The controls of Halo are as follows:
Move. Jump. Shoot. Melee. Grenade. Vehicle.

Fighting games require movement limited by direction, specific button inputs to perform specific attacks, different, more technical ways of jumping, hitboxes that change with the move that they're performing, combo systems, and overall require a more precise form of coding to avoid breaking the game.

Fighting games are difficult to program in comparison to shooting games-- especially Halo. It doesn't matter what Halo features in terms of map size and amount of players playing because fighting games are 10x more technical, and thus 10x harder to program-- also making netcode much harder to create. Characters have more actions to perform, and they have to be performed in precise ways. Lag will completely RUIN a fight-- whereas lag in a shooter will usually just create an annoying conflict.

With only 2 players playing, the netcode has to be even tighter as well, because lag becomes more noticable.

(02-19-2011, 05:20 PM)Alpha Six Wrote: Um, fighting games are WAY more complicated than Halo.

Yeah, but that's not my argument. The engine itself is more complicated, though saying that about the gameplay of an FPS would obviously be laughable as you pointed out. Like Koopaul said, a lots going on in the environment at once. There's realtime physics for almost every object and there can be a lot of those on screen at once which have to be monitored by every player's console at once. The players themselves as well as the vehicles have to be accounted for this way as well with just as much if not more precision at once so that if someone shoots anything in particular at once you're getting an accurate collision report. As you well know from playing a lot of fighting games, collision is extremely important to the gameplay since if that screws up than it screws up everything.

In most shooters, the players also have many more options to move around than in the average fighter where your movement is generally restricted to a plane with the occasional game allowing you to move about in it a 3d area a little bit. Even then you don't have to deal with the players interacting with other obstacles such as if a player runs behind a wall to get cover or if you choose to shoot out of a small crack or slit in a wall. Yeah I'm probably forgetting a lot of things about fighting games as well as shooters that play into this as well, but hopefully you at least somewhat get my point.

Edit: Not to mention that lag can potentially ruin a fight just as much in a shooter as it can in a fighting game. Missing even a single headshot can completely screw you against anyone who actually knows what they're doing in the game.

It doesn't matter how many people are in the game-- the netcode doesn't change. The netcode has to be a lot more solid and has to be able to react to 2 people fighting each other, compared to 16 people shooting each other in a huge room.

In shooters-- you can pass a netcode where players may or may not occasionally teleport into areas or not be hit by attacks. This is not the same for a fighting game, because if this kind of input problem were to happen in online play, the game would be broken completely.

There is a lot more trial and error in a game as technical as a fighting game-- there isn't in shooters. Shooters have to deal with a lot of shit going on at once, but it doesn't have to be perfect-- fighting games need netcode that doesn't allow any form of lag teleporting, moves "not" landing, and hundreds of other factors that wouldn't fly in online play for a fighter. The players always have to be facing each other, which determines their animations, which determines their inputs, which determines hundreds of other factors in the game. In fighting games, your player is also STOPPED completely when they are hit by an attack. This doesn't happen in shooters, except Lost Planet 2.



tl;dr Fighting games require netcode as deep as the gameplay engine itself.

Point taken. But while I can agree looking at it that way that it doesn't matter quite as much, in most decent shooters ( COD doesn't count as one) it isn't like there aren't a lot of other variables that need to be seriously taken into account as well that can determine a win or a loss. A grenade going where it shouldn't because of lag can count just as much as missing a punch during a big combo in a fighter for the same reason.

You're confusing complexity with scale, most of the complex physics interaction and realtime effects in large multiplayer games are handled client-side, because you're all running the same engine with the same variables, the same thing will happen, it doesn't need to sync with the server or other players. (although this sometimes causes bugs where things glitch out, as probably all of us have seen at least a dozen times)

You also have to bare in mind that an engine for an FPS and an engine for a fighter are actually totally different.

Most FPS engines or other arena shooter-type games are effectively hardcoded for multiplayer, often the singleplayer campaign is actually a modification of the multiplayer, and not the other way around, they pull lots of tricks to fake things, like predicting where people are heading or filling in the gaps if there's packet-loss, this is why you see less people teleporting around these days.
But with fighting games there are no multiplayer-centric engines around, and because they rely heavily on latency and instant input there's no way to cover-up any lag or delay, especially if you're going right from single player to multi, the effect with be very obvious, in such fast-paced games even a phenomenal ping for an FPS will give you noteworthy delay in a fighter.

So you see, it's not that the game engines are more complex or less complex, they're actually not comparable because they work in totally different ways.

the thing that matters is that halo is a better game

(02-19-2011, 09:15 PM)schlong corrosion??? bro.... Wrote: the thing that matters is that halo is a better game

Heh.

i want to be able to kick my pokemon and tell it to get my beer

(02-19-2011, 06:07 PM)Alpha Six Wrote: It doesn't matter how many people are in the game-- the netcode doesn't change. The netcode has to be a lot more solid and has to be able to react to 2 people fighting each other, compared to 16 people shooting each other in a huge room.

In shooters-- you can pass a netcode where players may or may not occasionally teleport into areas or not be hit by attacks. This is not the same for a fighting game, because if this kind of input problem were to happen in online play, the game would be broken completely.

