Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
Things games should have, but don't
#54
(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.
Thanked by:


Messages In This Thread
RE: Things games should have, but don't - by Gwen - 02-16-2011, 12:02 AM
RE: Things games should have, but don't - by Negative-Zer0 - 02-19-2011, 11:54 PM
RE: Things games should have, but don't - by Rai - 07-13-2012, 05:07 PM
RE: Things games should have, but don't - by Rai - 07-14-2012, 12:13 AM

Forum Jump: