Street Fighter 4 Ultra Combos
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 12:13PM Lots of people have asked me why the Ultras in Street Fighter 4 work they way they do. I have no inside information on this, nor have I even seen what the designers might have said, but I have a pretty good guess. After walking you through that, we can then ask if we would include such a mechanic in a new, ideal fighting game. I actually don't know the answer, but I can explain the issues.
When I first saw the ultra system a long time ago, I though it was a terrible, terrible idea. My reason was that the last thing casual players wanted was a SECOND super meter. I mean this isn't Guilty Gear, it's supposed to be simple and elegant, and a new super meter in addition to the old one (which has four divisions and multiple uses) is going to be a confusing mess. I think it turns out there was more to the issue than I thought back then, so let's look at all the issues together and see if the overall effect is good or bad.
But first, let's explore how I imagine ultras came to be what they are in this cartoonized, fictional line of thought:
"How can we get casual players interested in this game? There's lots of ways of course, but one way would be really flash super attacks. Yes, that's a natural answer because we already have had super attacks in lots of other Street Fighter games, and now that we can use 3D animation, camera movement, and effects, we'll be able to make these look even better than ever. So far, this sounds great."
"But wait, how often do people really land super moves? Maybe not quite enough. Think of the spectators, they'd probably like to see these flashy supers a lot. We want to make sure that even beginners see these cool supers, so they can't be some rare trickshot that's impractical in a real match. One problem is that we have this idea about multiple uses for your super meter. You can use it to do a super move, to do ex moves (powered up versions of special moves), or to do ex cancels (like roman cancels in guilty gear, where you do a special move, then cancel it instantly so you can do another move in a combo). Anyway, there is some strategy in managing your meter, and we like that, but it also means that supers will be LESS frequent. Some players will use ex specials constantly, for example, and while that might be a valid strategic choice, it's ruining our initiative to show off the cool supers."
"How about...a SECOND super meter? The main super meter works how we said above, with three different uses. But this new meter could only involve supers...a new kind of super that we'll call ultra. The ultras will be the visual showcase of the game, with camera movements and elaborate canned animations between attacker and victim. We need to make sure everyone gets to use these ultras though. If your opponent overwhelms you, you don't even get a chance to build up the standard kind of super meter. But what if this ultra meter filled up when you GET HIT? Everyone gets hit!"
"In tuning this idea for the ultra, there was somewhat of a conflict. On the one hand, we really want you to fill up that ultra meter fairly fast. If we only gave you the ultra when you have 1% life, for example, it would be too rare to see it happen. But if we give it to you when you still have 50% life, it's just way too powerful of a tool to have. So instead of just an on/off thing, where you either have/don't have the ultra...let's give it to people at 50% life, but keep the damage low. As they get hit more, their ultra meter keeps filling up so that when they do get really low, like 5% life, then the ultra does tons of damage...maybe 50%!"
"This is also gives everyone a comeback mechanism, so even if you're losing, you're still in the game."
"Finally, we want the ultras to be kind of special in that you don't just short kick, short kick, ultra all the time. So we shouldn't let you cancel moves into them. They'll be stand-alone attacks. But hmm...it sure is fun to combo into them anyway, so how about you can juggle into them, throw into them, and things like that to make sure they frequent enough."
That's the line of thinking I imagine lead to the ultra system. I'm not trying to be positive or negative about it with that description, just trying to explain why it probably is how it is. So what do I actually think about it? One factor is my original objection that a second super meter is inelegant and something that exactly no one asked for. I thought Casual Joe would scoff at it or be confused. What I greatly underestimated is how good these ultras would look.
Ultras: Production Values in Action
The production values on the ultras are incredible, and in my opinion are the best looking things in the entire game. The animations are great, solid, powerful-feeling. The effects are great. Some of the game's animation makes me cringe and Blanka's entire character model makes me want to cry, but these ultras really are amazingly good looking across the board. While I predicted Casual Joe would not be down with even more super meters (each with different mechanics...) it seems that Casual Joe's actual reaction is "wow these look incredible!" That also spills over into "this game looks incredible" and gives it an aura that makes Casual Joe completely willing to overlook lots of problems, even art problems, that might stick out.
