I let this video stew for way too long so now I hate it! :) THANKS FOR WATCHING AND SUBSCRIBING
@Saskaruto16
Жыл бұрын
So I just subbed to your channel and I've watched a few of your videos. Your editing is fantastic but I have some critiques of your arguments especially in these 2 videos. Warning: extremely long. I went over the 10000 character limit a little so it will be 2 comments: So I think there are 3 fundamental flaws with your criticism of archetypes. Firstly: Archetype ≠ playstyle/gameplan Secondly: Character preference ≠ necessarily wanting the same exact thing over and over. Thirdly: Shared enjoyment ≠ shared required skillset/optimal gameplan So firstly: Your example of Ryu vs Ryu being a dumb grouping relies on the fact that they have different gameplans. Sf2 Ryu is throwing fireballs looking for an opening and then blowing you up, while SF3 Ryu is playing mid range trying to beat your face in, and that's because of the different game systems. Yes Ryus playstyle is completely different between games, just because you like Ryu in one doesn't mean you'll like him in another game with different systems. But that doesn't mean he isn't a shoto. Shoto ≠ playstyle, shoto just means he has a specific set of special moves. Ryu, Ken, Akuma, Evil Ryu, etc, are all shotos because they all have the same special moves. But Ryu has been a zoner, a brawler, and an all-arounder, Ken has been an all arounder or a rushdown, Akuma usually trades having lower health to have more/better tools than the other shotos so he can fit into all arounder and glass cannon. You need more than just a single archetype to describe a character, because every character is a combination of elements. If you're new to Guilty Gear, I can tell you that in terms of movesets, Sol and KY are shotos, and Gio is a psuedo Cammy. But that doesn't tell you their playstyles. For that I need to get more into depth: Ky is a shoto with good zoning projectiles and amazing mid range control buttons, but not a great mix game or pressure. So to describe him I need a few "archetypes" to describe not only the moves he uses but the gameplan he employs using those moves. Shoto, footsies, zoning. Sol is a shoto with a projectile that only goes to mid screen, but he's got amazing plus frames in his pressure, and a great mixup with his command grab. Shoto, pressure, mixup, and you could throw in additional subtype descriptors as well. Yeah it's no surprise that a single archetype doesn't describe how they play. Mishimas all play different too, and you can go as far as calling Armor King and Bob Mishimas if you want to, because they share tool, but they all have vastly different playstyles. That's why Blasted Salami doesn't put each character under a single archetype, he includes 3 for each character. Secondly: You make the mistake of assuming that because your friend likes Xiaoyu and he likes Patroklos and because you like Q and Geese that they necessarily have to have similarities. I like very spicy hot sauce covered fried chicken, and I also enjoy Alfredo with shrimp. Do they have to have something in common because I like them both? No. Your friends enjoyment of both characters was purely based on the fact that A: He found them fun to do things with B: They could do stuff other characters can't do He didn't like them because they played a certain way or shared a set of moves, not at all. Archetype, playstyle/gameplan, those were irrelevant to him in his character choice. I like both sets of described foods because I find them unique and satisfying as well. That doesn't mean they share any characteristics at all. 1/2
@Saskaruto16
Жыл бұрын
Thirdly: This kind of ties into point two but Just because you like them doesn't mean they have any crossover, or that you'll be as good with them as another character, or hell that you're even playing them properly. Let's kind of work backwards for a moment: Say you really like doing a lot of damage with explosive 50/50s. But you're also bad. So you pick Zangief and you basically get in for free with random jumps that don't get punished and getting through bad fireball pressure. You like that strategy, and you think you like Zangief because you think he plays like that, but at high level he doesn't. In reality you don't actually like how Gief plays, you've just never been forced to play him properly. If you did get to a high enough level where people would force you to play around each characters strengths and weaknesses properly, you would switch off of Zangief into another character that can actually play that rushdown 50/50 gameplan you were doing with Gief that he isn't actually capable of doing to competent players. Which also ties back into the example of your friends two different character choices and skillsets. The two characters he picked don't have very overlapping skillsets. Just because I like two different characters doesn't mean I can equally play both of them. I really like Melee Marth, and I'm really good at him. That style intuitively works for me and I'm capable of playing at a very high level using that style. But I also like Dudley, who plays nothing like Marth. I'm sure you could find some superficial similarities, or argue that I could use the same gameplan on Dudley. But if I try to use my Marth gameplan on Dudley, I'm going to get bodied, because it doesn't work. That gameplan isn't what makes Dudley work at higher level in most important matchups. So who actually has a more similar gameplan/skillset to Melee Marth in SF3? Chun Li. Is Chun as fun or cool to me as Dudley? No. So I have a choice between playing at a higher level, and having more fun. I'm a try hard to I pick the former in most games. But someone who doesn't care about that might pick the later and just play at a lower level in that game than they could get with another character, and be fine with it. So what are archetypes for: The objective of things like archetypes is to group things into categories so someone who doesn't understand every character in the game at extremely high depth can get a rough idea of what they are looking at. You could play a game even at a higher level and not have a great understanding of how each character functions. Just because you can play a matchup with your character doesn't mean you understand the other guys character in their entirety, so it's a discussion to explain to other people what that character does, strengths/weaknesses, but in a more succinct and cross game understandable way. We can also use it to help someone find what they are looking for. If I want something specific, I want a rushdown but also preferably with shoto specials or close to them, you can tell me what character that is with just a couple key words, if there is one in the cast (which sometimes there won't be, especially for more niche or system specific archetypes, in which case you have to make do with either something close, or something else entirely). But that doesn't mean that's what we will like the most, or necessarily play, depending on our intentions with the game. If my intention is to get as good as possible, yeah I want a defensive character with good range, etc, because that's what I'm good at using at high level, that's my skillset that I have built up for years and intuitively works for me. If I'm not taking a game seriously, I might be perfectly content playing the funny Boxer guy this time and not getting to near as high level as I might with a character with whom I could use my skillset to the highest degree. You described what you enjoyed as "the inevitable". But then what you actually described was extremely general. Explosive power that can swing the course of a game, taking risk and trading health in trade for that high damage power. That's such a small trait that many characters in many archetypes can and do have that trait. That's not a playstyle, that's not an archetype. That's a specific attribute you like, and yeah both of your characters have it to a degree? cause it's not a hard trait to find tbh. You obviously have other things you like about each character, but it seems like gameplan isn't nearly as important to you as long as you have this singular attribute you like. Not to be a dick about it: but you also admit that your strategy is not that effective on Q. Is it just because Q is bad as a character? Possibly, probably even. But we've seen people win high level