The Block Button...[]

There is feature which has divided fighting games since the days of Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat and which continues to divide them today. Seen in both 2D and 3D fighters, it is either hated or loved (or just accepted, but rigid dichotomies are so much more interesting!). It is the block button.

While offense is the only way to win in a fighting game, defense can never be ignored; it is central to any fighter's strategy. In many fighting games, defending against attacks is accomplished by holding the joystick/directional button away from the attacker, a tradition that goes all the way back to the original Street Fighter, if not earlier. However, games such as Mortal Kombat, Virtua Fighter, and Soul Calibur use a separate button for blocking and defense-related techniques (such as Soul Calibur's parrying system, mastery of which separates the experienced from the rookies). Yet why have a separate button, when it seems so natural to use the joystick for defense?

One reason might be for mobility reasons. Soul Calibur uses an 8-way movement system with the joystick/directional buttons, making deft sidesteps easy to perform. Crouching must be done by holding down while pressing the Guard button, and similarly for jumping. But why? The Tekken series, for instance, seems to have no trouble combining a hold-back-to-block system with sidestepping (although in only four directions), and Virtua Fighter has both a block button and crouch-by-hold-down. There must be other reasons.

Parrying also comes to mind. In Soul Calibur, one can block a series of attacks and parry midway through the opponent's barrage to take the upper hand. Yet games such as Street Fighter III: Third Strike have parrying as well, using well-timed directional inputs (toward the attacker as opposed to away), and Marvel vs. Capcom 3 has the Advancing Guard maneuver, which involves pressing two attack buttons while blocking to push the opponent away and avoid being trapped by a barrage of attacks.

When you get right down to it, what sense does it make to tie up a button when a directional input could do the same thing? Is it just to make the game system stand out among others? Certainly, Mortal Kombat had to do something to pull arcade-goers (an endangered species these days) away from Street Fighter. It can be something of a trip-up to go from playing a game like Tekken to one like Soul Calibur (especially when you're the one guy who plays the same character in both series), which has the potential to turn away players who might otherwise have gotten into the game.

Arguments can be made for either side; I personally like being able to press a button and know that I'm now entering a blocking state (except when I forget to block low), although force of habit often finds me holding back at the same time anyway. If nothing else, it makes for a more diverse cast of fighting game systems. If they were all the same, after all, playing one would be enough. What a horrible world that would be...

Peace,
JT

2D vs 3D...[]

So I'm the type of fighting gamer who splits the 2D-3D divide. I'll play Street Fighter or King of Fighters as soon as Tekken or Soul Calibur. There are those who only play one or the other, and I respect their opinions. However, I find enough depth in either style to satisfy me (pun severely intended).

My friends who play solely 3D fighters are of the viewpoint that the extra dimension allows for a more in-depth, realistic experience. To a point, this is true; most people can't jump twice their body height, and linear footwork almost never happens in a real fight. However, anyone who's played Soul Calibur, for instance, knows that there can't really be any claim to realism, as characters who are hit by swords, axes, etc. don't even bleed, much less lose limbs. Even Tekken has its glaring moments of hypo-realism, as gameplay often revolves around juggling the opponent's body in mid-air, which can be accomplished with something as simple as a jab.

Come to think of it, that brings up another weakness of the 3D genre, which isn't so much a genre weakness but a market weakness. While the 2D fighting scene has several Capcom series (including the Vs. series with Marvel, SNK, and Tatsunoko), at least one currently-running SNK series (King of Fighters XIII will hopefully make it to console soon), and now even several Arcsys series running (Guilty Gear, BlazBlue), along with any number of other companies entering into the fray (I don't care what anyone says, Battle Fantasia was fun), the 3D fighting scene, at least here in the States, is Tekken, Soul Calibur, Virtua Fighter, and Dead or Alive. Half of that is from a single company, and the other two have only made lackluster appearances of late (DoA's Xbox exclusivity is a real drag, since the Xbox controller is just not made for fighting games, and Virtua Fighter 5 made the "bold" move of going to the then-new generation of consoles without an online multiplayer mode). Even Mortal Kombat has jumped the 3D ship and is returning to its 2D roots. Street Fighter 4's popularity has opened the door for 2D fighters with 3D character models to return (Street Fighter EX3 tried, but couldn't quite make it, and King of Fighters Maximum Impact/2006 didn't go far either) with a vengeance. So really, there's just a dearth of variety, compared to the 2D scene.

I also counter the argument that 2D fighters are lacking a dimension compared to 3D fighters, since they do have a "third" dimension which isn't used much by 3D fighters: height. In 3D fighters, characters move forward, backward, and to the side. In 2D fighters, characters move forward, backward...and upward. Jumping is vastly more important in 2D fighters than in 3D fighters, whose characters hardly ever jump more than a few feet from the ground (again, realism).

I guess my overall point is that I'm a fighting game fan, pure and simple. If it's a quality fighter, 2D or 3D, I'll play it.

Peace,
JT