I'll specifically point out Gouken's ultra as looking and feeling terrific. The shin shoryuken has always been a good concept for a move that feels powerful, but Gouken's version...with 3D camera movement, huge hit pause on each hit (power!), and great animation...made the concept of the shin shoryuken come alive in a way we've never seen until now. A+ on that, if you ask me. Incidentally, he can combo it every time (easily) off a throw, so you're sure to see it often.
So if we ask "did ultras accomplish their mission?" (or at least the mission I'm guessing existed on this project), I have to say the answer is yes. They make the game much more exciting to spectators, they draw in casual players, and they contribute to that aura of good graphics that helps people overlook other graphical problems. But what about the effect on gameplay?
Ultras: Gameplay Effects
The most obvious effect on gameplay is that ultras offer a comeback factor. I still can't figure out why the concept of slippery slope is so hard for some people to understand (they intentionally try to misunderstand it, I think). I wrote an article about that here. The short version is that most fighting games are slippery slope neutral in that the scoring (your health meter) is not related to your ability to score. I mean this in general terms, so ignore edge cases like block damage (if you have only a sliver of life left, you can no longer do the move "block", yes I know that.) But whether you have 100% life or 5% life in most fighting games, your moveset is the same. You still have jump roundhouse and throw, and so on. There would be slippery slope if the more you got hit, the more disabled your character became, as in Bushido Blade.
Street Fighter 4 adds the opposite concept, which I called perpetual comeback in that article. It's really called negative feedback, but that term sounds..."negative" (it's not, it's just a counterpoint to positive feedback) and also people mix up those terms all the time. Anyway, SF4 adds a comeback factor. There are some who are against this in general, and who say a "real" game punishes your mistakes (and therefore a "real" game has slippery slope!). This is where I point out that your mistakes are punished in a game with neutral slope because a mistake means your score goes down (your health bar). It's just that your score going down doesn't make it less likely for you to win by reducing your ability to attack, which would lead to first hits being way too important.
So neutral slope is good, I think, but what about this comeback force? Can it also be good? This is a very delicate question because it depends so much on specifics. I think a game having a mild comeback force is usually fine, though when it becomes too strong, it throws things way out of whack. Another thing to consider is how easily you can make a comeback anyway, naturally, without extra forces (like ultra combos) stepping in. Here are some rules of thumb: if defense is really strong in a game, comebacks are hard. If offense is really strong in a game, comebacks are more possible.
Imagine a game where offense is, for the most part, really good. In this game, throws have instant startup. Even if the opponent breaks a throw, they still take damage. If you just sit there (trying to sit on a lead), you are open to throws. Also in this game, knockdowns are powerful. You can't vary the time you get up, so that makes crossups more powerful. It's also hard to reversal attack (a bad way to design things, but just go with it for now), so attacking a rising opponent is good. Stages are fairly small so you can't run away. Finally, hit point totals in general are actually really low, so even when you're behind, you aren't THAT behind. You can always go on the offense because, well, offense is strong.
Now imagine a different game where it's much harder to naturally make a comeback. Hit point totals are higher in general so that means when you're behind, you're actually further behind than in the first example game. Throws are weak with 3 frame startup (or worse, 5 frame startup for Ochio throw). Throws can be escaped for zero damage. The playfield is really big, so running away is more possible. Knockdowns are weaker (meaning offense is weaker) because reversal attacks are incredibly easy and varying your getup time helps a bit to weaken crossups. (Well sort of...). Anyway, all those things point to the power of offense lowering and the power of defense increasing, relative to the first example game. This second game (SF4) needs some comeback mechanism, that's for sure.
Ultras do provide that. I think ultras have an unintended negative effect though: the ends of rounds were supposed to become more exciting, but instead they sometimes become more boring. One of my friends who played me the other day remarked that it was frustrating to him that some rounds he would beat me down, but then toward the end, he had to play very carefully and conservatively. He just gave me a 50% damage ultra that I could randomly throw out as desperation at who-knows-what time, so he had to switch playstyles to a more boring one, basically.