tournaments with Q, what is he doing that you aren't? Maybe it's just a skill level thing, but it could be a gameplan thing as well. Maybe you're playing much too risky, relying on your damage and taunt being able to swing the match too much, playing an almost grappler style gameplan on a character who doesn't do it that well. I think your criticism of archetypes lies in the fact that they don't cover everything down to the specific traits or even feelings they illicit from you. But that's the entire point. They are basic categorizations, and require multiple to get a decently accurate description of the character. What you and your friend were looking for in characters wasn't an archetype or a playstyle/gameplan. It was a specific attribute, and personal satisfaction. Nobody can quantify that for you in an archetype video, sorry. Maybe archetype videos won't be that helpful to you in finding who you want to play. For others they can be quite helpful in understanding a game they don't play, are trying to get into, or are leveling up in and finding that the character they were playing doesn't operate the way they had originally thought. If I'm looking for a specific type of character that rewards specific skillsets, I'm going to want those archetype videos and dustloop pages to quickly and easily convey how the character operates and what skillsets they reward, so I don't have to spend an insane amount of time and effort to completely understand it myself. "What experience am I going to get with this character?" "Well TLDR this guy's going to "hit and run" for most of the game using poky projectiles and evasion try to put distance between you and the opponent, and in trade their defense is below average and so is their mix". I know just from that, that's not a character I want to play, because I know what "hit and run" and "evasion" mean in this context. No matter what fighting game, or any kind of game really, I'm likely not going to like that character. So if I watch a video and it says that, I know I can cross them off the list, I have a rough idea of what they want if/when I fight them, and I can watch a match of them and understand why certain options are being prioritized and the mindgames created from that. All from just a basic description instead of an hour or greater video on the character.
@Soflytieguy2095
2 жыл бұрын
I feel like archetypes at this point aren't really for people who are starting to play the game but to build a story for spectators who have a budding interest. It's a lot easier to describe a matchup as rushdown vs zoner to a spectator than going into the finer points and interactions between two characters to someone who knows very little about the characters or the game mechanics themselves. I still feel like they are useless to actual players tho.
@xcrackervolleyx
2 жыл бұрын
I prefer to think about archetypes with a few principles in mind. 1.) Fighting game archetypes at its core are abstract concepts built on the ideas considered by the players and game designers. Therefore, there's no set rule on how strict these archetypes can be. Hell, I could technically both call Billy Kane and SFV Juri shotos and it would kinda be right (both DO have at least one fireball/zoning tool using a circular input, a DP, and at least one move that moves them horizantally... although Billy's is a command normal), leading me to my next point. 2.) Archetypes can themselves be categorized into 3 main groups: Toolkit-based, objective-based, and experience-based. *Toolkit archetypes* are the simplest to understand. Shotos, Puppets, Mishimas, Balrog boxers, Stance characters where the stance is temporary and held with a button press, stances characters with stances that are permanent until changed, Dudley boxers, ... whatever the fuck you call May and Blanka (are they Balrog boxers too? I honestly have no clue.). *Objective archetypes* are based on the main playstyle the character is geared toward and their general goals/win conditions they strive to achieve, regardless of what tools they have at their disposal. Zoning, rushdown, bait-n-punish, footsies, etc. *Experience-based archetypes* are what you brought up before. Where characters end up sharing a similar gameplay experience despite having completely different toolkits. You mentioned the Inevitable characters, but I think one of my favorite archetypes to think about are Snowballs, the characters who have a set of tools that allow them to overwhelm the opponent in raw damage or offensive pressure after one or two winning interactions. Stuff like Johnny, Xrd Jack-o, Arakune, Susano'o, and SS4 Gotega. 3.) Characters can occupy multiple archetypes at a time, which goes hand in hand with exploring new ideas in the game and how those ideas could potentially spread or run parallel with other games. I remember a comment in Big Yellow's Fighting Game Gold video about 3rd Strike Chun Li and how similar she is to Ralf in KoF (prior to XIII). Both are characters are poking characters with mediocre specials and a decent but infuriating-to-execute mash special but manage to thrive off of strong low confirms and a really scary super. There are still differences between the two though that make them feel different however. Chun-li has a weak fireball, a flash kick with horizontal range and active hitboxes, and a super that is scary BECAUSE of that low confirm. Meanwhile, Ralf has a good command grab with a slightly awkward input, a flash kick that actually sucks as a flash kick and is more meant to catch the opponent off guard with an exploding divebomb, and Galactica Phantom, which isn't actually the super confirming off a c.LK, but an slow, armored, unblockable super that will do to your healthbar what Little Boy did to Hiroshima. This flexibility of tools influencing game feel doesn't even need to be purely applied to character archetypes, but move archetypes as well. I could probably make an entire video essay on the implications of smacking a command grab onto various characters if I had the technical knowhow for it.
@SonicSanctuary
Жыл бұрын
This right here is the way I feel
@FrizzlenillCAN
2 жыл бұрын
I think the SF2 Ryu and SF3 Ryu comparison is missing a key reason people use the 'shoto' label - it's not that someone will like all 'shotos' for the same reason, per se, but rather the idea that characters in different games are each 'shotos' (or whichever archetype) helps someone understand the GAME better. If you have a preconceived idea of what a 'shoto' is, and the playstyle of a new game's shoto diverges from that expectation, the idea of the shoto category is that that divergence represents what is different and unique about the GAME, how a 'shoto' is represented through that game's lens, which allows someone who likes, e.g. an SF2 shoto like Ryu to understand the playstyle and systems differences of SF3 VERY quickly by comparison, their differences despite both being 'shotos' are VALUABLE rather than a downside of the archetype concept. Sure, someone who likes SF2 Ryu may not like SF3 Ryu, but they're going to figure out a LOT about the deeper differences between SF2 and SF3 by trying Ryu first because he's the 'shoto' and then learning they dislike him, which can either prompt them to seek a character that evokes the non-archetype-based playstyle of SF2 Ryu within SF3 OR help them understand about the systems of SF3 to the point where they can more immediately judge if the game itself is for them. Personally, I find I like a lot of 'bajiquan-style' characters, because they often have similar playstyles and are grouped into a rushdown archetype. So, when I find a new game, I can see what that game's version of a 'rushdown' (or bajiquan, if available) character looks like, and then the contrast with my experience with other characters of that archetype can make the nuances of that specific game more immediately visible as well as directly helping me figure out what that character lacks for me and therefore what kind of things I should seek out. If that game's rushdown character 'isn't X enough', then I can look for that game's characters that are more extreme in the category of X, and find a good character that way - it's still accelerated my process of finding a character, just not by PURELY sticking to the archetypes, instead using the archetypes as a baseline to know what I'm looking for within each particular game's roster.
