Can you teach a Fighting Game?

[Empyrian]

I am of the thinking that while a FG can be learnt, it can not be taught.
The learning process/practical lessons are of paramount importance.

I also think that so-called pointers by *experts* (subject to intrepretation but most often the immediate person who whacked you silly just now.) though useful is not the most important thing.

So people who told me that they received revelations from experts are taken with a grain of salt. I am more inclined to believe that its more of a progession of your own skill level and that fact that you can understand/agree on what the expert said meant that you yourself is due for a gameplay tweak in the first place. It is going to happen whether with or without external inputs.

A lot of stuff like pointers, combo and v.s. vids can only be deigned as a reference.

Anyway, the most important thing to mastering a FG is the ability to cut along the grain of a piece of wood.
This means you gain the ability to attack the weakness of the opponent and use it to win. Of course you can cut across the grain but you really want to make things more diffcult for yourself?

*Minor rant*
I also heard that people are turned off by FGs in part of its complexity (which they will never admit as everyone believes FGs are brain dead in application.)
but more towards the newbie unfriendliness adopted by FGers? Is it true?

[Eczema]

One of the most appealing aspects of FGs for me is when I first start playing them. Seeing some cool DM-type move for the first time is memorable, and learning each and every character is fun too. However, most FGs are quite easy to master, IMO, and most gamers should be able to pwn the CPU easily after about a week.

[SonicTempest]

I don't think you can literally TEACH someone what to do in every given situation in a fighting game, since those situations could be infinite in number. The basics of any given game engine can be taught, as well as perhaps basic gameplans for individual characters, but the rest is entirely up to the player to implement and observe for him/herself.

For instance, a player does not learn to Dust Loop just by reading about it - he reads about it, practises the motion at home, then goes to the arcade and tries out the various setups until he finds out one that works for him consistently and reliably.

Or, to use a KOF analogy if you will, perhaps one with a more personal slant. After KOF2002 came out and the Singapore players group at ON was founded, I spent more time than usual watching how people play and trying to learn from them, rather than having anyone teach me explicitly (although maybe PS might suggest that he was my "teacher" for a while ). Even then, PS only told me pretty much the bare minimum - what sort of playing style to use for certain characters, which moves/combos were useful in what situations, and so on. As most people should know, knowing something and using it in the heat of a match are two totally different things. Just knowing that Terry's +C is a good anti-air doesn't mean that you will be able to anti-air 100% with it every time right from the get-go.

I guess my main point (aside from the rambling) is that fighting game basics can be taught but much of the learning must be done by oneself, either by watching people play or challenging them yourself.

[Xenogias]

Well, when I got back into fighting games back in '97, I had a friend, Robert, who taught me alot about priorities, poking games, mix ups and stuff like that. Because back in the days, I just knew how to play the games, but I didn't understand any of the fancy exploits, frames and all that other "Technical" stuff that people look for in fighting games.

After that, I started picking up some things by myself though. Like back in the days of SF2, for example, I would play Charge characters... by charging. But I never thought of (let me use guile as an example) charging back while performing a jump kick, so that when I land I could do a close range fierce punch and then just simply press forward+punch to make the sonic boom combo in.

I pretty much came back to the fighting scene around Alpha Series, but to be honest I hated SF Alpha, that is, untill Alpha 3 came out (I still hate the previous Alpha games though).

So in a way, someone can teach you more advanced things about the games, and I beleive my buddy Robert coulda taught me more if I didn't figure it all out by myself (by hanging out on web-site and communities like this).

[PaGaN 3l3m3nts]

It's simple... Someone can teach you moves, teach you combos, teach you techniques. But it's up to you to practice these things enough so that they aren't things you think about or recall, but things that you do naturally in the appropriate situation.

[Empyrian]

Eczema: NO, FGs are easy to play yet diffcult to master. No other gaming genre features that much movement of the hands + thinking. No FPS, RPGs, racing games, sim games can surpass this.