Another situation that occurred in a match against him was when I had him at just under 50% life. I was Rose and just got my ultra. I thought about how if I use it soon, I could hit him (which is easy, it's like perfect anti air and beats just about everything), but I would not kill him. So maybe I will hit him a few more times, then do the ultra for the win. But then I thought, wait, what if he hits ME a few more times instead? That will actually power up my ultra enough that it will kill him outright! While it sounds better to hit him than to get hit on purpose, it did feel like the next few hits hardly mattered. (Epilogue: I got hit a few times, I ultra'd, I won.)
A New Fighting Game: Ultras good or Bad?
So I've been wondering, if we were to make a new fighting game, the ideal one, would we include something like ultra combos? It seems the market has spoken on the issue of complexity of two meters versus awesomeness of these supers. Awesomeness won. Now imagine all the extra hype, press, casual interest, and spectator interest our theoretical new fighting game would get from ultras....(at lot, right?) and compare it to the extra sales and interest we'd get from making sure the ends of rounds between experts aren't boring because they don't need to shift to cautious mode as much. Even if we did improve gameplay by avoiding cautious ends-of-rounds, it doesn't sound like a very good bullet point on the box, does it?
And even more to the point, it seems that when looking at this purely from a gameplay angle, it's a better solution to make comebacks more possible in a natural way by making offense good. Games with good offense have proven to be fun over the years, while games that allow defense to win are boring to play and watch. (And note that even games with lots of offense like GGXX and ST have defense too, it's just that attacking is good.)
So from a gameplay standpoint on our new theoretical fighting game, we might be better of with no ultra system at all, but better offense (and fewer hit points, perhaps). Even if we had a game that allowed comebacks naturally...would we STILL want the ultras anyway? Again, the idea that you get hit to fill up a special kind of super meter means that you will always be able to do that super before dying. It's a way to ensure that spectators and casual players get excited at awesome super animations that happen all the time, so is it really worth it to lose out on those benefits even *if* you believed that gameplay suffers? That's the scary thought I wrestle with. I'm not against comebacks, but when the mechanism to facilitate them is extreme enough to introduce some ill effects, and when it's possible to allow comebacks anyway with overall shifts in the design, I just don't know. It's a collision between trying to make the best gameplay possible and trying to make a game popular and get noticed. Maybe a good solution (for the theoretical game, not for SF4) would be to have one super meter and that supers are amazing looking, but we simply accept that they don't happen quite as often as in SF4. I leave it as an open question.
Reader Comments (87)
There's a video on Youtube of a Zangief player doing keep away (!) against Blanka to build his Ultra meter then jump in and Ultra SPD before finishing the match with some Green Hand and junk, but the question is whether that would actually work without lag, and in a tournament. Still, the dude doing it had 1800BP or so, although there are probably some Shoryuken spammers up there too.
It definitely messes with the game somewhere in the cross-over region where doing your Ultra won't kill them but will give them a big Revenge Meter, but then again if you have the health lead at the beginning of it you should probably have enough health to survive most immediate counter Ultras anyways. If anything it seems like it typically punishes trying to get back a deficit with an Ultra too early and just setting yourself up to get pancaked, unless you can take control of the match thereafter. If you've done enough damage to not be setting yourself up, you've likely given them an Ultra that can finish yourself off as well.
I dunno, I didn't like the idea, but it's not like it's a block defeating, armour breaking, 1 button super attack of doom, or a passive buff . It has its own mind games considering the risk for getting maximum reward is usually pretty high. The balance might be off on some of them, but something like Chun-Li's Hosenka can be pretty easy to stuff (it does have the longest start up) and does pretty bad damage with most combos on most characters because it juggles and misses the cutscene hit.
"The reason the ultras look good in SF4 is that they are canned animations that involve attacker and victim moving together. . . So supers in guilty gear on BLOCK can't possibly look as good."
-- A blocked super could trigger a two-character canned animation with high production values - say, Neo's bullet dodge or a prerendered version of a 3rd Strike parry.
Do you think it would've hurt SF4 to have included an "Old-style Ultras" option, where the camera view and super speed would more closely resemble that found in previous SF games?
