feel on this issue? Do you feel it enhances it, weakens it, or that it has no effect on it?

[JACK-2]

I think it depends. If a game is 100% combo oriented like Marvel or most Air-dash fighters and Arc system games then I feel the meta game is "different". It becomes extremely offensive with huge stages that make it hard to control space and watering down positioning.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well I'd definitely say that GG is a lot deeper and more difficult to grasp than SF. It has a lot more meaningful options and a lot more tech to be aware of during gameplay which takes a long time to even learn. Marvel on the other hand is more simplistic but the mechanics and the characters often solve too many matchups too easily which restricts options.

Combos are nothing but extensions of normal hits. Combos can add to the depth at times by allowing you to get better positioning and damage where you normally couldn't off of a move you normally couldn't. Say you have a single hit game with high damage, and the only way you can get a hard knockdown is off of a sweep, in a game with combos you might be able to get it off of a jab, but with lower damage if you combo into it. That adds to depth IMO.

Some games try to be flashy and over the top but like the discussion we had before, often these supers and other moves come at the expense of weakening normals and basic specials. Recall that SF2 had very high damage and stun and 3-4 hits could do 60% damage. The mechanics were different so that it wasn't entirely combo focused but neutral focused.

I think people see "neutral" and "defensive play" like you get in SF to be "smarter" than more aggressive games for some reason.

[JACK-2]

Well, if it's legitimate like SF2 than I see why. Air dash fighters often have stages that are huge and the characters can easily dash over projectiles making them harder to shutdown the opponents options. Aggressive games tend to be entirely combo oriented which I feel is not as satisfying as pressing advantage and space control. Combos only add depth if they add to positioning, but that's neither here no there since they may or may not.

You think GG is more technical than SF? I dunno If I can agree with that. But, what exactly in GG is deeper than SF2: HF?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 9, 2016 17:56:17 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Well, if it's legitimate like SF2 than I see why. Air dash fighters often have stages that are huge and the characters can easily dash over projectiles making them harder to shutdown the opponents options. Aggressive games tend to be entirely combo oriented which I feel is not as satisfying as pressing advantage and space control. Combos only add depth if they add to positioning, but that's neither here no there since they may or may not.

You think GG is more technical than SF? I dunno If I can agree with that. But, what exactly in GG is deeper than SF2: HF?

What do you mean by "legitimate" though? why is SF more legitimate than GG for instance? VF has combos that do huge damage too.

Space control is only one essence of a fighting game. Keep in mind footsies have just as much guesswork as mixups do, if not more. A human can't react to a 5 or 6 frame normal. So they have no choice but to guess the patterns of the opponent and push the right button at the right time. In mixups you have to guess your opponents tendencies and avoid those as well.

SF has too many matchups where the characters are solved because their mechanics are limited vs other characters which means there's not a lot you can do. This is less of a problem in games like Kof. Also certain mechanics can cause this problem like parrying which shuts down other characters in certain games. GG has WAY more mechanics to learn and to understand and more meaningful options compared to SF which is very simple. SF is probably the easiest competition class fighter.

Custom Combos were broken but not because they were combos, they were invincible on start up with an easy command, did huge damage, and broke guard which gave too many advantages. Certain characters like 3s Chun Li are top tier and she's not a super aggressive character. How is losing to overpowered normals better than overpowered mixups?

[JACK-2]

*By legitimate I mean not like SF4 which has fake defense nonsense to make the game seem defensive.

*Well, back in the day the difference between Mix ups and Footsies was whether you were punishing off reaction or off anticipation. If you're anticipating then it would count as a mix up. I dunno if people still observe those rules. But, if you're going off attacks with one or two frames then it would be mix up. But, you know dumb people can be and will claim they can react to 1 frame jabs lol.

*Space control and positioning are the most important essence for myself because it's the one that determines the priority of your moves, dictates set ups and ultimately what's the best option at any given moment. Like if an opponent has a move with a long recovery animation and he misjudges the distance he's essentially free.

*Well, yeah. Custom Combos had other properties that normal combos did not have. You could build pressure insanely fast and they had start up invincibility frames.