Although we are told that people are made equal, I do believe that people's potential and propensity to play are finite. No offense to anyone but bar any sudden skill level increase in your local arcades or you signed a pact with Orochi, you can get stuck at a certain level and cannot/find it hard to advance further.

What am I saying? >_<

I was just looking back and was not really glad that I followed some *expert* pointers from yesteryears when I was still a noob which did not work out.

Then I discovered that most often, these experts/better players are trying to transform you into their clone albeit subtly.

You get beaten by someone. You asked him for opinions/he is so nice to teach you instead, FOC. Good news? Heh. He told you you are too predictable/rush too much.

So you try to not rush that much (cos the expert tells you so.) when your characters may be built to rush in the first place!

Worse, you try to use his characters using your style. Being the obedient student, you followed his advice of, "Don't rush that much."

In either case, you most probably screwed up big time. There are of course instances that you stuck gold but it is not in the majority. Disenchanted? Yes. Disappointed, angry, upset, hate the game and swear to never to play? Possible. Go play another game, like GG? Possible too.

This is very true when the person/people who beat you have fundamental differences in playing styles/strategies. The bigger the difference and the more you tried to emulate them, the higher the chances that you will fail.

e.g.
Defensive meets Offensive.
Play to win meets Play for fun/entertainment.
High level meets low level players. (50-50 chance it may or may not work out. Low level player could get some sort of revelations and improve or forever swear off the game if High level players are those play to win types.)

So there's one more skill we need to learn. That is how to filter information.
Not all information are beneficial to you, though do note that no information is bad news too.

[Persona]

What you're trying to say is, most people think by letting someone teach them, they can pick things up right away. But in reality, it's actually up to the person to understand themselves.

Example? A noob can teach an expert, but an expert can't teach a noob.

[Blastrezz]

By far the most interesting forum thread in months.
Thank you for this, Empyrian.
Although I'm still too stupid to view your avatar [ ] I appreciate this thread a lot.

So let me comment myself on things said.

I am of the thinking that while a FG can be learnt, it can not be taught.
The learning process/practical lessons are of paramount importance.

Yeah sure, the move practice and versus experiences rule everything but still I think to an extend fighting games can be taught. Why not? I mean there are SO MANY facts you can tell somebody about.
I mean pure facts that WILL be of use. Be it special/super move motions, small combos, the game system itself (I mean all the basic features of the game) and roughly what to do with a character.
These things can very well be taught, right?

I also think that so-called pointers by *experts* (....) though useful is not the most important thing.

I am more inclined to believe that its more of a progession of your own skill level and that fact that you can understand/agree on what the expert said meant that you yourself is due for a gameplay tweak in the first place. It is going to happen whether with or without external inputs.

If I understand you correctly I want to disagree. Pointers and input from other (not even necessarily better) players can fill up your knowledge faster and without you having to play for 1 year until you discover this or that fact by yourself. I myself filled up a fair amount of detail knowledge from reading ON. So in a way you passively taught me stuff.

I also heard that people are turned off by FGs in part of its complexity (which they will never admit as everyone believes FGs are brain dead in application.)
but more towards the newbie unfriendliness adopted by FGers? Is it true?

The first part about complexity is SO true! The second part of your sentence and its relation to the first part, I did not understand.....

I don't think you can literally TEACH someone what to do in every given situation in a fighting game, since those situations could be infinite in number. The basics of any given game engine can be taught, as well as perhaps basic gameplans for individual characters, but the rest is entirely up to the player to implement and observe for him/herself.

That's what I'm thinking, as well. You can very well teach somebody the facts about a game. For sure CANNOT teach them how to behave in EVERY single second of gameplay. On the other side think about what people are doing on this forum for example: Every once in a while somebody encounters a specific situation with his character in versus play and he comes up with a question how to behave. Things like "oh my god I get rushed down with Mature too much, what can I do to keep them off of me?" come up all the time, right? And we disucss it then and throw in our ideas and suggestions what behavior in the given situation can help.
Most of the time there are solution fragments that CAN help the asking person and maybe he succeeds in his next versus session with the help of what he read here.
It's pretty much like a very complex puzzle. At first YOU are "puzzled" [ Little pun here ].
Afterwards you collect basic information (parts of the puzzle) with which to start. You begin putting the puzzle together. You can't overview all of the puzzle so far but you begin to put it all together. As you progress shemes appear which can be seen as improvements of your skill and knowledge. Later on you discover and put together more and more shemes of the whole thing which represent your growing overall experience.

