[SolarPowered]

Brawl is a pretty big fuck up, but I consider Melee one of the greatest fighters ever made. The 64 game was also good fun.

But there aren't any healthbars or something! It has items and is fun, and that makes it a party game! You need a 30 move long list with slight variations of kicks and punches like Tekken for it to be a fighting game unless you're Capcom. Actually, I would love for Capcom to make a Smash Bros style game and call it their newest fighting game. SRK would just die in its hypocrisy and adoration.

A little more representative of what would actually happen.

I just don't get this whole argument. It's clearly a fighting game. I don't even know how you could argue otherwise. Are people just upset that it's a fighting game that is more popular than the others pretty much combined? That the barrier to entry is low enough to encourage newcomers and doesn't promote the "exclusive no-scrubs club" like the fighting community usually loves to do?

You said it better than I could. I don't lump folks like Clockwork, Justin or Chris G with the whiny forum goers and the hateful legion of stream monsters. The latter spews hate at anything that remotely threatens the shaky hardcore identity they they've built around normal fighters like SF. Smash being the most popular fighting game series aside from Street Fighter(with the potential to overtake it easily) drives some Capcom fanboys wild.

With that said, the disparity has more to do with the FG community being scum as a whole.

Nah, that's not true at all. There are a lot of dumb fucks here and there, but most people are okay. You can watch any stream and it's just people enjoying their hobby. It's not all crossgate, mindless hate and DRAMA.

[dimb]

Gotta wonder how many people here actually watched the video before posting. Yeesh.

It was a pretty boring video until the Brawl campfire at the end.

[Kusagari]

It's more of a fighting game than SFxT.

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

Smash is a competitive platformer. Not a fighting game.

[Gravijah]

Smash is a competitive platformer. Not a fighting game.

the objective isn't to reach a goal before someone else, it's to defeat your opponents.

[Haly]

Smash is a competitive platformer. Not a fighting game.

Not sure if serious.

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

the objective isn't to reach a goal before someone else, it's to defeat your opponents.

Just like the very first Mario Bros game. Is that a fighter? I'm going to main Joust I think. I hope they have it at Evo.

[Darknessbear]

It's not a fighting game with what that word has become. It's like an RTS is only an RTS when it's top down selecting crap ect. ect. even though a lot of games have real time strategy. So if it's not two guys on a 2d screen with 2 health bars, then it's not a fighting game.

[Gravijah]

Just like the very first Mario Bros game. Is that a fighter? I'm going to main Joust I think. I hope they have it at Evo.

oh ok.

[HK-47]

Just like the very first Mario Bros game. Is that a fighter? I'm going to main Joust I think. I hope they have it at Evo.

What platformer has the goal of damaging your opponents until you can knock him off the screen?

I suppose this makes HL2 a first person platformer since I can jump on platforms

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

What platformer has the goal of damaging your opponents until you can knock him off the screen? I suppose this makes HL2 a first person platformer since I can jump on platforms

Now you're just sounding ridiculous. But I will answer your question. What platformer has the goal of damaging your opponents until you can knock them off of the screen? There is this great platformer series called Smash Bros that is multiplayer with the goal of damaging your opponents to knock them off of the screen.

[Foxy Fox 39]

On topic, Smash is a party fighting game to me, I don't see it as competitive. Do you have a point you'd like to make?

Uninformed opinions is kinda the point of the internet.

See Franks posts above

[Danthrax]

Just go visit SRK and see the seething hate. But yeah, mostly that. I can't wait for the complete hypocrisy when they welcome PSASB. :P

Public Sector Accounting Standards Board? So sayeth Google.

[Foxy Fox 39]

Public Sector Accounting Standards Board? So sayeth Google.

playstation all stars battle (maybe?)

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

Uninformed opinions is kinda the point of the internet. See Franks posts above

What is uninformed about my opinion? How does adding competitive multiplayer to a platformer make it a fighting game? Why is smash a fighting game? Because you play against other opponents and the characters have a move list? If something similar is your definition of a fighting game... what genre isn't a fighting game?

I think Street Fighter is a Competitive 3rd Person Real-Time Strategy Role-Playing Game with fighting game elements imo.

[Haly]

Is your sole qualifier for being a platformer having platforms?

[Professor Beef]

Is your sole qualifier for being a platformer having platforms?

If you can stand still, it's a platformer!

[plufim]

GUYS, SMASH STARS NINTENDO CHARACTERS AND IS ALL WHIMSICAL AND COLOURFUL, WE CAN'T LET IT BE CALLED A FIGHTING GAME IT'S NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH!

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

Is your sole qualifier for being a platformer having platforms?

That would be just stupid. Tons of games have platforms, but not all are platformers. My main qualifer for Smash being a platformer is that it fits the mold of the platformer genre. Adding a competitive multiplayer mode doesn't somehow magically transition it into a fighter. Just like the idiotic gems system doesn't make SFxT an rpg.

Would you guys be happier if I called it a competitive beat-em up? I could live with that.

[Combichristoffersen]

It's a multiplayer-focused party fighting game. Now that we're done with that, let's debate what the question to 42 actually is.

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

people think if you arent doing intricate directional inputs then its not a fighter..those are the same bums who get their ass beat online by some scrub in mvc3 using simple mode..any game can be deep you make it out to what you want.