"Spectators and casual players get excited at awesome super animations that happen all the time, so is it really worth it to lose out on those benefits even *if* you believed that gameplay suffers?"
-- No matter how awesome an animation is, people will get used to it and skip it if it's not over within a couple seconds. The guy who complained that he wasn't playing Final Fantasy was spot on - tying ultra-powerful moves to aggravatingly unskippable animations may serve as a form of balance in single-player games, but in a game where the shared goal of both players is to land the most powerful moves possible, player hatred of a move's animation probably won't stop them from using it.
Eye candy is nice at launch, and it'll help sell your game, but I believe it should never be shoved down players' throats.
I'd like to elaborate on making supers look cool without them being static movies. You can do stuff like fancy particle effects on connect (or even on block), a shadow trail like ST's supers (except a million times nicer-looking with today's graphics), and even full-screen filters like increased contrast, or blurring everything but the characters.
Make the supers look really fucking trippy, but keep them fast and without swinging the camera around. Even upon seeing the SF4 Ultras for the first time, I rolled my eyes instead of getting excited because I could easily imagine how flow-breaking it would be in an intense match. Cinematic tripe may draw in some casuals, but actual players will quickly tire of them and that will hurt long-term playability (not that it would single-handedly ruin the game, but every strike hurts). No matter how cool an Ultra looks, NOTHING is more satisfying than landing all five hits of Boxer's Super in ST. Why? It's fast and visceral, not static and contrived-looking. Take Boxer's Super, and give it all sorts of eye candy without jarring players with stupid camera angles or slow mo. That's my idea of a fun Super.
During initial development of Left 4 Dead, Valve had long (~40 seconds) intro cinematics for each campaign. They cut them down to 5 -10 second intros once they saw how boring they were to watch for the 10th time, which is smart considering L4D is meant to be played repeatedly and not just once. I'd say follow Valve's strategy: make the actual interactive gameplay nice and visceral, and market that. Don't focus on marketing canned animations.
BTW, I'm a fan of keeping it simple. One or two Supers per character that each drain the entire meter, and no other moves that cost resources (except maybe for non-attack things like whatever cancel stuff is in GG). Then again I don't play many fighting games so whatever.
Response by Sirlin: I would really like to agree with all this, but doesn't Street Fighter 4's reception counter this argument? To clarify, I am NOT saying that SF4 has feature X, it sold well, therefore feature X is good and we should put in more games. For example, SF4 does not prove that button configs should be that way. But when it specifically comes to how exciting or not exciting the ultras are to the masses, it seems that SF4 has shown they are very popular. Or at least that's what I hear from everyone, including a friend who told me about some event where the crowd went crazy at every ultra. Like I said, I want to believe you, but isn't it hard to ignore the success of these canned animations? Or do you dispute that people actually like them?
Where gameplay is concerned, the idea of an artificial comeback mechanic (like "Ultra Combos") is an absolutely flawed game design in most cases. It logically doesn't make sense that you should be rewarded for doing what you know should be the wrong thing and causes a bad type of meta-gaming that I like to call "MarioCart Syndrome." When you're able to plan a match around doing the "wrong" thing and playing like crap on purpose just long enough for the game to give you an artificial advantage then switch back to playing "right" and be better off than the person who played "right" the entire match, you have a serious problem. SF4's Ultra Combo system is MarioCart Syndrome or at the very least comes far too close to it for any ideal game to be mimicking.
Above I say "in most cases" because some times it's actually OK to have such a system. One case would be if a game which is supposed to be slippery slope neutral, at some point during normal gameplay, is effected by slippery slope. For example in the case of chip damage it would be OK to add extra defensive options or increase the effectiveness of existing ones. Another case would be when a game has a character that is designed around making a comeback. The example here would be Cain or Anex in Kongai.
The problem is from a marketing stand point Ultra Combo system is a good thing even though it seems obviously flawed gameplay wise. Thus instead of considering should the Ultra Combo system be in an ideal game, we should think of a way to alter the Ultra Combo system such that it could be a viable inclusion in an ideal game:
1. What about the system would an ideal game want to keep?
A method to allow increased occurrence of "flashy" and "powerful" moves while also allowing frequent but limited use of various systems (such as EX moves and Cancels).