Then I discovered that most often, these experts/better players are trying to transform you into their clone albeit subtly.

True. At least considering me.
In the last months I taught different people the basics of KoF. Which does not mean that I'm a masterly King of Fighters expert but I know things. I also got my own playstyle and yes I taught the people the basics at first and I might have tried to form them a little bit after my own.
Although I did not meet a player so far that copied another player precisely. Almost everybody is still going to develop for himself!

This is very true when the person/people who beat you have fundamental differences in playing styles/strategies. The bigger the difference and the more you tried to emulate them, the higher the chances that you will fail.

True. At a point where somebody leaves the path of his sensei he is on his own. Teaching is a path more experienced people go with the less experienced ones and by the time the latter have gained experience from walking the way with the more experienced people they leave the path and make their own way!
This is the same in real life isn't it? Children grow up at home with their parents totally dependent. By the time they're 18 they're very well capable of leaving their partents home.
It is the same for fighting games

Excuse my philosophical approaches in this whole posting of mine
I hope you still get the ideas from it.

--Blast

[PaGaN 3l3m3nts]

But that's somewhat a matter of simply whether or not the person teaching you is a good teacher or not. If they tell you that you rush too much, or aren't defensive enough, then such simple advice as that is proof that they're only mediocre. As was said, each character needs to be palyed ina different manner, and the teacher must make sure to tell the student that, less they end up thinking that every character should be played using certain techniques.

[Blake B]

One of the most appealing aspects of FGs for me is when I first start playing them. Seeing some cool DM-type move for the first time is memorable, and learning each and every character is fun too. However, most FGs are quite easy to master, IMO, and most gamers should be able to pwn the CPU easily after about a week.

Eczema, i agree with you all the way.
Empyrian, Eczema didn't say ALL FG's are easy to master, Ec just said "most FGs are quite easy to master (But it all depends on the person's dedication and things like that).
Just like Xenogias, i knew how to play fightin' games, until someone else showed me the more "complex" things of them, like stringing various moves together into more effective combos.

[Empyrian]

Thank you, Blastrezz.

What you're trying to say is, most people think by letting someone teach them, they can pick things up right away. But in reality, it's actually up to the person to understand themselves.

Example? A noob can teach an expert, but an expert can't teach a noob.

Hmmm... a newbie can only give insights of some technical aspects of the game?
e.g. This super can go through fireballs and stuff.

Admit it, the better you get, the more "chicken" you become. You may be thinking a lot more than necessary when throwing out a move while a newbie may just do the "ARGH, HEAVEN DRIVE BEATS EVERYTHING YOU DO!!!! HAHAHA!" aka Supers > everything way.

This kind of scrub/foolish way to play *can* teach better players on how to use the move(s) better.

The more important aspects like psychological warfare can not be taught by either side?

Just like Xenogias, i knew how to play fightin' games, until someone else showed me the more "complex" things of them, like stringing various moves together into more effective combos.

I must admit that there is true or reliable way to judge whether one can play a FG or not.

Is it the ability to do combos?
Double digit win streaks?
Win tournamnents?
See through the minds of opponents?

Again, I stress the importance of information filtering. Most of us had read questionable posts on various strategies and on various characters.

[Perfect Stranger]

Eczema: NO, FGs are easy to play yet diffcult to master. No other gaming genre features that much movement of the hands + thinking. No FPS, RPGs, racing games, sim games can surpass this.

I think the people who play hardcore RTS like Starcraft or Warcraft 3 will disagree - the button taps per second of world class players on those games are *astounding*.