@DeitySkullKid
Жыл бұрын
A side points, the shot archetype in general is meant to be, well, a generalist, it works both close and long range, if I'm playing against, say, a zoner, a shot will usually want to move in, while against a grappler, you can zone them out of necessary HONESTLY, if you want a comparison between two games to show different gameplay, shoto is probably the worst one, because the point of the shoto is being adaptable
@TheAweDude1
Жыл бұрын
There are two points I want to make. First, a glass cannon can definitely exist in fighting games. There are many ways that a character can be "tough" or "fragile." Yes, a lower healthpool does do that, but that's not it. A lack of good defensive options can make a character in general "fragile." A character with slow, but long reaching moves, is put into a very tight spot when faced up close. Dhalsim often doesn't have many tools for someone that is right up in his face, so he can be considered a "fragile" character. You could also define a character as "fragile" if they can easily have the tables turned on them. And this isn't even considering "alternative" fighting games, like Smash. In those games, there is no "traditional" health system, the closest in Smash would be a character's weight. But weight doesn't tell the whole story about how hard a character is to kill. Some heavier characters can be KO'd much easier than heavier ones because they don't have the right tools. Second, I think archetypes are useful in two regards: mechanical and gameplan differences. For example, Guile and M. Bison are both "charge characters". This refers to how their special moves are physically performed. But they still play completely differently. Two different puppet masters can play differently. A shoto can have their tools be suited more for a keep away gameplan, or more of a rushdown gameplan. Gameplan archetypes usually can describe what you want to do as a player. A zoner wants to keep their opponent far away and whittle away with projectiles or long reaching moves. A rushdown wants to be all up in your face. A grappler wants to be all up in your face, but with grabs. You can mix and match the different Another great way to think about it is in a different game: Magic the Gathering. There are, roughly speaking, three different "archetypes": aggro, combo, and control. These describe how a deck wants to win: aggro wants to win early, control wants to win late, and combo wants to win suddenly. They can also be described using the specific tools the deck has. A Goblins deck can be described as "creature aggro", for example, which plays different than an Izzet Spellslinger or "spell aggro" deck.
@serenica6340
2 жыл бұрын
Thank god someone managed to put it into words. My two main fighting games used to be Smash and DBFZ. My mains then were Simon and UI Goku. They're both notorious for slowing down the pace of the game, which is something that I absolutely love. My friend was helping me get into Guilty Gear and asked what archetype I liked and I couldn't really give him a straight answer. Simon is a zoner, but I didn't like him solely because he was a zoner. UI Goku is an all arounder, but that's not why I liked him. It made me think about archetypes, and whether I should bother with the idea of grouping myself up into liking specific "archetypes" even if there's very little in common with the characters I play. I just was never able to put it into words like you did, and so professionally looking at that. I still think archetypes are pretty handy for new players, but saying stuff like "do you like rushdown or zoning?" we could ask "how do you like to play? Fast or slow? Close or far away?" Something a bit more vague but more easily groupable into game specific character groups. Anyways I'm rambling and don't really know what I'm saying. Thanks for making this video. It's very well done. You definitely deserve more subs for the effort put in.
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
I think our views align on the endpoint, ofcourse it is at some point always going to be necessary to group characters together lr simplify playstyles in some way. I just think actual discourse ought to be way higher up on our list of potential avenues. Definitely way higher than some random youtube-video. Lastly, thanks for the kind words!
@elegy8187
Жыл бұрын
Who did you end up maining in Guilty Gear?
@ividboy7616
10 ай бұрын
UI Goku is not an all rounder lmao
@Feedbackking13
Жыл бұрын
Well Killer Instinct breaks and fixes everything in this argument. Mira for example has fewer defensive options since she's a glass cannon, but the one defensive option she has allows her to turn into an un-hittable mist at the cost of her health. This tool is then used more offensively by the higher level players since the mixup is really strong. She is the prime example of a glass cannon in the sense that she lacks the tools to properly defend against high damage, not necessarily that she has more or less health initially. Then there's Jago who is the well rounded archetype, he just plays neutral well and is a high skill ceiling character that some people call garbage.
@doomtron4
2 жыл бұрын
I think your core thrust here is accurate: archetypes are not a sufficient piece of information to pick a main when first booting up the game. That said, archetypes still have a lot of utility and descriptive power for understanding what a character might play like.
@UniGya
Жыл бұрын
I don't think Shoto is an archetype people look at and say "I like playing these characters," it's more just about identifying the patterns in fighting game movesets. I don't think you would ever ask someone what kinds of characters they like to play and get "shotos" back as an answer because it's not a descriptor of a playstyle.
@soulfire67
2 жыл бұрын
Tbh archetypes feel better for giving a player a place to START when trying to find a character. If you like a certain playstyle, it makes sense to use that as a starting point to find a character you like. More than that, seeing how one archetype plays in one game compared to another can inform you of how a game actually plays. I tend to like rushdown characters, and seeing how they operate and how their mixups change from game to game gives me a lot of insight into the specifics of a game. And sure the specifics of why you like a character might differ, but it also could easily not It could be as simple as you like faster characters or you like beefy tanks. And if it does differ, then at least now you specifically know that and can thus narrow down your options from there. Its only through this trial and error that you can eventually figure out the specifics of what you like.