2. What about the system would an ideal game want to ditch?
Artificial comeback mechanism that causes unwanted and dangerous meta-gaming while also "cheapening" the impressiveness of comebacks.
3. What we can alter to accomplish this?
The main problem with the current system is that the main way to charge Ultra Meter is by getting hit which means that sometimes you would actually want to be hit so you could have the threat of an Ultra Combo. I instead propose the fallowing:
-Two meters Ultra and Super.
-Super fills when a basic attack connects, a normal move is used, when you block an attack or are hit by an attack.
-Super Meter would be used for things that don't directly translate into damage. Examples would be normal moves enhanced with special properties (basically ex moves but no extra damage), cancels that don't allow extension of the current combo but instead allow you to avoid punishment or keep up pressure (close to a roman cancel but not quite) and other various defensive functions (like Flawless Defense or Burst from Guilty Gear)
-Ultra fills when a use any kind of attack or when an opponent fails to connect with an attack.
-Ultra Meter would be used for traditional super moves and would basically just be something you translate into damage.
I guess I'm saying that canned animations are so annoying to actual players that it's not worth it even to please spectators/casuals. I think a middle ground is what we're really looking for (to be crowd pleasing, and not too annoying for actual players), and SF4's extreme is something to avoid.
The crowd went crazy at every ultra. Would it be the same if the ultras had fancy particle effects/screen filters/other effects that let you feel the impact? Did they go wild because the ultimate-damaging move was just unleashed and connected, or did it have to do with the animations that play out the same every time? I think it would be interesting to observe two separate crowds watching two separate games that differ only in the ultra animations, and see the difference between SF4-style and 'what-I'm-describing'-style.
I wonder why Supers themselves aren't as cinematic. Some notable exceptions: Akuma and Abel. Their Supers are almost Ultra level cinematic (Abel's arguably more so). Maybe if the power of Supers were higher as to warrant taking the risk of saving meter instead of using EX moves or EX FA to DC, they'd be more prevalent.
Another issue is that it's possible to charge up an Ultra and still remain at very high health, thanks to FA and other armor moves. It sort of circumvents an Ultra's intended purpose; last minute comebacks.
I wonder; what if, when you have an Ultra ready, you took additional block damage? Suddenly being defensive isn't so desirable, but it comes across as the game forcing you to play a certain way (something I never liked about GG btw; Negative Penalty).
I feel like ultras undermine my efforts at times, especially when playing hit and run or poke style. I have to exploit five or six good opportunities which can then be undone in a matter of seconds.
letting my opponent punish me twice as hard for one sloppy mistake with an advantage he hasn't really done thing to earn irks me.
seeing as players are guaranteed at least 1 ultra a match think characters with very power ultra moves put them at a disadvantage as well.
Overall, the game just feels like a whole bunch of guys, who are excellent videogame designers/creators yet have never created a fighting game before, made the game. For instance, it is sort of like the makers of NBA2k games making a FPS; like yeah, they know how to make good games, but they will make many deleterious mistakes gameplay wise when they start making the FPS. And the makers of SF4 seemed unjustly and unfairly arrogant, as if they haven't spoken to tournament-level SF players or they have not spoken to other established fighting-game makers on advice for the game; and it is unfair because SF is NOT their game, its the game of the fans. It seems to me if this same exact gameplay was based on a new IP and not Street Fighter, there was absolutely no way they would get such acclaim.
And Ultras; 1) You should not reward losing because it can ruin fun-factor, and taint the integrity of the game. 2) The cut-scenes are a MAJOR flow killer 3.) THe stages are so big where players can just jump around avoiding and defending with fireballs and such and so on.
The game does not feel right and I am just dissappointed. As big of an issue the concept of Ultras are, I feel that they are the least significant of the major issues the game has such as ,but not limited to, the execution of Ultra.
Sometimes I think; "Am I living in the twilightzone? Why is there not an unprecedented backlash towards this game? ARe people really playing the same game?" Capcom is very fortunate.
A bigger problem with the ultras is the crazily uneven application of the concept.
Just compare Roses or Ryu's to like, Vipers or Vegas. Different rules apply and can have really brutal effects on the gameplay.