While arguably a lot more of it is mechanical in nature (i.e. click base 3 times to build 3 units), there is still a remarkable amount of information to process in those games when a battle occurs - a top class player will not only be able to march his hero with pixel perfect position in to slaughter his enenmy, he'll also be able to switch quickly back to his base to build the reinforcements he knows he'll need.

In fighting games, however, there is so much incredible emphasis on timing - yes, move y might beat fireball x, but only on 2 particular frames, and when move y is done by doing 2 halfcircle motions, you're going to have to be unbelievably precise to pull it off consistently.

As for the general topic on hand:
I do believe you can teach fighting games. Certain information is universal - knowing that K' has an unblockable fireball bug, for example, can benefit everyone, and is unlikely to be discovered by anyone other than the adventurous, or the expert player hunting for gameplay bugs.

As for something as nebulous as play style though - yes, obviously when someone tries to teach you a fighting game, he will try and teach you his style. Let me paint the analogy - it's like asking a world famous portrait artist to teach you how to draw sunset pictures. Sure he'll be able to teach you some basics, but he can only teach what he knows, and what he has found effective for him. I think it's fine trying to learn the playing style of someone - it obviously works if he's beaten you with it (which is why I assume you'd want to learn from him in the first place). On the long hard road to self discovery of your own style, I think it's fine to see the perspective of others who've found theirs already.

[Empyrian]

Oh dear, I missed out on the RTS genre. ;p

I must admit that the micromanagement of these games are definitely mind-boggling but I must make a note that there are "hotkeys" or shortcuts assigned to various functions that make things easier for the gamer.

Come to think of it, it is roughly like a Fighting Game's movelist. XD

I am not sure sharing of information equates to teaching. I mean, movelist, move properties and priorities are more like stuff that comes out of FAQs. You can tell/show people how it is done but not when to do it? This, I feel is the true meaning of the word, "teach?"

It's like asking a world famous portrait artist to teach you how to draw sunset pictures. Sure he'll be able to teach you some basics, but he can only teach what he knows, and what he has found effective for him

Throughout the ages, many have tried to emulate Picasso, Da Vinci and Michelangelo. I don't think anyone really succeeded.

[Archedgar]

I think the people who play hardcore RTS like Starcraft or Warcraft 3 will disagree - the button taps per second of world class players on those games are *astounding*.

Starcraft and Warcraft 3 have to be the worst examples of RTS games possible.

But more to the point, you can teach someone how to play a fighting game, I started playing way back with Street Fighter 2, and my older cousin at the time was pretty good with Guile, he taught me how to play and from there I began to adquire a taste for fighting games.

Anyone who says that something cannot be taught is just too incompetent to learn from other's mistakes.

Edit:

Not a flame or an attack, merely a statement.

Edit2:

I would have pointed out the horrible grammatical mistake in the thread title but... I prefer to leave that one alone... for now.

[Empyrian]

Just re-read PS's post on certain information being universal.

When we insert a credit into the machine, there is the introduction stage, where the game sort of teaches you the basics, right?

Therefore, do movelists and their properties constitute to part of universal information? If they are universal information, we are not really teaching them when asked? A souped up introduction scene? (I admit I may be playing on words here.)

I mean, the word "teach" conjures up images of being in school being taught by teachers.

If the basics can be taught, movelist faqs of Kao Megura for e.g can be classified as a gem in this case. However, what if we go in-depth into the so-called, "character faqs?"

The person who just beat you comprehensively could jolly well be more skilled than you. Subject to individual willingness/reluctancy, you may ask him for advice. Whether he will advise you or not is another matter.

Now if we go online, we have tons of character faqs. How many of these are actually quality stuff? Can we be trusted to be taught by them?

Anyone who says that something cannot be taught is just too incompetent to learn from other's mistakes.

I would have pointed out the horrible grammatical mistake in the thread title but... I prefer to leave that one alone... for now.

Oh I am so sorry. I was not born an Amercian or British (like you obviously) so my English sucks.

Since I don't want to argue with you, so please kindly stop clogging my thread.
There are other places for you. This thread is not part of it.