@gozz2118
Жыл бұрын
Archetypes are a representation of a characters skillset. They don’t inform you 100% when picking a main but they let you know what the character’s general strengths and weaknesses are. If I hear zoner I know I have strong projectiles and weak close up game, if I hear grappler I know I have to get in close or I’m at a disadvantage. You can exclude a lot of characters from selection by knowing they don’t have the tools you want
@silvera1886
2 жыл бұрын
Always good when rubbish uploads
@ehsun7822
2 жыл бұрын
But you got one thing wrong .. archetypes aren't really meant for beginners .. in my experience beginners don't give a damn about the technicalities.. they just start mashing with the characters they find cool Archetype really are for more experienced players.. and those descriptors make perfect sense to them .. saying xyz Character is a grappler makes perfect sense and you immediately know the essence of their gameplay And then obviously you have to play to see how they translate into the games mechanics , how that specific game handles that archetype .. and what type of experience that Character provides . All those things, you come to learn then through experience and one can't put them into one word or even a few sentences So imo the concept of archetype is still pretty useful for the people it's intended for
@BrawlerGamma
Жыл бұрын
I do think it's accurate that a lot of the groupings are very flawed, but I think one utility that having even flawed categories has, especially for someone coming into a new game, is narrowing the scope of their options when figuring out the game. Even if none of the characters in the archetype you think is your preferred one really fit your preference, having a smaller selection to choose from, especially when the rosters get as massive as they do sometimes, can make it feel a little more approachable while it's all just indiscernible white noise because you don't know anything yet. One drawback though is that if someone's too confident in those categories and they exhaust everything without considering checking out other characters that aren't put into the archetype they think is "theirs", it could lead to some people abandoning a game without bothering to try a character they might've gelled incredibly well with.
@atomu27
2 жыл бұрын
Love this video, made me think of the similarities between Anji (+R) and Marth, the two characters I've put the most time in. Anji's guard point and Marth's tipper are somewhat similar to me: a special property that affects a part of the move, be it temporal, frames in the animation, or spacial, hitboxes, that requires precision on part of the player to hit, and grants advantages or different opportunities. Like going into a follow up with Anji or letting the move hit and comboing off it, or, with Marth, hitting with the tipper to kill/send further away or using the sourspot to combo at lower percents. Yet I don't think anyone will ever put Anji and Marth in the same archetype. also lol at hare Chipp and turtle slayer
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
Glad it sparked that thought process, I'm all for phat brain action
@heyitsmort7744
Жыл бұрын
Love the idea of Mario tornado as a “forward moving special” 😂 he’s still a decent example of a shoto tho!
@DarkAuraLord
Жыл бұрын
I just realized, Mario has a fire ball, a shoryuken, and a tatsu LOL
@Qeiji
Жыл бұрын
man your videos are so addictive to watch
@brandnamepending4817
2 жыл бұрын
Oh hey, been actually scripting a video on how archetypes are a lie. I'm not gonna watch this video bc I don't want to inform my opinions but I really like your videos so here's a comment to boost you in the algorithm.
@uandresbrito5685
Жыл бұрын
Thought you'd mention KOF more. It's funny how everyone is a grappler rushdown there. And the zoners aren't nearly as oppressive(or limited at close range) than in other franchises.
@HQRubbish
Жыл бұрын
That's certainly a thought, I try not to talk to much about systems I am not very familiar with though. I've only really put any meaningful amount of time into KOF13. Thanks for watching
@uandresbrito5685
Жыл бұрын
@@HQRubbish KOF destroys the concept of archetypes ever since '96. Very interesting.
@VersThing
Жыл бұрын
I think you missed some things when defining how a character fits in an archetype. I feel like there are 3 things that make a character fit an archetype: 1) General moveset. Characters with similar moves tend to be grouped in together. Both Dhalsim and Axl use extreamly long ranged normals that are good for pokes and keepaway. They have similar moves, so they are both grouped together. Axl is a zoner because he has these moves. This is what you noted in your video. However, this starts kinda falling apart once you realize that Guile shares little to no moves with Axl or Dhalsim, and yet he is still a zoner. So what gives? That is because using only this aspect of the characters gives you an incomplete description of them, and an incomplete achetype. Ram from GG Strive also has her slashes that can be used in the same way. Why isn't she a zoner? 2) General gameplan Why are Guile and Axl zoners despite not having a ton in common? Because they both want to keep you away from them. Their gameplans are similar. Their win condition is similar. The mindset you need to use them is similar. They are both zoners because they wanna keep you away. 3) CONTEXT Venom is MUCH more agressive when compared to the down-back duck that is Guile. In the context of SF2, Venom could be considered a rushdown character. But we're not playing SF2, are we? While Venom seem like a rushdown when compared to other games, compared to Guilty Gear, is he really the same as someone like Leo? No, obviously. A fast, agressive game will have a faster, more agressive zoner, and a slow, footsies based game will have a slower, more footsies based rushdown. Archetypes can tell you what the characters does in the overall context of the game. Axl is a zoner because he is the more passive, long ranged keepaway character is Guilty Gear. When I play GG strive, what I feel when I play Axl, Ran and ky are the same feelings: I feel like a giant wall that you can't break: using their fireballs, slashes and normals I keep the oponent away from me while applying constant pressure, and after the opponent gets frustrated, they make a mistake and I delete their health bar. But this is how I FEEL. You might feel like a turtle when playing Axl, a damage monster with Ram, and a monkey with Ky, but that has nothing to do with the character. That is how you FEEL, and because everyone feels different things, we cant characterise them by that. It's pointless, so we just don't. Using gameplan and moves gives you a much better, more objective way to categorizes fighting game characters. Is it perfect? No, but nothing is. This is better than nothing. Archetypes are ment to convey what the character generaly does, and what their win con is. In that way, SF2 and SF3 Ryu could both be described as a simple, well rounded character that represents the games general system mechanic and feel. They have similar moves (DP, fireball, forward moving attack), they have a similar goal of being an all rounder character that does well in every situation, and doing a good job being an introduction to the games system mechanics, and they both play at the pace of their respective game, and with the gimmics of their respective games. A well rounded, simple, easy to pick up character with a fireball, a DP, and a forward moving attack. A shoto.
@Alice-lh2li
2 жыл бұрын
The fact that I like shotos in most street fighter games and can't stand like the guilty gear "shotos" or kof shotos makes me feel like this is fax
@jpVari
2 жыл бұрын
you make my favorite videos. totally separate from whether I agree with any particular point. I just went to watch pt 1 I wish I had a way to get ultradavid to watch it and talk about it on the ultrachen podcast just because you should have more subs and I know he likes Q... I fantasize about weird things.