*Alot of people say that limited character options are rectified by parry and universal mechanics to make it work. Some matches are bad like Guile versus Sagat. I think they were doable, but too much limitations make it too much about counter picking.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 9, 2016 18:16:08 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

*By legitimate I mean not like SF4 which has fake defense nonsense to make the game seem defensive.

*Well, back in the day the difference between Mix ups and Footsies was whether you were punishing off reaction or off anticipation. If you're anticipating then it would count as a mix up. I dunno if people still observe those rules. But, if you're going off attacks with one or two frames then it would be mix up. But, you know dumb people can be and will claim they can react to 1 frame jabs lol.

*Space control and positioning are the most important essence for myself because it's the one that determines the priority of your moves, dictates set ups and ultimately what's the best option at any given moment. Like if an opponent has a move with a long recovery animation and he misjudges the distance he's essentially free.

*Well, yeah. Custom Combos had other properties that normal combos did not have. You could build pressure insanely fast and they had start up invincibility frames.

*Alot of people say that limited character options are rectified by parry and universal mechanics to make it work. Some matches are bad like Guile versus Sagat. I think they were doable, but too much limitations make it too much about counter picking.

Well I think it comes down to mechanics polluting certain games. SF2 Akuma was banned because he was broken. He solved too many match ups which weakened depth and hurt the balance. I don't think the style was it.


I personally prefer a balanced approach. Some like Kof 98, some like 02, and some like Kof XIII.

98 took the SF2 approach. Simple but space focused with strong move sets and normals.
2002 has more combo options and approaches to a match with more movesets, I like this the most although I like all of them.
Kof XIII was still good but it had weaker normals and a strong focus on "touch of death" HD combos. This approach wasn't liked as much by old school gamers.


SF4 had a footsie approach and wasn't as combo heavy as Marvel but the mechanics polluted the game too much. Focus attack hurt footsies badly. CvS2 was worse in balance but was deeper and had a stronger footsie game because the mechanics didn't hurt it.

I think space control is one element and footsies is generally seen as reaction and prediction. Counter hits are seen as important as whiff punishing. Even then it's hard to whiff punish some normals like Akuma's sweep in SF4 because of the recovery despite it starting up 1f slower than Ryu's in startup. It was safer on block and had much higher reward when he landed it.

Mixups are fine as long as they don't become too rewarding or ridiculous, much like neutral. I don't like Ibuki in SF4 just like I don't like SF3s Chun.

I find universal mechanics helps cover a character's weakspots ala Kof if it's done properly. The characters still have to be well rounded as SF4 had universal mechanics. Many people then argue that the characters are "too identical" while SF4 has like 15 shotos lol.

[JACK-2]

So, would you say you prefer more aggressive combo oriented gameplay? I like games with strong normals and more traditional spacing emphasis like SF2 and KOF 98.
I think it depends how the game is made, universal mechanics can bring alot of problems than solutions, but it seems SNK has never had problems with their Universal Mechanics like Capcom has had. There mechanics tend to be broken or hurt some part of the meta game versus SNK games.


Whiff punishing normals is tough. I feel they are anticipation based, that is you have to be used to facing someone who throws out normals and know when they are going to do it. There are really not too many things you can punish off reaction only. I don't get why people keep acting as if there is. Glad your honest, because there are people who think you can react to less than 5 frames off reaction. So, glad I quit SRK.

What kind of mix ups are too powerful in your opinion?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 9, 2016 18:44:54 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

So, would you say you prefer more aggressive combo oriented gameplay? I like games with strong normals and more traditional spacing emphasis like SF2 and KOF 98.
I think it depends how the game is made, universal mechanics can bring alot of problems than solutions, but it seems SNK has never had problems with their Universal Mechanics like Capcom has had. There mechanics tend to be broken or hurt some part of the meta game versus SNK games.


Whiff punishing normals is tough. I feel they are anticipation based, that is you have to be used to facing someone who throws out normals and know when they are going to do it. There are really not too many things you can punish off reaction only. I don't get why people keep acting as if there is. Glad your honest, because there are people who think you can react to less than 5 frames off reaction. So, glad I quit SRK.

What kind of mix ups are too powerful in your opinion?

Like I said I like a balanced approach. Not too lame like SF4 but not too aggressive like Marvel. I just notice that SF heads like to say that SF2 style of gameplay is "deeper" but even they had the Alpha series and aggressive games have been around for a long time too.