The ultimate example of this problem is with Fei Long's ultra. As I'm sure people know, only 2 of the hits can trigger the cool flashy animation. For some reason known only to Capcom, those 2 hits (the second and fourth) can NEVER hit on a juggle.
The concept itself of ultras is good imo, but overapplied. It IS fun that they look so cool (and for me at least, they don't get old), and its actually really positive to have a comeback mechanic; its certainly better than SNK style infinite supers. I'll admit tho', that they're a bit TOO good, and a bit TOO easy to hit with (well the good ones, see above).
Styles: To a point the makers of the game are rookies at fighting games. Dimps is a very good development studio (for example, they are the ones who made Sonic Advance which is the only great Sonic game to come out since the Genesis originals) but the only fighting game they made is Rumble Fish/Rumble Fish 2. That game feels like it was made by guys with a lot of talent but not much creativity. It mostly seemed like a checklist on what is a considered a fighting game.
SFIV had the benefit of being part of a long standing series and having much of the ideas come from Capcom. This is why the game gets so many things technically right. It's also why I can't blame Dimps for the Ultra's since as Sirlin colorfully explained it was probably Capcom's idea. I can blame Dimps for the floaty jumps, defensive gameplay, and some of the character designs which seem like they might have had some Dimps input (Rufus and Viper mostly).
Perhaps with Super SFIV (which has already been practically confirmed by Ono himself) they might get more things right. By then Dimps will have worked on 3 fighting games and have had sufficient practice at making them. They will hopefully recognize their errors and work on correcting them.
I think the whole comeback meter is not a bad idea, but it looks like it's too powerful, damage from an ultra should be fixed and just a little more than a super.
One thing I want to point out is that with the classic super meter that slope you talk about is not that neutral because in most games the player leading the match usually gets the super earlier.
I haven´t grown tired of the ultra animations yet.
I´m not that good at Street Fighter. Not "internet good", anyway. I will play whole matches without landing an unltra. For me, the animation is a reward for pulling off a tough move. It makes me feel good. I will cheer on my guy as he pummels the other guy.
I think a problem is that at higher levels this breaks down. You say landing an ultra is easy. They become just another (dependent) tool. There is a disconnect between the effect of the move and the (lack of) effort needed to execute it. They´re not very special anymore and start to just be a boring cutscene that breaks the flow of the game.
But for me, and I assume for "casuals", they aren´t and they don´t.
What if they just made it so that Ultras couldn't kill, they would at most reduce the victim to the same health as the attacker.
"I guess I'm saying that canned animations are so annoying to actual players that it's not worth it even to please spectators/casuals. I think a middle ground is what we're really looking for (to be crowd pleasing, and not too annoying for actual players), and SF4's extreme is something to avoid."
I'm a fighting game player who regularly goes to tournaments and I don't in the slightest get annoyed by canned animations. In fact, I actually enjoy them quite abit. I don't get drawn out of the game and I am still perfectly fine with concentrating on my match with a small period of time where I am unable to control my character. This is really not that much different than getting hit by a combo in a game like Guilty Gear, Blazblue, sometimes Soul Calibur etc.
I actually make sure to take advantage on the time given to me to 'relax' and gather my thoughts. I have a few valuable seconds of time where I can plan my next few moves or alter my strategy if it is not working. Hell I can even crack my knuckles, wipe my hands (rough matches can = sweat), or simply just enjoy the animation / combo that is going on. I may be overstating things a bit but these are all things I have done in tournaments.
One thing I feel should be implemented more are cool supers that have an even better animation when you kill someone with it. SF4 does a decent job with the flashy background, but seeing something more akin to Order Sols 'Dragon Install" would be better for each ultra. In Guilty Gear, Order Sol has a super that requires you to input a series of commands in a row. If you mess up you will go into a fail animation and the combo will stop. If you succeed you will follow up your series of strikes with a large blast of fire. If you kill them with it, you will go further and do a final dramatic tranformation sequence before hitting them one last time.
Link to the super since seeing it is better than describing it
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=5866515
Come-back mechanisms are a specific game design matter, there's strictly no need to tie it with fancy looks.