There is a lot more trial and error in a game as technical as a fighting game-- there isn't in shooters. Shooters have to deal with a lot of shit going on at once, but it doesn't have to be perfect-- fighting games need netcode that doesn't allow any form of lag teleporting, moves "not" landing, and hundreds of other factors that wouldn't fly in online play for a fighter. The players always have to be facing each other, which determines their animations, which determines their inputs, which determines hundreds of other factors in the game. In fighting games, your player is also STOPPED completely when they are hit by an attack. This doesn't happen in shooters, except Lost Planet 2.



tl;dr Fighting games require netcode as deep as the gameplay engine itself.

The BEST possible net-code we can have right know is GGPO.Those games you listed, I believe, had their net-code based upon GGPO. New companies seem to be completely avoiding this net-code for some reason. I believe that the reason MvC3 couldn't or rather WOULDN'T do it was becuase it was too hard to implement in to the game becuase of the way it was programmed. I just can't believe that here, in the year 2011, that the net-code in fighting games is still a problem.

P.S. I think that MvC3 was unfinished in terms of content. So another thing I ask is that companies finish their fucking games before they release it rather than get extra cash at some of the most basic features.

i.e. Spectator mode in lobbies with more people than 2.

I... never have any sort of input lag in MvC3. Whenever MvC3 lags for me, it's GGPO-style lag where the game stops.

I have HORRIBLE input lag on MvC3. Like, on some I can't even link combos properly so I have to play keepaway the entire time. Where you live, England?

I actually want to see more crossover titles that aren't mini-games/ sports titles/ fighters.

(02-19-2011, 06:07 PM)Alpha Six Wrote: It doesn't matter how many people are in the game-- the netcode doesn't change. The netcode has to be a lot more solid and has to be able to react to 2 people fighting each other, compared to 16 people shooting each other in a huge room.

In shooters-- you can pass a netcode where players may or may not occasionally teleport into areas or not be hit by attacks. This is not the same for a fighting game, because if this kind of input problem were to happen in online play, the game would be broken completely.

There is a lot more trial and error in a game as technical as a fighting game-- there isn't in shooters. Shooters have to deal with a lot of shit going on at once, but it doesn't have to be perfect-- fighting games need netcode that doesn't allow any form of lag teleporting, moves "not" landing, and hundreds of other factors that wouldn't fly in online play for a fighter. The players always have to be facing each other, which determines their animations, which determines their inputs, which determines hundreds of other factors in the game. In fighting games, your player is also STOPPED completely when they are hit by an attack. This doesn't happen in shooters, except Lost Planet 2.



tl;dr Fighting games require netcode as deep as the gameplay engine itself.

(02-19-2011, 06:57 PM)PatientZero Wrote: You're confusing complexity with scale, most of the complex physics interaction and realtime effects in large multiplayer games are handled client-side, because you're all running the same engine with the same variables, the same thing will happen, it doesn't need to sync with the server or other players. (although this sometimes causes bugs where things glitch out, as probably all of us have seen at least a dozen times)

You also have to bare in mind that an engine for an FPS and an engine for a fighter are actually totally different.

Most FPS engines or other arena shooter-type games are effectively hardcoded for multiplayer, often the singleplayer campaign is actually a modification of the multiplayer, and not the other way around, they pull lots of tricks to fake things, like predicting where people are heading or filling in the gaps if there's packet-loss, this is why you see less people teleporting around these days.
But with fighting games there are no multiplayer-centric engines around, and because they rely heavily on latency and instant input there's no way to cover-up any lag or delay, especially if you're going right from single player to multi, the effect with be very obvious, in such fast-paced games even a phenomenal ping for an FPS will give you noteworthy delay in a fighter.

So you see, it's not that the game engines are more complex or less complex, they're actually not comparable because they work in totally different ways.

I think you both just explained why Card Saga Wars is taking so long. A 2-4 man team creating individual backgrounds, remixing themes, creating hitboxes, what should, and should not connect in terms of attacks and all the multi-player coding behind it? Kinda makes the wait seem more justified now.

Also, I want Hideo Kojima make more good high-speed action robot games. I don't know what the people over at Armored Core are thinking anymore, giant robots are already a technology that can't possibly exist. Why do I have to have realizing when I just want giant robots fighting in a stylish way? A new Virtual On game would also be key SEGA.

Somehow, I knew this thread was going to have a few really dumb arguments, provoked by people who have no clue what they're talking about.

What Giz just said above :I Come on guys let's get back to game ideas

Something that pestered me that a lot of games don't have (there are only really really really few videogames that allows you that) is the allowance of, after clearing the game or the level, be able to replay that level freely. It either doesn't let you or have some sort of restriction, be it small or large.

A few examples:
On Epic Mickey, once you're done with a certain area, you cannot use the projector screen to go back to it, which is really bullshit :I
On Sonic CD, you have Time Attack mode which lets you play any level you want, and even Special Stages, with no time limit on them, however, all levels are on Present and you cannot warp to the Future or Past.
On Sonic 3, you can replay each level after you clear the game, however you cannot chose to start in Act 2, just in Act 1. And this is annoying if you want to replay just the Act 2 of a level, considering how long Sonic 3 & Knuckles' levels are.