IS 2D fighting dead, or just dying?

Kyosuke Kagami · Post by **Kyosuke Kagami** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 06:55

both of you clearly missed my point. SNKP is (generally) seen as some kinda thing that got stuck in 1996. In the other hand, no one complains about Arc Sys or any other developer.

Blake B · Post by **Blake B** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 07:05

I see....that's probally cuz arc systems isn't really that mainstream as far as i know, so maybe people don't complain about them for 2 reasons:

1) Not many people know of their work
2) The games they make are of good quality

Gojira · Post by **Gojira** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 07:33

Well, I complain about Arc Systems. You better fucking believe I do.

Anyway, 2D fighters are not dead, but outside of a few Asian countries, they will NEVER regain the popularity they once had. That's the bottom line. They don't get exposure. They don't get magazine covers. They don't get respect from 1st parties, who at best will "allow" 2D fighters to come out on their console while they allow huge promotions on the latest FPS. Combine all that and there is no audience building for 2D fighters; at best it can just hold strong and preach to the choir. The people that play 2D fighters will play 2D fighters. The people that make 2D fighters will probably make 2D fighters. But outside of those two groups you're not going to find very many people who are interested.

So they're not dead, and they're not dying. They're just not going to get any more popular or profitable.

Apathy Wind · Post by **Apathy Wind** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 16:27

When discussing the decline of the 2D fighter one of the things you have to consider is how they appeal to new players. The sad fact is that 2D fighters simply aren't 'user friendly' to gamers without 2D experience. A causal fan trying a new fighter is going to want to be able to do some 'cool moves' while playing with friends and most 2D fighters require a through knowledge of joystick motions, timing, game mechanics, and character variance to be able to do anything interesting. Inversely, most 3D fighters yield aesthetic results from just button mashing and/or multiple button strikes.

This is not to say that 3D fighters don't have depth - it's just that their low end gameplay is far more interesting to newbies than most 2D offerings. And this initial interest is going promote a players desire to stick with the title and spend the time necessary to actually learn the game and discover it's depth and value. Everyone here is so schooled in the ways of 2D that this is no longer an issue for us but think of a non genre gamer - are they going to be more inclined to take the time to learn a game where a couple button presses yield a flashy combo string or a game where those same efforts give you a pair of straight punches with Ryu? The only people that are going to give a new 2D fighter time are established fans of the genre (they have a foot in the door for gameplay purposes and can readily pick said new game up).

The point is that 2D fighters today have limited exposure and offer little in the way of immediate appeal to non-genre players (via the supposedly 'outdated' graphics and the complexity to learn the games). Add these issues together and there is no market for these games outside of the established fan base. I don't know if developers can turn things around but I agree with Gojira's statement that 2D will never regain it's former worldwide popularity. But as long as there are some fans willing to spend money on such games, someone will still be willing to make them. And as long as new 2D fighters are being made then there's always hope that one might come out that revitalizes the genre.

Blake B · Post by **Blake B** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 04:00

Wow, A-wind......maybe you're right. Let's just see can a developer put out that 2D fighter that will bring it back, even though it's highly unlikely..

ctrl+awesome · Post by **ctrl+awesome** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 05:25

Apathy Wind wrote:...And as long as new 2D fighters are being made then there's always hope that one might come out that revitalizes the genre.

Assumeing such a game is a success and not a hidden gem which in a sad truth I feel most all SNK and Sammy games to be in America.

Blake B · Post by **Blake B** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 05:30

THE SAD FACT: 2D fighters are kinda like nintendo now in my opinion.
Back then everyone liked it, and the second some new things come, and it's popularity fades....good examples would be the N64 & GC. 2 very good systems, but never got the attention it deserves...much like alot of 2D fighters nowadays like Guilty gear

Vice Vecta · Post by **Vice Vecta** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 05:43

Apathy Wind wrote:Inversely, most 3D fighters yield aesthetic results from just button mashing and/or multiple button strikes.

This is not to say that 3D fighters don't have depth - it's just that their low end gameplay is far more interesting to newbies than most 2D offerings. And this initial interest is going promote a players desire to stick with the title and spend the time necessary to actually learn the game and discover it's depth and value.

I beg to differ there. Some 3D fighters like Tekken are very very complex and with lots of movements per character, including combination of buttons, motions, timing, button secuence and/or timing, not to mention some effects vary with counter effects and so on. I can say at least Tekken is as complex in gameplay as any 2D.

Granted, there's character that are friendly handling like Lili, Eddy, Paul, etc. but the same: KOF for example have very simple characters that can be dangerous such as Ralf, Clark or Chang. So, i think in gameplay both have huge depth and also the same learning curve.

My ex-gf, for instance, didn't find a problem in learning Tekken (she used a fairly good Christie) and KOF (she found herself quite comfortable with Ralf, , Terry and Vanessa in KOF XI)

Post by **SonicTempest** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 06:21

You kind of missed his point. He was saying that on average, 3D fighting games tend to be easier to pick up for the new player, and it's easier to do flashy or cool-looking stuff in those games than it is in a game like, say, GGXX or KOF XI.

Vice Vecta · Post by **Vice Vecta** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 06:36

well... yeah, counting that there are other 3D's such as VF, DoA (yuck!), Bloody Roar etc etc etc

Kyosuke Kagami · Post by **Kyosuke Kagami** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 06:45

KOF XI, hard to pick? Good laugh over there.

Post by **SonicTempest** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 06:54

Vice Vecta wrote:well... yeah, counting that there are other 3D's such as VF, DoA (yuck!), Bloody Roar etc etc etc

What AW said applies to just about any 3D fighter - for a complete newbie, it is easier to do "cool-looking stuff" in 3D fighters than in 2D fighters, regardless of whether that stuff actually has any gameplay value or not.

KK: What do you mean?

Kyosuke Kagami · Post by **Kyosuke Kagami** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 07:17

What I meant: any KOF (including XI) isn't a hard game to pick and get used to. You can relatively do the (supposedly) complicated shit in days... even hours.

I'd believe it from SS, LB or Garou, but NOT from a KOF.

And that's why KOF is still sorta popular in lots of places: people doesn't need to kill their neurones to play it.

Post by **SonicTempest** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 07:37

That may be true for people who have had exposure to fighting games, but I can tell you, as a relatively new KOF player (I started in 2000) it took me a really long time before I was even able to say that I knew how to play the game - and by that I mean, playing with some strategy in mind, knowing what weapons you have at your disposal, and knowing what your opponent is going to try to do, and so on.

No newbie is going to be able to do that in just a few days.

Kyosuke Kagami · Post by **Kyosuke Kagami** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 07:40

believe me, you got no idea

I've seen lotsa people here that started with 2002 and they quickly learned how to do the really stupid stuff in days.