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
Very kind words as always! I do wish at times more people would get exposed to these ideas, but then again I find the process of creating my videos rewarding in and of itself. So I try not to stress about how many people watch.
@kaijew8930
Жыл бұрын
I think fg archetypes are like media genres. They can be useful for conveying general info of xy&z, but quickly get messy and ill-defined
@GGL_Juno
2 жыл бұрын
After exploring a lot of FGs recently and having to find out which characters I enjoy playing in each one, I feel as though the traditional archetypes that people use are a bit hit or miss for me. I think it's more helpful for people to look at the characters they enjoy and think about what those characters accomplish more than what they appear to do on screen. How does this character skew certain interactions? How do they force certain types of counter play? I think we tend to like these characters because of the situations they create for ourselves and for the opponent. Terms like rushdown or zoner can very loosely express those situations but often times the interactions we're looking for are much too specific for those descriptors. I like King in KOF but I don't enjoy playing zoners in a lot of other games. King might be able to zone very well because of venom strike and some long reaching normals, but I enjoy King because of how the threat of things like venom strike make the opponent want to play around them and lets me catch them for trying to counter play. You could say that I enjoy calling out responses to safe pressure or poking maybe. That might not necessarily be all I'm looking for but it's a lot closer than saying I like to play zoners. I think archetypes as descriptors of interactions that we're looking for can be a lot more helpful to people but it will be less neat and organized compared to the general terms people like to use currently. For players that really enjoy the depth of FGs it would probably be a very worthwhile tradeoff though.
@mechanicat1934
2 жыл бұрын
I do think archetypes are interesting in that they help describe asymmetrical gameplay or match ups. More specifically the rock paper scissors of Rushdown beats Zoner, Zoner beats Grappler, and Grappler beats Rushdown. But in that case it's merely an example triangle and not something every character is supposed to be a member of.
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
I definitely don't think there exists any hard rule of RPS between these types of characters. Seems like one would have to do a pretty crazy amount of data-collection to even come close to breaking that down across the field of games. Seems like conjecture at best.
@uandresbrito5685
Жыл бұрын
@@HQRubbish It works perfectly for some games because the matchups or the game system makes it up that way, but absolutely not an universal rule.
@tacticalkiwibird1960
Жыл бұрын
i think recomending a charecter by the expeirence they give you is super hard to describe, exspesialy with how fighting games are made, so using a short descripter and then maybe a little extra context s the best way to go.
@mechanicat1934
2 жыл бұрын
As a KOF player I always had a pretty negative view of archetypes as a concept. It's not unusual to have someone ask who the grappler or zoners are, and KOF players are kind of stuck without an answer. True, a lot of people will say Clark or Daimon for grapplers, but those characters don't really play anything like what the archetype is usually associated with? So many KOF characters are radar charts of tools that come together in their own unique way that trying to put a lot of characters in a box is kinda hard. Everybody knows that Ryo, Robert, and Terry are kind of like Shotos. But let me ask you, what archetype is K9999/Nameless? Blue Mary? Leona? Choi? I've never even seen someone assign them one. With that background for my first fighting game (KOF got me into fighting games after bouncing off of SF2 a lot) it left me with some doubts about the validity of Archetypes as soon as I became a player.
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
I think even the examples of shotos you list both differ a lot between eachother but also are pretty drastic departures from what the "archetype" plays like in say Street Fighter IV.
@uandresbrito5685
Жыл бұрын
Leona is so unique she's got the reverse DP. If she jumps you might get punished you with full invincibility LMAO
@Thomazbr
Жыл бұрын
I dunno man, I feel like Clark is pretty grappler-esque. The ideal Clark scenario is for him to land one of his command grabs, preferably backbreaker and put you in a position where he can threaten you on wakeup with a blender of options and repeat that scenario until you die. It's not too different from the Gief's ideal scenario in say SFIV or SFV. They land an SPD and now you're forced to guess between his own hell blender.
@uandresbrito5685
Жыл бұрын
@@Thomazbr Because he's got more command grabs. But he still mixes them up and rushes you down, something not very grappler-like. And most important of all, most characters can do what Clark can with less effectivity and some non grab heavy characters even get more reward off of command grabs than him sometimes(Ioti, Athena)
@Thomazbr
Жыл бұрын
@@uandresbrito5685 I mean gief also sometimes doesnt hit you with a command grab. I think when you look at the macro level Clark is very grappler. Much like Gief Clark objective is to put into a 50/50 loop of mix ups with his various command grabs and most of the fight is just trying to get in. Things just happen at different speeds between those two characters because kof is just naturally faster than SF.
Maybe i'm a little late to this discussion, but I think that the archetype conversation should always be connected to the style of games. As it was said at the end of the video, if you look from the eyes of a SF2 player, every character in GG would be a Rushdown, but thats because "Anime Fighters" tend to be faster. So, my opinion is that when you say, Ky is a Shoto on GG Strive, you have to consider that is a Shoto character on a Anime Fighter, which plays differently to a Shoto on a Classical 2D. So before telling somebody "this is a Shoto", you first have to tell him "this is a Team Fighter" so he can adapt the usage of archetypes to that style of game. I don't know if this makes sense, even I got a little confused writing it hehehe.
@rookbranwen8047
Жыл бұрын
I feel like some commonly agreed on archetypes are based purely on tools they have like shotos or puppets, while others are intended to describe the primary aspect of a characters game plan or their win condition. It would be most useful if all archetypes referred to only one or the other. In addition this seperation has created archetypes that are interchangeable in win condition but not tool set such as okizeme/mixup/setplay/vortex. All four of these could be used to describe a character whose primary win condition is essentially to force the opponent to block, then mix them up with high/lows, crossups, throws, whatever their game and toolset allow. On the other hand because of their differing tools and games the way they actually do that may end up being very different.
