Philosony - Ryu's Episteme

This Thanksgiving I want to give the bulk of my thanks to one company for helping me answer a question that has been bothering me for over 15 years. The company? Capcom. The question? Put simply, do I really have preternatural Street Fighter skills?
I still remember the first time I saw a SF2 arcade machine. It was atWalley World Six Flags Magic Mountain in the Spring of 1991, and the first character I chose was Dhalsim. The inspired lovechild of Iyengar and Reed Richards got me hooked and my freshman year of high school was a non-stop deluge of fierces, roundhouses, and quarters. There was no practice mode, no free play, and no internet to turn to for tips and tricks. Becoming a BAMF in a fighting game back then took nonstop on-the-job training. And I trained well - so well, in fact, that I soon ran out of people willing to sacrifice their money for my amusement. Even when the home version arrived my friends soon tired of me whupping on them. Being able to defeat them with my eyes closed probably didn't help. The thought of being a big fish in a small pond never occurred to me. All I knew was that I had a gift and no one could prove me wrong.* Would that natural talent hold up if I ever faced real competition?
I still remember the first time I saw a SF2 arcade machine. It was at
Let me come back to that because this post isn't about my skills (or the lack thereof). What makes Street Fighter special to me is how I've managed to excel despite lacking the technical knowledge and strategy that is common today. Some jargon might be in order here. One of the primary fields within philosophy is something called epistemology - the study of knowledge. What counts as knowledge, what does the term mean, and how do we know when we know something? It's a fairly frustrating endeavor that typically leads to the conclusion that the only thing I know with 100% unflagging certainty is that I exist (the pastiche "I think, therefore I am", or cogito ergo sum if you really want to clear out the bar). The minute we start asking questions about what knowledge is we realize that we have a big problem in English because there are many different ways that we use "to know". There's your basic factual knowledge (I know that Ryu and Ken had the same teacher), practical knowledge (I know how to counter Vega's dives), and acquaintance knowledge (I know who Akuma is) among others.
Of these distinctions the difference between practical and factual (or technical) knowledge is most important here. We can distinguish them by referring to knowing "how" (practical) and knowing "that" (factual). For example, I know that a dragon punch is done by smoothly and rapidly pressing F,D,DF and a punch button. But as you probably recall, factual knowing, knowing that it's done this way, is a far cry from being able to successfully execute it. Knowing how to do a dragon punch means pulling it off in-game, ideally at will. Moreover, it isn't necessary to have the factual knowledge of a dragon punch to have the practical knowledge. Early on I used to achieve my rising dragon fists with a double fireball motion. It got the job done (I knew how in the sense that I could do it) even if I didn't have accurate factual knowledge of the move (I didn't know that there were only 3 direction inputs).
Over the years I spent time learning the tekkenical aspects of other virtual fighters, but my knowledge of SF stayed purely practical, decidedly old school. Concepts like buffering, frame counts, or pri
ority don't exist in my Shadaloo lexicon. I saw the term "Meaty Attack" for the first time looking at the game info screen of SSF2THDR. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for game play analysis and obtuse technical knowledge at high levels of play. That becomes a fact of life in any game or sport. But there's something pure about instinct driven play and learning from experience rather than from gamefaqs. I learned the hard way (with many a wasted quarter) not to jump over Dhalsim's fireballs unless you wanted a heel to the chin, and that was how I measured the caliber of my soul. I know. Three bad puns. Let it sink in. I'm not apologizing.
Nor am I alone in thinking there might be something lost when a game gets too technical. Just a couple years ago infamous chess master Bobby Fischer lamented the state of modern chess, saying that a novice today could beat past grand masters because so much of the modern game depends on memorized openings. This highly technical aspect of the game diminishes the creativity that characterized many past chess greats. Can the same be said of a game like Street Fighter? Is high level play an exercise in reflexes and internalized technical statistics rather than a creative battle of wits?