Capcom has problems with their mechanics because the games are too character based. The mechanics on the limited characters can push them over too much.

You have to predict and anticipate (which is guessing). Mixups and footsies only become overpowered when the reward is too strong. I use the gun in a fistfight analogy. When you can just use a gun, why not use that option if it will solve everything with little effort? If a character had a 3f 1hk jab attack that was unblockable it would be as much bs as an infinite mixup loop or some other nonsense.

I guess I've always been an all around guy.

Lol you can't react to 5 frames. Even 15 frames is pushing it for most. You can read patterns and guess, but you're guessing and not reacting. SRK is dumb for how elitist it is.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I just wanted to add that SF2 had its share of bullshit too. Who can forget Vega and his vortex style mixups? Way more deadly than SF4 stuff and it made him top tier. None of these games are safe.

[spliffybaz]

Depends on the game, but I personally prefer combos to have some sort of decently challenging execution to damage output ratio. SF5 combos feel really shitty and I wish that wasn't the case. If a game has a really weak feeling combo system it's hard to get overly excited about playing or watching the game. Combos in fighting games have been around since the 90's and aren't going anywhere even if Capcom is trying to nerf them out of their games. Playing the spacing game is not enjoyable for me, it's a fighting game so quit running!

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 11, 2016 15:42:14 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

Depends on the game, but I personally prefer combos to have some sort of decently challenging execution to damage output ratio. SF5 combos feel really shitty and I wish that wasn't the case. If a game has a really weak feeling combo system it's hard to get overly excited about playing or watching the game. Combos in fighting games have been around since the 90's and aren't going anywhere even if Capcom is trying to nerf them out of their games. Playing the spacing game is not enjoyable for me, it's a fighting game so quit running!

I can agree to an extent I like a well balanced combo to damage to challenge ratio. People like different playstyles and I don't think "spacing" is somehow superior to rushdown or mixups.

How far do you like the combos to go? Into anime/Marvel territory?

[spliffybaz]

Anime/marvel is really insane, but SF Alpha 3 levels, kof xiii, CVS2, SF4 was ok combo wise.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 12, 2016 15:14:42 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

Anime/marvel is really insane, but SF Alpha 3 levels, kof xiii, CVS2, SF4 was ok combo wise.

You and I are on the same page. Though I will say that broken combo mechanics can hurt a game. I know one of the main complaints of Kof XIII was that it turned the game into "Marvel" with the HD system. I want options but I don't want luck confirms either, as much as I love CvS2 and A3.

You wouldn't like classic Samurai Showdown then?

[spliffybaz]

SS might be alright I played it a bit back in the day. Combos shouldnt be broken ofc, but SF lame masher system I don't enjoy. KOF TOD combos are damn epic, i'm sure they wont be in KOF14.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 12, 2016 15:33:11 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

SS might be alright I played it a bit back in the day. Combos shouldnt be broken ofc, but SF lame masher system I don't enjoy. KOF TOD combos are damn epic, i'm sure they wont be in KOF14.

It's more of a 1 hit system.

I'm sure Kof XIV will have combos but more like older games where normals were better and did more damage and you weren't so jump happy. I prefer the balanced approach of the older games but Kof XIII is still good.

Do you like long combos in simple games like DBZ Budokai?

[spliffybaz]

I don't play those kinda games.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 12, 2016 18:30:30 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

I don't play those kinda games.

They did have some very innovative ideas. Some of the newer versions had combos but I liked how you had pet assists in that game, like Galford for instance.

Why are combos so important to you in a game? If you had high damage normals that were strong instead of combos, the game would be unplayable to you?

I'm legitimately curious is all since others hold the opposite view. SF4 has combos but the damage is shit compared to many old school fighters and ultras give high reward without the execution requirements and are based on comebacks. SF4 has combos but I have many problems with the systems in that game.

[spliffybaz]

I don't want a game with just normals there have been combos since the early 90's, if scrubs want a normals only game i'm fine with letting them have that. Please be sure to tell me which modern fighter actually has no combos and only normals and does well in sales or tournament numbers.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 13, 2016 11:58:02 GMT -5 spliffybaz said:

I don't want a game with just normals there have been combos since the early 90's, if scrubs want a normals only game i'm fine with letting them have that. Please be sure to tell me which modern fighter actually has no combos and only normals and does well in sales or tournament numbers.