@egill1257
Жыл бұрын
Dude your graphics are freaking amazing
@BotchWatchTV
Жыл бұрын
This is probably one of my fav fighting game video essays ever. You are m thinking about these things at a level that I really wish more content creators were thinking about, (Ultra David is probably the closest I can think of?) I want to think more deeply about the characters ive historically enjoyed as well, and though, mostly because ive often joked with friends that there is something personally/psychologically “revealing” about the patterns in the characters we pick, and that doesn’t really have too much to do with “archetypes”. My recent obsession is +R Johnny. I grew up casually playing guilty gear, and when i had little awareness of how the games system, and his tool kit came together, i absolutely hated him. But i tried him again after i learned how his tool kit came together, the mini game of landing a coin to upgrade my moves, the particular adaptions and character specific combos to get a 1 hit enkasu and set up an unblockable. I love the flow of that gameplay, and i love that this awkward move set came together and just flows into this really flashy sequence when all goes right, and suddenly your bouncing the opponent off walls with your quick draw. I think the appeal, for me, is that everytime I play him im reminded of how much his tools weirded me out. The dash felt stiff. His sword felt weak. I didnt understand what the coins did and even if i did i had no idea how to take advantage of them in combos without wasting them throwing them in neutral. I had no idea what the smoke did in Bacchus Sigh. 10 years later i understand. Much of my enjoyment in playing fighting games is learning about the games and reporting back to my friends with much less uhh intensive interest in these games. And it feels like playing characters that make the least sense to beginners when they are first blindly feeling them out is a representation of that. Ive played Urien before and loved him greatly, some of that enjoyment and learning about aegis mechanics felt like unlocking this great secret. But perhaps theres not enough, affective similarities, which seems to be what we need to focus on moving forward. Thank you so much for this video, this is the happiest ive been finding a new fgc creator in forever!
@HQRubbish
Жыл бұрын
Glad you found it interesting! I think we tend to look at both the games and our community through a lens of understanding that is probably not as objective as we often feel.
@andrewroes7942
2 жыл бұрын
I'd argue this is ignoring a middle ground, archetypes still have use even if they don't tell the full story. The Ryu vs Ryu example was very fair, but if you're an sf2 player that likes Zangief, my bet is you'd go to sf3 and pick hugo without even thinking about it, just cause we assume "Ah that's a big body hulking guy, must be a grappler", even if subconsciously we tend to look towards the archetypes we like. Sure you can't just pick a character purely off liking an archetype and know for sure you'll like them, but it can narrow things down still. There may be little overlap between heavies in smash vs street fighter, but I know I wouldn't recommend my friend that plays Ganondorf to pick Makoto or Ibuki. Archetypical lines are very blurry of course, there's a lot I agree with here, and it's good to take a more pragmatic approach than trying to box ourselves in with hard definitions.
@Ottrond
Жыл бұрын
Loved this!
@RedLineFGC
2 жыл бұрын
2nd comment for that algo, I wonder how much player expression can affect how a char can be defined. Sure, Kaz is a rushdown 5050 char, but the majority of my time with him, I played very defensively and just fished for launchers. Which is a pretty common method of playing Kaz, I would say, but people would exclaim I played Kaz weirdly (I guess they meant that I didn't wavu on people like a crackhead). And it's trickier to define archetypes for Tekken given that most of the cast can be played in a variety of ways (huge movelist helps), and they all can have aspects of rushdown 5050, due to T7's borked movement system. But, I think some archetypes are pretty consistent, such as "Grappler" (tho, it's not like King or AK rely totally on their grabs), or "Zoner" (doesn't really exist in Tekken, since fireballs can't really keepout as effectively as 2D games) since they're pretty straightforward and concrete descriptors.
@doofmoney3954
Жыл бұрын
I would love a list with these analogues for characters, especially over one of archetypes
@Mushiotaku
2 жыл бұрын
I always look for the Smiling Undead Arnold archetype in every game
@hirotrum6810
Жыл бұрын
the closest class in tf2 to a "zoner" is scout. In a 1v1 he is all about finding the "deadzone" in his opponents effective ranges and staying there (it can change as they move around and swap weapons, its even dependent on the terrain around you) while whittling down his opponent, or punishing them with meatshots when they get impatient. This is in spite of the fact that scout's range is by no means long, but it is the gameplay of trying to enter an advantageous state based on positioning, and trying to maintain that advantage for as long as possible while winning by default if things remain in that state, is what makes the experience feel similar. In fact, scout's increased objective cap rate also allows him to pressure opponents into taking the initiative on him, not unlike a zoner with a life lead. Compare this to Sniper, a class based entirely around his long range. Yeah, he likes to shoot people from afar, but he has absolutely no tools to *keep* them at that range outside of just killing them instantly. There's no gameplay dynamics about maintaining the range, about strategically and *continuously* preventing the opponent from evening the odds; sniper just kills them and ends the interaction then and there.
@nekierin6402
Жыл бұрын
This is like race doesnt exist but racism does
@caysongarbett5324
2 жыл бұрын
Good video
@gitarooman4397
2 жыл бұрын
Funny comment 😳
@Feedbackking13
Жыл бұрын
I can tell how the game system functions when I come to a new fighting game based on prior FGC experience, it's for new players to the game not the FGC itself.
@ungeekfurioso4802
Жыл бұрын
The solution is very simple You dont choose a character based on function, you choose it based on character. Its just better, you end up with a character you are MOTIVATED to play, and that could leave to experience a whole lot of game feels, game plans and experiences. I love Remy fron SF3, and Ash from KOF, but I dont play them bc they are charge characters with a fireball and a uppercut. I play them bc i am a SUCKER for twinks. In the same style, i love A.B.A, she is my favorite GG charcter, but she aint in Xrd, so I choose Venom bc Twink, a vastly different character, a charge one with a projectile and a uppercut, but he is not like Ash or Remy at all. In Strive I main Testament, and they could be a "zoner" like Ash, but the way and feel of how they deal with it, its completely different! And I could go on and on, I play Iori, Terry, Leona, King and Duo Lon in KOF. Elena, Juri, Menat, Poison, Sagat and Ken in SF. Amane, Mai, Nine and Bullet in BB. Painwheel, Annie and Squigly on SG. So much characters, so much fun, so much happyness and variety because I choose what I found visually appealing.
@rochaktimilsina6460
2 жыл бұрын
I couldn't help but notice you put Kazuya and Rushdown archetypes together. Don't know if its intentional but the experience of playing against Kazuya feels like a rushdown. hahaha. Such an oppressive character he is.