What 2.5D is made for is action replays, demo recording, demo editing and adding visual stuff. It just makes the whole thing possible, so why not actually (ab)use it...?
Now imagine that *all* moves have an "eye-candy" version that does exactly the same but with eye candy effects. A Lightning-Fast-blurring effect on a standing jab for a shoto for instance, a gush of wind around Blanka's electricity... Players could trigger those special FX using parts of their "eye-candy" bar by shaking their pad (with gyroscopic pads only), or charge a special button as they perform the move or whatever. Something easy and neutral to the game. Even movements, dashes, blocks or specials could have an eye-candy version that does just what it says on the tin: visual eye-candy variation. The move properties don't change, visuals only.
After the match, great looking visual replays can be edited around, saved, shared with other users, rated or whatever. A simple two-moves combo would have 4 versions, there would be 8 different ways to renders that combo as blocked by the opponent, several variations for the whiff or dodge, etc. It would add a whole lot of excitement for spectators knowing that some players with showmanship proficiency would actually put this feature to great use, by not only beating their opponents, but doing it with style.
It would be an easy to use, hard to master feature... and imho a great way to raise interest among casual joes and janes, without the hassle of having to wait for the fancy repetitive moves to end for the more dedicated players who've seen it all too many times.
It would also be completely disconnected from the actual gameplay design. Just... on demand eye-candy.
"It seems to me if this same exact gameplay was based on a new IP and not Street Fighter, there was absolutely no way they would get such acclaim."
I'm pretty sure the same thing would apply if you made Super Turbo with new graphics and no Street Fighter name or likeness. You're asking a bit too much of reviewers to expect them to tear down what is still a well made game. I think there's some over reaction in rushing to call SFIV some sort of stupid dumbed down Street Fighter, it's still a far more complex, deep, and skill intensive game than most everything released these days.
If you want to see dumbed down sequels, go look at shooters. If SFIII had been made by Bungie or someone, cancels would have been removed and specials made one button (at the cost of half the move set), and SFIV would have random factors that would make SFII's look like they don't even exist. Also, they'd throw in XBLA HF's net code, because that's how they roll.
Sometimes your parameteres to define something "good" or "Bad" are scaring Sirlin. I mean it depends on your target of course. But there are games for the Casuals and games for people that like to play the game in a purely competitive game.
I didn't play SFIV personally, but the ultras animation can't be a good thing for people that want to play a competitive game. As someone said, you can't please everyone. Do you?
So, your ideal fighting game..what's the target?
Response by Sirlin: You often bring up this point and I don't think it's fair. On the question of whether ultras animations are widely liked by the millions of people who bought the game, I am claiming that they seem to be. That isn't supposed to be a statement of my opinion. It's supposed to be a statement of how that part of the game has been received. Saying that a certain segment would disagree is beside the point. I'm saying that from what I can tell, most consider this part of the game to be beautiful. You might contribute by saying that you have gathered that most people don't think that...but I don't think you're making that claim.
Next, if what I said is correct...that casual interest, spectators, press, etc are all excited by such a thing, then isn't it pretty valuable? That was the entire point of my post. If you're making a game that intentionally ignores everyone but the hardcore, it's not going to be very successful, it will have a hard time getting a large following, and you'll have a hard time even making enough money to go on. I think it's a fair premise to say that you'd want to make a game that's good that ALSO has potential for lots of sales.
Maybe I should have said this next thing, but I thought it was so obvious that it didn't need to be said. The "ideal" fighting game is NOT one that appeals only to a very small subset of people who would be willing to play a fighting game. Instead, it would be good while at the same time appealing to lots of people.
Consider this analogy. Should you have unlockable characters in the ideal fighting game? Answer: no. But why not? Did I make a statement of good or bad that scares Waterd? (He is scared easily, it seems!) You see, some people like unlockables and some people don't. So isn't it a matter of who the game is for? Yeah, but there exists a solution that gives people who want unlockables what they want and doesn't bother competitive gamers at all: have lots of unlockables that AREN'T characters (stages, costumes, music, trophies, titles, etc). By making 1,000 other decisions of this nature, where you please some people in a way that does not subtract from other people's experience, you could make a very good game. The real trouble is a case like ultras where it does subtract from some people's experience (but by how much?) yet it seems to add hype/spectator friendly/press that helps make the game something rather than forgotten. Hard to ignore that.