Think about any directly competitive endeavor in which you excel. Who is a more difficult opponent, another high level but ultimately less skilled player, or an intermediate one? In my experience the intermediate players are harder to beat because, well, they're unpredictable. An intermediate player may not know better than to try high risk, low payout moves, but if the high level player doesn't expect them (because who in their right mind, you might think, would do that?) they might succeed. Perhaps if those intermediate players continue to improve without falling into the technical ruts of their betters they can take the game, any game, in a new direction.
So now, thechallenge question that I'm sure you've suffered through this entire piece to have answered. Do I really have preternatural Street Fighter II skills? Of course not. Don't get me wrong, I've held my own and am fairly confident that I could trounce my share of trash-talking rappers, but I've met my match on more than a few occasions. I suppose it's far past time I hit the books and actually learn what a meaty attack is, even if a little vegetarian part of me dies inside doing it. What do you think folks? Is it essential to master both the technical and practical aspects of games to compete these days? Or is there still room for untrained, natural talent in the vicious and cutthroat online world?
__________________________
*Alright, so I probably wasn't really the best arooound, but time has a way of altering memory in extreme ways.
Of these distinctions the difference between practical and factual (or technical) knowledge is most important here. We can distinguish them by referring to knowing "how" (practical) and knowing "that" (factual). For example, I know that a dragon punch is done by smoothly and rapidly pressing F,D,DF and a punch button. But as you probably recall, factual knowing, knowing that it's done this way, is a far cry from being able to successfully execute it. Knowing how to do a dragon punch means pulling it off in-game, ideally at will. Moreover, it isn't necessary to have the factual knowledge of a dragon punch to have the practical knowledge. Early on I used to achieve my rising dragon fists with a double fireball motion. It got the job done (I knew how in the sense that I could do it) even if I didn't have accurate factual knowledge of the move (I didn't know that there were only 3 direction inputs).
Over the years I spent time learning the tekkenical aspects of other virtual fighters, but my knowledge of SF stayed purely practical, decidedly old school. Concepts like buffering, frame counts, or pri
ority don't exist in my Shadaloo lexicon. I saw the term "Meaty Attack" for the first time looking at the game info screen of SSF2THDR. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for game play analysis and obtuse technical knowledge at high levels of play. That becomes a fact of life in any game or sport. But there's something pure about instinct driven play and learning from experience rather than from gamefaqs. I learned the hard way (with many a wasted quarter) not to jump over Dhalsim's fireballs unless you wanted a heel to the chin, and that was how I measured the caliber of my soul. I know. Three bad puns. Let it sink in. I'm not apologizing.Nor am I alone in thinking there might be something lost when a game gets too technical. Just a couple years ago infamous chess master Bobby Fischer lamented the state of modern chess, saying that a novice today could beat past grand masters because so much of the modern game depends on memorized openings. This highly technical aspect of the game diminishes the creativity that characterized many past chess greats. Can the same be said of a game like Street Fighter? Is high level play an exercise in reflexes and internalized technical statistics rather than a creative battle of wits?
Think about any directly competitive endeavor in which you excel. Who is a more difficult opponent, another high level but ultimately less skilled player, or an intermediate one? In my experience the intermediate players are harder to beat because, well, they're unpredictable. An intermediate player may not know better than to try high risk, low payout moves, but if the high level player doesn't expect them (because who in their right mind, you might think, would do that?) they might succeed. Perhaps if those intermediate players continue to improve without falling into the technical ruts of their betters they can take the game, any game, in a new direction.
So now, the
__________________________
*Alright, so I probably wasn't really the best arooound, but time has a way of altering memory in extreme ways.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Credge @ Nov 29th 2008 12:58PM
The best players in all competitive games aren't actually very good at the games they play. People will abuse any sort of glitch, exploit, or slight advantage ad infinitum until they win. It happens in all genres of gaming.
Look at speed runs. Is it instinct to backwards butt hop up those bowser stairs? No. Not at all.
Look at RTS. Is it instinct to extend a wall segment longer than what you want so you can sell the end node and requeue up another wall? No. Not at all.
