Anyone notice some modern fighting games seem to be taking cues from anime/manga licensed fighters from the GC/PS2 era?

Not sure if I asked this before, but...

Going back to the PS2/GC/XBOX era of fighters, most of the "real" fighters barely, if ever had "story modes". I mean, I think it was only the 3D Mortal Kombat games that did (Deadly Alliance, Deception, Armageddon). But other than that, for the likes of Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Tekken, and DoA, you had to mentally piece together what's fluid (or wait until the devs confirm what's canon in the next game).

But then we had the influx of fighters based on anime/manga licenses, many of which were criticized for being quick cash-in's on the license (unless you were DBZ: Budokai 3). Yet, unlike most of the titles above, some of them had an actual story mode. Like below:

Granted, in DBZ's case, they retold episodes of what those games were based on, but they also had 'what if' scenarios dug in.

Then a gen later, and often we see one western developer get most of, if not all the credit for implementing such a feature, starting with...

And it's not just the implementing of a story either, even mechanics have gone more simplified now, mainly with how 'Finishing Moves' or 'Ultimate moves' are done, even though a common criticism with the licensed fighters is how easy and lacking of depth they were. It's just as easy to do these...

...like it is these (not complaining as I couldn't elegantly pull off a complex input for a Shinku Hadouken in Street Fighter to save my life unless it's the 3DS version, just surprised is all), in that once you fill up a certain meter (or get your ass kicked to a certain level in Tekken 7, press/hold a button, maybe two and.... BAM!

In short, I ask: Are fighting games of this gen and the last adapting quite a bit from their licensed bretherin (which are quite often dismissed as shovelware)?

Gonna be honest, preferred the Alpha II/III style of arcade story-telling over what story-modes have become, where characters would sporadically interact ultimating in unique endings.

Most story-modes where you're constantly forced to swap characters, and the AI remains really passive isn't terribly engaging.

About the closest to enjoyable was DBZF, and even then, it's battle system got very repetitive.

Uhh….not really if anything they all seem stuck in this mid sort of 2010 blur of graphics over everything else like they've been the whole time.

They are, but mk9 gets the credit since it was the mainstream fighter to do it. I remember a Naruto game on ps2 being even open world. I'm only glad guilty gear has a great story mode plus the arcade endings being part of the story mode.

@raining51: WTF are you talking about?!?

Seems that way. Now I further understand why people online are quick to downplay Nintendo's influence in the games industry, being that they weren't the first to...

-invent the analog stick (N64)

-invent 4 player local multiplayer without the need multitaps (N64)

-resurrect the games industry (NES)

Rather, they popularized the first two (Sony improved the analog stick with the DualShock, MS and SEGA adapted the local four player BUILT without needing multitaps in their respective systems, XBOX and Dreamcast) and at the least, brought gaming back to an otherwise vital region for most business (North America).

Guess a key role in the games industry is (and true for any other industry): If you were the first of it's kind to be popular, you're the inventor.

DBZ Budokai was mainstream. It sold about as much as MK9.

The first fighting games I remember playing with single-character story modes were Soul Edge and Street Fighter Alpha 1 & 2.

In terms of multi-character story modes, I think that was only done by manga/anime-based fighters like DBZ up until the PS2 era. I think the first non-licensed fighter with a multi-character story mode was BlazBlue, which presented the story in a visual novel format, with branching paths and alternate endings.

@Jag85: what exactly are you correcting in my post?

I have never done a finishing move in Mortal Kombat despite owning the first 3 games since the SNES/Genesis days.

Imputing 15 buttons for one move is stupid and I gave up.

I would love to play a fighting game that only uses 1 damn button for finishers.

That’s the one thing the WWE games got right.

@Ant_17: No, MK9 wasn't the first to do really anything it did. It is mostly derivative.

This was something observed long ago. Eliminating salt/reducing entry barriers etc. is a problem as I and many other in the fighting game community see it. For example, in Tekken 7, Rage Arts aren't the only thing they added to reduce the complexity for newcomers. They also reduced throw breaks to one button for standard throws, de-emphasized movement by giving many moves tracking properties and reducing the distance of sidesteps, introduced characters with one button movement and the list goes on.

This type of stuff is done on top of adding input delay (yes, you read that correctly) in order to de-emphasize reaction speed based play for players who've mastered execution. They did it with virtually every mainstream fighting game this gen, including Tekken 7. Some of the input delay was removed upon ferocious condemnations by fans soon after release though.

I could go on for days. You can probably find some old videos on youtube about it too.

I have 0 issues with the entry barrier being lowered so New comers can enjoy some great fighting games, wether it is by adding some cinematic story like in MK or making the game a little bit easier.

@X_CAPCOM_X: wait, when did we move to mechanics? Mk9 was the 1st from the mainstream series to do story mode, not the 1st in general. What does tekken rage have to do with what I said?

@Ant_17: DBZ Budokai was the first mainstream fighter to have a multi-character story mode, not MK9. Budokai came long before it, and sold about as much as MK9 did.

@Jag85: maybe it wasn't mainstream enough, back when anime was so niche. But it's clear everyone followed after mk9. The only one that followed after budokai was Naruto and like you said, blazblue and the anime fighters.

Anime may have had a niche, but Dragon Ball? Dragon Ball is to shonen anime/manga what Star Wars is to science-fantasy.

Anime may have been niche' on Western TV's, but it's generally never been when it comes to video games. Including fighting games,, namely SFII the revolutionary defining game. of the genre.

I would gander it has something to do with the nature of gaming itself. The origin of fighting games has been driven by arcades, where they are designed to be played in quick concession, sometimes with cheap AI fucking the player over as a deliberate intention.

As technology for home consoles grew and the arcade experience diminished, we moved away from still images, to shitty FMV's to in-engine that now far surpasses shitty FMV's. Stuff like space and expected playtime increased as well.

Ironically, MK9 does use shitty low quality FMV's, it looks really bad and disconcerting.

Like madsnakehhh said, people who have no interest in MP, much like Call Of Duty, can get some passive content to add value on top of arcade mode, which are usually very short unless replayed multiple times.

In SFII/Tekken you typically were encouraged by unlocking characters.

Now you get to fucking pay for them seperately, before release.

Yaya!

@Ant_17: How was DBZ niche? That was a huge phenomenon, much bigger than MK.

And like I said, Budokai sold about as much as MK9. And DBZ is now the 3rd biggest fighting game franchise, after Smash and Tekken. It was DBZ that inspired the story modes of modern fighting games.

Egad, Conan and I leave, and this is what you let these threads become Cup? Have some shame for once in your life.

Since I... addressed it a little in the OP?

Ok so aren't most fighting games basically jus tlike... the same deal the 2D fighters in particular I mean you could say they all take cues from each other perhaps...

I just think of the origins of the whole genre and then now it's like hm... I guess... something like that...