Sirlin, I think you're attributing SF4's success too much to individual features, like the Ultras. SF4 could have honestly had ANY feature-set and it would have sold like hotcakes. Players don't overlook the obvious problems because of how cool Ultras look. The problems are overlooked because the game appeals to SF2 nostalgia and has modern 3D graphics, and that's all that most people have an eye for. They don't even notice things like useless jumps or floaty falls or anything that would annoy me as gamer.
I know you want to captivate spectators the same way that Ultras captivated them in SF4. SF4's reception is really hard to break down though - if the Ultras looked like a flashier ST Super, maybe the crowds would have went just as wild whenever a player connected with one. It's hard to say.
If you're looking for a cinematic way to draw in casuals... I don't know, maybe an epic intro FMV?
Response by Sirlin: No, I'm not saying it went like this: 1) ultras exist, therefore 2) sales. I'm saying that when you look at what people think about the game, they seem to get excited about the ultras. That leads to better spectator friendly, more hype, press.
Your intro FMV idea sounds like a joke. Obviously that is not even comparable to landing Gouken's shin shoryuken and having it look awesome and feel satisfying.
I noticed something strange about Ultras: that they may not actually be truly "cutscenes". On a few occasions, I've had the "cutscene" parts react differently. It's not really, truly "canned" like, say, Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFcLA33j8g
For example, I've had situations where with, say, Sagat's ultra, when he does the firey Tiger Uppercut at the end, it won't hit six or seven times, but will only hit twice (at the beginning and end). So, I'm thinking, that the only difference between the supers and ultras would be in the camera.
The Ultras in SF4 remind me of Puzzle Fighter. In both games, winning is sort of facilitated by losing. I realize that PF is different in that a match has potential to go on forever and you can go from winning to losing and back and forth indefinitely whereas SF4 has a terminal health system so it's not quite the same, but either way it still adds that comeback factor which I think is good for these types of games.
Sirlin says that fighting games are slippery slope neutral in that having more or less health doesn't limit your ability to play the game, which is true but I disagree with slippery slope neutral. In fighting games, the less health you have the less you can get hit (this is obvious) so in actuality, the less health you have the less margin you have for error. This means that sure you can certainly make a comeback from a sliver of health, it's just like getting a perfect on someone which certainly isn't impossible, but you HAVE to play flawlessly. No execution mistakes, no wrong guesses, nothing. In this way, fighting games do actually have somewhat of a slippery slope.
SF4 still has this property, but the Ultras help to balance it, I feel. I just realized that what I'm saying sort of feels like "Ultras make it easier to win, and that's why I like them" because they make winning from low health landing a single blow rather than running your opponent. And that aspect of it I actually don't like.... perhaps I should have thought this through a bit more before I started typing. Originally my thought was that Sirlin was overreacting in how complex it is to like/dislike them and that it's simple I like them because they make comebacks possible and on average matches will be more interesting because of them, but it would seem I've jumped in feet first before realizing he may have been right.
In any case, I stand by my point of fight games being slightly less than slippery slope neutral, and fighting game characters with health regen properties are jerks. I'm looking at you Ragna.
Response by Sirlin: Sigh, not this again. That is not what slipper slope means. If you are 10 points behind in basketball, it's harder to win, obviously, because you are 10 points behind. But your ability to score points is not changed. Imagine if being 10 points behind meant you had to take one of your players off the field. THAT is slipper slope. Then being behind in SCORE also puts you behind in ability to ATTACK or play.
Also, as PoisonDagger pointed out well, Puzzle Fighter is a pretty special case that has even more reasons why the comeback mechanism works there that aren't applicable to fighting games. Your goal in PF is to fill up your side a lot (to attack)...but not too much. So playing well actually looks like losing. But in a fighting game, it's not like this. Playing well means you aren't reducing your score (your health) but playing poorly means you are. My only point there is that comeback mechanics being good in Puzzle Fighter don't really help us much here.