Look at FPS. Is it instinct to bunny hop? No. Not at all.
All of these things are tools that 'professional' players use in order to win.
Jtenma @ Nov 29th 2008 1:52PM
I agree
You will always find someone who studies hit-boxes on sfhd, or finds just the right angle to pop out of a window and snipe you on COD. These people have way to much time on their hands.
I guess it really does comes down to how much time you have to invest in the flaws of a game.
Kylie Prymus @ Nov 29th 2008 1:59PM
Are these things really flaws, or just the natural dilution of possibilities that come with high levels of anything? Are opening strategies in chess, for example, flaws in the game's design?
Of course the only way to combat this sort of gradual dilution is to add random elements, but then that takes away from skill. It also adds to creativity. Some of the most creative play I can think of happens in card games where randomness is involved and players often have to think up new strategies based on what cards they get.
Noshino @ Nov 29th 2008 2:09PM
The thing is that to find those glitches and bugs, rather often above average is skills are needed.
Or you are telling me that anyone could find and pull off every shortcut of Mario Kart? that everyone can get 1st place on GT5P by just bumping? that everyone can snake in Mario Kart?
crimsonedge38 @ Nov 29th 2008 2:25PM
No, I don't think you need above average skill to find exploits, glitches, and bugs. It doesn't take a player of exceptional skill to realize that dive jumping in BF2 makes you unhittable. It doesn't take a player of exceptional skill to realize that building a crane in RA3 and unpacking your MCV makes anything currently building on your crane free (as long as the power is out).
These things don't take skill or a heightened knowledge of game mechanics in order to discover.
Jtenma @ Nov 29th 2008 3:00PM
I'm sorry I may have been misunderstood...
What I was talking about was video games in general, not chess. Chess cannot compare to the types of things you see online in video games.
Chess doesn't have hacks, glitches, or bugs that people can take the time to exploit.
Jtenma @ Nov 29th 2008 3:13PM
To add to my last comment as well...
I would also say that, with the introduction of high-speed internet, patches are a way of fixing these flaws such as over powerful weapons etc...
Kylie Prymus @ Nov 29th 2008 5:30PM
I guess that's where a determination of what counts as a glitch/exploit needs to be made. Many techniques that are cheap and/or overpowered are intentional parts of the game that are only later discovered to imbalance the roster. An ideal fighting game gives every character an equal chance against every other character - not an easy thing to do. But before a company decides to make a fix, to nerf or buff a character, they need to decide if it really is an unfair, game-breaking (or fun-breaking) situation. Just ask Blizzard - but please stay away from the class fanboy forums!
Even a game like chess can and has been changed when it appears that certain techniques have become standard that make the game less competitive. Unfortunately with something like a video game, which doesn't have the timelessness of something like chess, by the time a change is made the only people still playing it usually are the hardcore players. It still doesn't benefit the noob or the intermediate much.
Akamaru @ Nov 29th 2008 12:55PM
Awesome article. I think there is something pure about just playing for the fun and learning as you play. I've noticed this a lot when playing Madden against guys who take the game way too seriouly.
Horrorist @ Nov 29th 2008 1:10PM
the only thing i can say about SFHD is that it make me louse my temper,i explain
when i use to play with friends at my house,we would always choose random,so we dont always take ryu,ken,akuma,so when i started to play only i did the same thing,or when for zangief,honda,t.hawk.....
but what i discover online is that people want to win,they dont care if there cheap or make it boring for the other one by doing the same move all the time
but when i face 5 different guy who all take akuma or ryu it just drive me mad and i just turn off the game
i was waiting for this game,but now it piss me off so much that i only play with people i know and we are dissapointed when the random give us ryu or ken
Kylie Prymus @ Nov 29th 2008 1:41PM
I think that's a good point. High-level competitive play is quite different than playing for fun with your friends. Even in the arcades there were usually a group of regulars who you became semi-friends with and you weren't necessarily playing to dominate each other. Of course when some snot-nosed new kid came on the scene you pulled out all the stops - but once you realized they weren't any good you laid off and got more creative.