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
As the video implies, I don't personally find the idea of archetypes very useful. I put Kazuya as rushdown because of TBS putting him there in their video. I do think he represents a pretty divisive character for people who do like archetypes though. Seeing as the user base seems pretty split on him being a rushdown character or a primarily defensive one.
@rochaktimilsina6460
2 жыл бұрын
@@HQRubbish I do think he is a rushdown as well. Not on a typical way of rushdown where a character pushes buttons without stopping but in a way where you have to constantly think about defensive options even if he is just moving around.
@gekisage7448
Жыл бұрын
I prefer seeing archetypes as a easier way to separate those and tell their basic gameplan and strengths, not to say they're alike but if you state "Chip is a fast rushdown character with a lot of mobility tools and moves to open up his opponents, with a low health to compensate his prowess" you already got down that he wants to use his mobility in general to get at his opponents face and attack them with high damage and pressure. Meanwhile if you say "Guile is a zoner with strong projectiles and means to keep the opponent away, paired with a strong moveset to deal high damage, at times matchups require guile to use those as a Rushdown kind of character" The one reading get's the idea that Guile may act aggressively and does like to overwhelm even though he's a Zoner, and that means he might likes to stay away more than get up close
@liquidladdy
Жыл бұрын
I just would like to say I've been saying Melee Dr Mario is a shoto for years.
@joshford256
Жыл бұрын
I think archetypes are most useful when describing gameplans, and not specific moves. Shoto is kind of a silly archetype to me, mainly for the reasons you pointed out. It's not useful to call sf2 and sf3 Ryu the same archetype because they don't share similar gameplans. Archetypes that are defined around strategies however, are a lot more useful for describing things to a new player. A grappler always has to work to get in for their big reward, even if they don't share special moves like Shotos always do. Zoners are always centered around keeping an opponent at long range, regardless of whether they use projectiles or long pokes to do so. Shoto is a useless archetype because it describes the aesthetic of moves on a character, rather than how a character actually functions
@TheMovieCave
Жыл бұрын
How you gonna tell me grapplers aren't real
@Ethan-yd4gn
Жыл бұрын
Ive never really liked nor resonated with archetypes in fighting games, and have pretty much always brushed them off. Even when they were brought up to me, i kinda just offhandedly agreed to whatever they were saying since i had no reason to believe they were incorrect, but i just never felt like the archetypes are what made the differences for me. Though, i feel it's important to mention that i dont have a very deep history with fighting games, and my primary one/most played fighting games were the smash bros games, of which are, obviously, very different than other styles of fighting games. Though as of more recent, ive tried more fighting games as ive gotten more and more into them, for example, Guilty Gear Strive has been a blast for me. But i still wanted to throw my hat into the ring since these 2 videos have hit a certain chord with me
@agaed7676
Жыл бұрын
Isn’t the point of archetypes to create groupings of playstyles. Ryu is similar as a shoto to sol because they both want to play a midrange game and convert into good offense while having a relatively rounded set of tools. They have tools to deal with similar things in similar ways of course in the context of their respective game systems. I wouldn’t consider simply the type of moves they have but more generally the roles these move play in their kits. The context sensitivity of archetypes generally appears when comparing 3d games to 2d games or platform fighters to more traditional fighting games. While guilty gear and street fighter are very different there are still enough common aspects between them to switch relatively smoothly without getting total culture shock thanks to having similar controls, similar ways of controlling space and playing neutral etc. There is also a reason people like to subdivide fighting games further, ie. airdashers, team games, street fighter-ish (for lack of a better word), 3d games platform fighter. These subdivisions can usually very easily define archetypes between one another and that’s where the usage of archetypes works well. As the games get more and more different it will become increasingly difficult to compare characters of specific archetypes. It’s still understandable between SF and GG but when you start trying to assign the same archetypes to a setplay character like ramlethal in Xrd as a character like ddd in smash who technically works similarly that’s where you really start encountering real problems. And often times within the contexts where archetypes can be shared they work well. I have always liked grapplers, characters centered around a strong command grab that they could use to try and manipulate the opponent to pick the options they want, characters that have a weak neutral but strong advantage state.
@JohnSmith-oi3hc
Жыл бұрын
"How Lings array of attacks and stances created an asymmetry of available options between him and his opponents" This... this is freaking word salad. It's like some comedian pretends to be an artist in front of some pretentious art connoisseurs, and they fall for it, nodding, interpreting it, discussing it.
@HQRubbish
Жыл бұрын
I'm sorry, I'll put it into less intensely dense wording for you. Ling do many unique attack that people that is not Ling cannot do. Friend think this feel interesting.
@JohnSmith-oi3hc
Жыл бұрын
@@HQRubbish character x has attacks that character y doesn't have. Yeah. Right. Like... isn't the entire point of a character roster that they are asymmetrical?
@Kuroig53
3 ай бұрын
Yeah... The glass cannon argument ya made is not really accurate lol. For one, it assumes that every character with average health deals average damage or so, when it varies a lot. There are high hp, high damage characters (like grapplers and such), low hp and low damage characters (tipically fast vortex characters like millia), average hp but high damage characters (like Ken), etc, there are a lot of other factors a character might be given low or high health, like mobility. A glass cannon will not be doing equal damage overall most of its matchups Which takes me to the bigger point why the archetype IS a thing: risk reward. Characters like Akuma might dominate the pace of the match more, but stuff like hp high damage characters can afford to take risks against them from time to time, and the reward will be more massive than against other characters Even against average health and damage characters, a lot of the glass cannon characters better tools tend to be more in the technical side compared to a all arounder. So ya know, even the best players fucking that up during a live match, and getting blown up for it. It's a legitimate drawback, even tho obviously these characters are still very strong obviously lol
@Demonstormlord
2 жыл бұрын
Shounen Shotgun Skalman!
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
I see you have played Devil May Cry!
@venomw6823
Жыл бұрын
Hey is it too late to throw in my two sense as someone who does appreciate fg archetypes
@Agoners
2 жыл бұрын
I think that this take on high level archetypes makes a lot of sense: kzitem.info/news/bejne/uHiK4Iueq5Gge5g
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
To me the idea that video brings up isn't necessarily any more useful than the things it tries to debunk. I can follow the argument and it isn't that it is unsound, but it comes with the assumption that archetypes are objectively a useful concept. Even if one were to concede that the "triangle" in that video would be slightly more descriptive, I question if it really makes that much of a difference. I think the main idea here is that I am unsure if people realistically engage with characters on that sort of mechanical level. And it also doesn't really seem to bypass any of the issues I have with these looser definitions. To what game system are we comparing these created archetypes? And even then it still requires a bunch of pre-requisite knowledge from the end user.