Well Mk and Smash outsell everything else so I wouldn't use that as quality. Smash didn't have true "combos" in the earlier entries, yet they are super popular and have a scene.

I am just trying to understand the polarizing view points. Is Dbz Budokai a deep fighter since the combos are long?

Some fighters have a more aggressive element to them and some are more spacing heavy. I don't see one as superior to the other. Just preference.

[azik21]

No effect to the depth of the game. I'd say set play lowers the depth significantly because all you need to learn is a setup. Yatagarasu has no combos/execution but its still very hard to win against good players. Melee is probably the most difficult fighter but it doesn't have long combos. Kof isn't considered hard because of long combos and execution.. Most of the difficulty comes from its flexible neutral game

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 13, 2016 15:40:29 GMT -5 azik21 said:

No effect to the depth of the game. I'd say set play lowers the depth significantly because all you need to learn is a setup. Yatagarasu has no combos/execution but its still very hard to win against good players. Melee is probably the most difficult fighter but it doesn't have long combos. Kof isn't considered hard because of long combos and execution.. Most of the difficulty comes from its flexible neutral game

Many Smash players say Melee is the hardest. Could you elaborate why?

[azik21]

Jan 13, 2016 15:55:46 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Jan 13, 2016 15:40:29 GMT -5 azik21 said:

No effect to the depth of the game. I'd say set play lowers the depth significantly because all you need to learn is a setup. Yatagarasu has no combos/execution but its still very hard to win against good players. Melee is probably the most difficult fighter but it doesn't have long combos. Kof isn't considered hard because of long combos and execution.. Most of the difficulty comes from its flexible neutral game

Many Smash players say Melee is the hardest. Could you elaborate why?

I'd say execution overall.  The fundamentals aren't hard but the execution required for movement is a little absurd.  Melee is kinda like marvel to me; whoever has the best movement normally wins.  Theres a lot of execution monsters in melee scene but they don't win so this is pretty debatable.   

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 13, 2016 16:09:40 GMT -5 azik21 said:

Jan 13, 2016 15:55:46 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Many Smash players say Melee is the hardest. Could you elaborate why?

I'd say execution overall.  The fundamentals aren't hard but the execution required for movement is a little absurd.  Melee is kinda like marvel to me; whoever has the best movement normally wins.  Theres a lot of execution monsters in melee scene but they don't win so this is pretty debatable.   

So you say that execution is still important. Many see it as "dumb" which is what gets me.

I will say many do find the execution in Kof hard. I think all of the fighters have their challenge spots though.

Combos can have emphasis on hit confirms, meter management, and positioning so there is some depth there.

[azik21]

Depth of a game should be based more on getting the hit

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jan 13, 2016 16:13:53 GMT -5 azik21 said:

Depth of a game should be based more on getting the hit

Why does it stop there? If I have to analyze and guess when to make a hit how is that depth but meter management and hit confirms aren't? Some people have a harder time reacting to normals just like some have a hard time confirming from certain normals. If positioning your normals is important why not the hits?

If I want to combo my opponent further but for less damage to put them near the corner or out of the ring why doesn't that count?

Smash is all about using hits to gain positioning isn't it?

I am just asking both sides their view.

[azik21]

Jan 13, 2016 16:23:27 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Jan 13, 2016 16:13:53 GMT -5 azik21 said:

Depth of a game should be based more on getting the hit

Why does it stop there? If I have to analyze and guess when to make a hit how is that depth but meter management and hit confirms aren't? Some people have a harder time reacting to normals just like some have a hard time confirming from certain normals. If positioning your normals is important why not the hits?

If I want to combo my opponent further but for less damage to put them near the corner or out of the ring why doesn't that count?

Smash is all about using hits to gain positioning isn't it?

I am just asking both sides their view.

I wrote that out wrong.  I meant the difficulty of the game not the depth.  Depth and difficulty are actually very different things....  I'll have to come back to this post when I think about it more

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

People see depth like an onion, the more you go in the deeper it gets but the deepest parts take experience to enjoy so I would say there is a correlation to an extent. You could have dumb difficulty or fake depth as well. SF4 was big on that.