But playing to win by any means - and this invariably happens when a "record" is on the line - is a different beast entirely. It's not even really that much fun if you're the one thrashing the competition, not when your victories are the result of semi-repetitive strategies and not think-on-your-feet creativity. I suppose that's why there are "friendly" match modes, but unfortunately it's usually much harder to find a game there than a quick scoreboard challenge.
OniRamen @ Nov 29th 2008 1:47PM
I feel you on pretty much every point you made in this article. I used to play CVS2 against high ranking tournament players, and I started to notice that they all fought the same way, to the point where you could not tell any of their styles apart. Many picked the exact same teams too, (top tier) A groove sakura, bison, vega, or some other generic combo of characters. I experienced the same thing with SF third strike; I only played in a few pro tourneys, but, there were always a plethora of chun li, ken, and yun players, often not a single Q, Shawn, or Oro. When I asked them why they chose their characters they often said, because they are good, I had one guy flat out tell me "because they are cheap".
I don't know, I like to pick characters who are visually interesting to me and or act in a way I identify with on some level. As for learning the "technical aspects" of a fighter, I will admit that it does kind of kill the game slightly for you, movements become more programmed, but, it will also raise your level...I personally have studied technical aspects in fighters but rarely apply what I have learned, except in instances where I use that knowledge to defend against a common combo, glitch, exploit, etc. Sorry this post wasn't too organized, I'm still waking up...
davebo @ Nov 29th 2008 1:57PM
All I know is in high school there was only one kid who could beat me at Street Fighter 2 (non-turbo edition.) Now that I have access to all these gamers around the world, and also no joystick, I'm getting my butt handed to me fairly regular. So either there's a lot more strategy and/or practice executing these moves on a joypad, or I am just plain too old for this stuff.
Noshino @ Nov 29th 2008 2:11PM
or that the people at your high school weren't that skilled?
I also stumbled against that fact, sigh
Vincent @ Nov 29th 2008 2:18PM
Best article I've ever read regarding fighting games. And man, I'm a fighting game junkie. You impose a lot of important questions, I could discuss for hours about this with you (and I would love to), but I'll try and keep it simple.
Basically, I believe that when the player gets too technical it ends up being too easy to predict. I too learned fighting games by simply practicing over and over. I too never knew what a meaty attack was. But skimming through those pages in SSF2THDR, I realized I did most of those techniques, without ever bothering to read and research on them. It was pure instinct after battling over and over. And it was much more fun that way.
However, I realize some games are complex, and it's important to have some technical knowledge beforehand. Yesterday I've played Street Fighter 3: 3rd Strike, for the first time ever (yes, murder me, I stopped playing 2D fighters about 10 years ago, but a friend convinced me to go back to them over the last few months). I did read about some technical aspects prior to my first playtime though, as well as watched some videos. So I knew what Parry was, the commands to execute it, the effects of taunt, etc etc. But it was my practical knowledge of fighting games, mainly Street Fighter 2 Championship Edition from 15 years ago, that made me triumph over several matches online (played on emulator). The practical knowledge helped guiding me on HOW to apply those new moves and techniques I only knew from reading. One friend played against me and he said "you are different from every competitor I've met here irl. The people here read too many guides, and they play more tactical, defensive, and predictable. You don't stop, you are always moving and attacking, risking parries when your attack is down, it's insane, and I see it's not button mash at all, but most of all it works very well! You give no time for your opponent to think about what to do or how to counter since you don't follow an easy-to-guess pattern". I did lose, badly, many times, and when I won, I would get Cs and Ds, but for a first timer, I was putting up a good challenge.
The same goes with Virtua Fighter and Tekken. I read a lot on the technical aspects, but during the fight I try to adapt myself more according to the situation, rather than consider all technical variables that are happening on the screen at the same time. From practicing and training I have a good idea of what may or may not work, of what can work but is generally hard to pull off and as such disregarded by my opponents, etc etc..