@Agoners
2 жыл бұрын
@@HQRubbish I can definitely see your point about that, and thought some of the same myself... but I think it's a move in the right direction at least and seeing it as a triangle where all aspects of the 'types' apply to all characters, it's more about the emphasis of their play... (& lets not let 'not perfect' be the enemy of 'good' or even 'better' imo). I don't see it so much a mechanical engagement but a 'gameplan' engagement to me. Like, what is the first thing I should perhaps try to do with this character to get the most out of them. I certainly see it as far more useful than very specific 'archetypes' like "shoto" anyway, where I fully agree with your videos here that they don't really offer much outside of very specific constraints. I agree to make anything like this useful (to new players say) the game itself needs to give some explanation of the archetypes it is using too - but some well thought out games are already doing that.
@sonofaglitch7549
2 жыл бұрын
I play zangief on the switch using mostly long range pokes Does it make him more of a zoner
@Komatik_
2 жыл бұрын
This came up again, and I have to say it's a pretty annoying piece for one reason: 3S is a pretty odd bird among 2d games due to parry, and Tekken is, well, a 3d game which is indeed an entirely different system. It's a fine enough observation that archetypes can break down when the systems aren't close enough, but generalizing the argument from the most unlike examples you can think of to say that archetypes as a whole don't communicate much? Nah, it doesn't hold up. If you take as comparisons say, ST, SF4, Xrd and Strive, archetypical similarities hold up much better because the systems are reasonably general 2d ones. If I like playing say, Claw and Ryu in ST, it's a pretty safe bet I'm likely to enjoy Katalina and Ferry when GBVS releases. ('lo and behold, I did) Archetypes do work, and do help when the systems aren't deliberately as different as possible. You don't need to know the entire system if the entire system isn't alien to the original point of comparison. Analogizing between a traditional 2d game and Tekken is hard, doing it between 2d titles isn't that difficult. And even given your example, fireballs are one of the most radical divergences between ST and 3S. If I say I enjoy playing Claw in ST because he has tons of good, long buttons, it's not rocket science to tell me hey, try Chun in 3S because she's the same in that regard. Finally: Archetypes are not solely a character recommendation tool for newcomers. They also matter simply as a tool of analyzing the game. Players' preferences for characters may not always be archetype-driven but that doesn't mean statements like "this matchup is, a control-oriented shoto vs. a strike-throw rushdown type" are useless: Anything but. They tell us tons of useful information, even if they don't always help in picking a character.
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
I think you are entirely missing the point of Ryu/Ryu comparison. The point isn't that you can pick out any Ryu in any game and that they will offer an insanely disparate experience to one another (though your milage will definitely vary). I would expect the same character within the same franchise to tend to play in a similar fashion. Characters however are not archetypes, they are characters. The archetype isn't Ryu, it is shoto. Using Ryu and Ryu was to illustrate the idea that a toolkit can be almost completely identical, yet the overarching game system can, and will still dominantly enforce what your end experience is. As for the Chun/Claw comparison, I think that's more or less the exact thing I'm arguing for in this video. I am not saying the are no similarities between fighting game characters, there are tonnes. I'm arguing that the experience given playing a character tends to be less tied to what we call archetypes than other things. I think you bringing up Claw/Chun almost proves that, those characters I think are archetypically not really put in the same folder (lest it is an incredibly vague folder like "poking" or some shit). But hey, feel free to disagree, that's the beauty of life innit.
@Komatik_
2 жыл бұрын
@@HQRubbish Yeah, the toolkit can be the same and give a really different play experience if the system differs enough. Just so happens that 3S is one of the more unique 2d games so yeah, it will end up different. If you picked ST and SF4 Ryu, for example, the fit would be much better. Then again, you could compare ST/SF4 Ryu to Season 1 SFV Ryu and end up with an awful recommendation again, since the character doesn't even remotely play around low kick, fireball. I think one disconnect between us here is that (as far as I can tell) you focus more on the set of explicit tools in the sense of characters having the same animations and explicit tools, while the archetypical approach would favour more the kinds of strategy the character can implement and so on. Fireball-heavy ST styles just don't translate to 3S due to system differences, but ST Claw being a library of good, long pokes finds an easy equivalent in 3S Chun. If I like those long pokes, Ferry and Kata in release GBVS fit well, etc. Ryu doesn't fulfill the same strategy archetype from game to game, you'd have to identify what you like about playing ST Ryu and see what characters express that strategy in other systems. But picking those other expressions is likely to be a really good first step to finding an enjoyable character.
@armorbearer9702
Жыл бұрын
Your video is thought provoking. It appears that archetypes are not meant to help beginners. Archetypes are more useful to those who have some experience in fighting games. Perhaps each game needs to come up with its own way of classifying groups of fighters that keep new players in mind.
@thechugg4372
2 жыл бұрын
You make a big mistake with the 2 ryus, you can play them however you want, you can play sf 3 ryu like sf 2 ryu if you want. You just chose to play him completely differently.
@Chivibro
2 жыл бұрын
I think playing SF3 Ryu like that would be bad because of parries though, which may be why he's more aggressive in 3S. They even gave Ryu a new move in 3S to make him capitalize from being more aggro. I think what Rubbish said checks out there
@HQRubbish
2 жыл бұрын
I think you are correct in that my wording was hardly perfect. Instead of saying these Ryus are objecticely like this, it's probably better worded as a generally accepted outcome if they are played to win. I mean you could play lots of characters in a way that is diametrically opposed to what the "best practice" seems to be. But it probably means you aren't going to have much success. I think the point still stands.
@nhojryad
Жыл бұрын
I guess all of these videos are pedantic huh.
@doofmoney3954
Жыл бұрын
Inte en chans att du e svensk också
@youcantkilltwice5596
2 жыл бұрын
out of topic 9:09 Street Fighter ex2 plus credits theme got me. Sfex2+ still my favourite.
Пікірлер: 98