I did. Your point was that OSes remove options. I can sit here and break it down piece by piece and tell you why a lot of OSes will create deeper decision making, and you won't buy it because you're not thinking critically. You'll argue in this thread like you always do until people give up and one dude agrees with you, while everybody else is sending screencaps to scrubquotes.
You can send all the screencaps to scrubquotes that you want. I really don't give a damn. Why would anyone give a damn? Why would I be convinced by the ad populum?
You want the real answer? All the better players I know regard an OS as just another option. When you approach a situation, there's the basic RPS game, then there's the OSes tagged on. You deal with that OS game, they go back to RPS. They start OSing RPS, you go back to dealing with OS. An OS has a high reward call out? You call it out once you spot it and get a huge reward, then you get to start playing RPS of "should they still be OSing? How will they respond to RPS now?". There's deeper gameplay there.
The clear and obvious argument being made is that if we were in a position to choose whether a game has OSes or doesn't have OSes, it's better to design the game without them. It's purely a game design discussion that you keep trying to turn into a metagame/attitude discussion. No one doubts that, in practice, OSes can be beaten, and that a new metagame develops around them. No one doubts that, in practice, RPS evolves as a result of existing OSes. That isn't the topic.
But ya know, because the way you lay out situations, I don't think you really get that. You can talk and put up a long argument, yeah, but you're not really talking to me about fighting games like that. You're talking about some really basic situations and ideas, and when something has thrown a kink in that the answer is usually "bad design" or some really crazy obtuse justification for the sake of drawing out the argument.
This discussion is miserable because:
1) You haven't even attempted to respond to my claim.
2) You haven't even attempted to give a scenario where OSes are good.
You've spent 3 posts saying "Oh I would tell you, BUT..."
Like I don't really like talking with you like this cause it's always the same thing, but I'd rather try to dispell the nonsense idea of "OSes are bad design by default." I mean hell that idea got thrown out the window when devs started acknowledging that OSes exist and craft the game with them in mind.
What, developers designing games with them in mind justifies them? That's a ridiculous perspective, and I am sure you know it without me having to say so.
If you don't want to talk to me, then don't talk to me - I don't care. Block me. But if you're going to call me a scrub because I think it's better for a game to force players to make
more decisions rather than
fewer decisions, then what do you expect back? It's not like you even
attempted to be civil toward me, or tried to understand what's being discussed here. You just went on a condescending, off-topic rant. Hell, you still haven't even taken on my basic challenge: name one situation where a game would be IMPROVED by the existence of an OS, versus it not existing. If you can't do that, then we're done here. You don't have an argument.
A lot of the time the OS removing parts of a situation creates an entirely new situation with another layer of decisions to now be made. I understand if all decisions get nuked by a single OS that's bad, yeah, but if a meaningful interaction takes place that's a new layer of depth to explore and a new set of options to play with. They're not outright desirable but they are an element to the game that exists, they can provide depth or deny it depending on how well the game is designed.
Lay it out. I don't think this situation ever exists. Take the time to actually provide a thorough example (preferably with a game I know reasonably well, so I can follow along) instead of a general idea. I completely understand what you are saying here. I understand you think this exists, but it's just an abstract claim. Give me a concrete example where this actually takes place, because I don't think the abstract notion translates into any real scenarios.
Just so we're completely clear: OSes don't completely remove depth, but they must reduce depth by the basic logic of their existence. Obviously situations involving OSes can still be deep. That's not what is up for discussion here.
I mean, is it even possible to make a fighting game without option selects of some kind? It's just a weird catch-all term for such a wide variety of mechanical quirks.
It would be possible. The reason the V-Reversal OS exists is V-Reversals have no whiff animation. If V-Reversals had a whiff animation, then they would have a normal string of input priorities like other inputs do, and then the OS wouldn't exist (maybe). It's the same reason throw OSes exist in Marvel and Guilty Gear: there's no throw whiff animation, so there can't be any kind of input priority list.