I think I'm repeating myself when I could simply say this: It's good to take in consideration some technical variations, but don't try to get TOO technical, practice, try new stuff, risk yourself and - above all - have fun with a good fight.
For me, achieving a PERFECT isn't as good as winning a fight during the Final Round having only a short line of my Life bar left. I love a good challenge.
AshStampede @ Nov 29th 2008 4:06PM
my approach to this game has been, expect to lose. I attempted to prepare for the street fighter wave that is SFIV and SSF2THDR. I did this by purchasing street fighter alpha anthology for ps2. SFalpha3 AI is both very cheap and a higher difficulty than SF2 (never played SF3). Second thing I have done to prepare is learn characters that are designed to fight against fire ball users. I have always played SF without knowing any thing technical apart from characters move list. Know with online play and a world of cheap players emerging all just to win. I am playing more technical learning counters and controlling space all with the philosophy of saying no to hahoken. All though a big F YOU to fei long players, currently 1 to 4 against those cheap combos.
A tip to those more inclined to not play cheaply or who doesnt try to win at all cost, only play a max of 4 to 5 matches a day, will keep the frustration lvl down.
Kai Wong @ Nov 29th 2008 5:28PM
This article was interesting to me as a former fighting game fanatic. I first got into fighting games really through Guilty Gear XX#R, and mixed with a good crowd of fighting game fanatics, but found that I couldn't really talk to them about fighting games at all. Frame traps, 1 frame links, guts, Slash Back, Instant Air Dash, Jump FD, gatlings, these were all things I was supposed to know of as a Faust player.
I got a lot better, playing more technical/defensive, but I could never keep up with the Joneses, so to speak: they'd always talk about new combos they'd found through practice on the PS2, and the only place I had access to the game was at an arcade.
I didn't get turned off by the game until GGX: Accent Core. Up until then, it was theoretically possible for a low-tier character to beat a top-tier: one of my friends won a state team tourney with Zappa, considered the worst character in the game. After AC, though, it made no sense to play anyone other than the top five (Jam, Eddie, Potemkin, Slayer, and Testament).
Up until that last moment, I had been having a blast, because while there was a LOT of technical data/guides to follow, there was this underlying feeling that you could "theoretically" play with anyone and win. That, I believe, was what fighting games were supposed to be like. Instinct and experience were equally important as mashing up technical data/repeating moves over and over again. Sure, Eddie might combo you for half-life or more in the corner, but you had defensive options that'd allow you to escape and perhaps counter-attack.
GG is the only fighting game I've ever played, my first and probably last fighting game Unless there's a game out there that re-creates that feeling.
Alex @ Nov 29th 2008 5:33PM
a point i've saw in the article mentioned high level play bascially (paraphrasing) "thinking too much and being too rigid."
i myself have slammed right into this wall. i'm definitely not a high level player, but i've dedicated way too much time playing and thinking about Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike to be a bad player. i am fairly good... tournament good? we'll see at next year's Evolution.
the point is, playing people a half step up above "n00b" status, i saw myself losing and falling for "stupid" stuff. very frustrating. and it didn't make any sense... it was obvious that i knew more about the game and have dedicated more time than my opponent, but they were catching me. other high level players among the 3rd Strike community have noticed it as well and have called upon other players to not be so rigid over how the game should be played. EVERYTHING is fair game... wake-up super... random super, guess parries... it's all there.
for some reason, there's a point where you reach a level and say that wake-up super, random super, etc. are SO ridiculously unsafe that there's no possibility your opponent will do it. that kind of thinking, i have found to be a pitfall. x[
when i hung out with the Dead or Alive community... i noticed that a good amount of them were frame data spitting nerds. one of their members actually posted and talked about the player who plays by feel rather than analysis and frame data memorization. sort of like Takumi from Initial_D 1st Stage; didn't know jack about cars and how they worked, but knew how to drive them like hell.
and as for now, that's the goal i have set for myself.
being knowledgeable about a game and its inner workings is VERY important. but i want to focus less on that aspect and return to those first days with a game, where you play by feel.
i'll know how successful i am based on how far i get in Evo. x]
(probably not that far, but i'd consider winning my first match good.)
Rayfucon @ Nov 29th 2008 5:46PM
I agree with the whole "doesn't take skill to find a flaw and exploit it". I am an avid SF2 player from back in the day and I learned to play by honing my skills against real opponents and being able to predict the other players moves and counter them. If the you get someone who just sits there and randomly presses buttons and manages to execute a move or to, then you can't predict what the outcome will be. You have to learn to work around that and unfortunately, it is difficult to do so. After getting beat by someone using the only the punch on MK, you tend to realize that the person has just discovered the flaw in the game and is using that to his/her advantage. Now when you get someone who can really play a game on the same level as you, and understands the strategy, you have yourself a real competition. A "true" street fighter can beat anyone at anytime even without knowing the flaws of the game.
mezzanine @ Nov 29th 2008 5:47PM
Excellent article, precisely why I don't bother with Street Fighter. I do not care enough about it enough to actually learn how to do a Meaty Attack. I have slow fingers, anyway, but I can hold my own in Tekken. Not in Street Fighter.
Alphathon @ Nov 29th 2008 5:47PM
I personally really hate technical players, in all genres. I try not to play technically when at all possible, and usually only do so in order to defend against it. For example when I played C&C3 online (mainly on 1v1 ranked) it struck me pretty quickly that about 1/3 of people on there were playing technically, using cheap tactics like bike rushing. It also struck me that if their rush failed (usually because it was predicted or just premtivelly defended against) then they were pretty much screwed because it was often all they knew how to do. They didn't learn from experience because either their rush succeeded or they got completelly destroyed by someone who was actually playing (not just going through the motions).
I have never really understood technical players. They aren't playing to have fun, they are playing so that they beat the other player, which while admittedly is fun in itself is not enough, for me anyway.
Actually, achiements/trophies CAN have similar effects. That is, making people play to reach a goal rather than simply to have fun. This is usually my problem with multiplayer achievments/trophies (single player ones are usually OK, with exceptions like "find all 100 of item X" or whatever. Things like "complete all side quests" are fine). Similarly things like "get 1000 kills in multiplayer" are fine, as they require no kind of plan other than to play multiplayer a lot. Unfortunatelly this seems to be the way gaming is going, along with the whole graphics over gameplay thing
maidsandharem @ Nov 29th 2008 9:50PM
I agree with your "tropies/achievement arguement" and the graphic over gameplay hell i still play capcom vs snk 2 on my ps3 (its a 60gb!) without any hints or tips and is still having great fun with that game though my only hint and tip was the command list ^^
SuperGayParade @ Nov 29th 2008 7:55PM
do i have potential?
i'm genetically like this
turkeybaster @ Nov 30th 2008 7:22PM
I think another game that may fit Kylie's longing for random play is Smash Brothers. You can take any two players who are amazing with one or two characters and pit them against each other, and the outcome may change every time due to the items that spawn in the level or the way that the level changes.
I personally became good enough at Super Smash Bros Melee that I could whup up on people with about 75% of the roster. That doesn't mean I was guaranteed to win, as any number of unpredictable events (a cheap player, a super hammer, a random laser blast) could change the game. That's what makes that game so addictive. There are only so many ways to win in a technical game before you run out of fun, creative things to do and you're pigeonholed into some exploitative gameplay.
Deadpool @ Nov 30th 2008 9:51PM
Yea! People still notice the 2-D Fighters and fighting games in general. WooHoo! This was the best artical so far Prymus!
Anyone who wants to battle me online on Tekken or Street Fighter HD my PSN ID is sandmanzero. Don't worry about my skill level, I haven't read any fighting game guides, but I've had lots of fun playing fighting games throughout the 90s. The trick to winning is not to freeze up and keep moving....after that I got nothing.....sorry. :/
Vincent @ Dec 1st 2008 6:15AM
I'm adding you when I get home ;)