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

GUYS, SMASH STARS NINTENDO CHARACTERS AND IS ALL WHIMSICAL AND COLOURFUL, WE CAN'T LET IT BE CALLED A FIGHTING GAME IT'S NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH!

I didn't know fighting games had to be serious and devoid of color. I'm afraid after learning this requirement that games once thought to be fighters are now non-fighting games... just like Smash. Maybe they can keep each other company.

[Haly]

That would be just stupid. Tons of games have platforms, but not all are platformers. My main qualifer for Smash being a platformer is that it fits the mold of the platformer genre.

You mean like all the jumping challenges/puzzles?

Or perhaps navigating from one end of a level to another primarily through the use of jumping and running?

[VariantX]

Smash is a competitive platformer. Not a fighting game.

That would technically make most of the garou games non-fighters because of the constant plane shifting. The only difference is the axis of movement and the requirements for a knockout. And neither of the differences disaqualify it from being a fighter.

[GamerSoul]

Nothing is making sense...

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

the objective isn't to reach a goal before someone else, it's to defeat your opponents.

Also, this makes no sense at all. Isn't "defeating your opponents" a goal I should want to achieve before someone else can?

Hey guys, the goal of Super Mario Kart isn't to reach a goal before someone else, it's to defeat your opponents!!! :S

[Professor Beef]

Also, this makes no sense at all. Isn't "defeating your opponents" a goal I should want to achieve before someone else can? Hey guys, the goal of Super Mario Kart isn't to reach a goal before someone else, it's to defeat your opponents!!! :S

So you're deliberately being obtuse in order to troll people. Neat.

I'm going to bed.

[Tookay]

It's an untraditional, yet clearly competitive and deep fighting game. Don't see why this is so hard. Just because it reduces complex combos to simpler inputs and because the goal is not a KO but a ring-out (acquired from damage) doesn't change that.

Also, this makes no sense at all. Isn't "defeating your opponents" a goal I should want to achieve before someone else can? Hey guys, the goal of Super Mario Kart isn't to reach a goal before someone else, it's to defeat your opponents!!! :S

So do you actually have a point, or do you just enjoy speaking in riddles, like some belligerent sensei?

[MYE]

No, its clearly a turn based RPG

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

That would technically make most of the garou games non-fighters because of the constant plane shifting. The only difference is the axis of movement and the requirements for a knockout. And neither of the differences disaqualify it from being a fighter.

Now you're just being ridiculous and proving my point. I guess every game with any sort of depth in traversing the stage/level/whatever is now a platformer! Sorry Tekken, you are no longer a fighting game!

[Danthrax]

playstation all stars battle (maybe?)

Ah, right, it's probably that. I'll have to get used to that acronym. Thanks!

[CPS2]

It's definitely in a different sub genre to most popular fighting games.

[mclem]

Fighting game: A game in which a hitbox creates damage boxes in the hope of intercepting another hitbox which will in some way lead that second hitbox towards a failure state.

Quantity of hitboxes doesn't change the nature of the genre
The existence of items doesn't change the nature of the genre

One I'm slightly torn on is that Smash has a more interesting failure state than most fighters; "deal a lot of damage then knock them off the level" is a bit more nuanced than "reduce their health to zero" - particularly because a skillset that *isn't* tested in fighters often - platforming skills - is useful for reducing the risk of that failure state.

To that end I'm willing to call it a hybrid, but it's a hybrid in the sense that the fighting genre is still there in its entirety, it just also adds to it from the platforming genre. No-one would claim that Ratchet and Clank isn't a platformer just because it's got heavy gunplay in it. No-one would claim that Project Gotham isn't a racer just because progression is tied to style rather than direct speed. No-one would claim that Paper Mario isn't an RPG just because player skill can increase the effectiveness of attacks.

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

It's an untraditional, yet clearly competitive and deep fighting game. Don't see why this is so hard. Just because it reduces complex combos to simpler inputs and because the goal is not a KO but a ring-out (acquired from damage) doesn't change that. So do you actually have a point, or do you just enjoy speaking in riddles, like some belligerent sensei?

It's an untraditional, yet clearly competitive and deep platforming game. Don't see why this is so hard. Just because a combo system and multiplayer mode is present doesn't change that. See what I did there? I do.

Also, all of that gibberish about KO's and Ring Outs makes no sense. And "You're speaking in riddles" translated into english is: "I don't like what you're saying."

[Haly]

As a platforming game it completely fails as there is no challenge to navigating stages at all. The point of the game is two people duking it out, not the platforming, unless you want to argue that Smash is a platformer on Fountain of Dreams but not Final Destination.

If CAPCOM made a SF spinoff with platforms on some of the stages, the game wouldn't suddenly become a platformer. I don't see how you can use that argument to label Smash as one as well.

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

Fighting game: A game in which a hitbox creates damage boxes in the hope of intercepting another hitbox which will in some way lead that second hitbox towards a failure state. Quantity of hitboxes doesn't change the nature of the genre The existence of items doesn't change the nature of the genre One I'm slightly torn on is that Smash has a more interesting failure state than most fighters; "deal a lot of damage then knock them off the level" is a bit more nuanced than "reduce their health to zero" - particularly because a skillset that *isn't* tested in fighters often - platforming skills - is useful for reducing the risk of that failure state. To that end I'm willing to call it a hybrid, but it's a hybrid in the sense that the fighting genre is still there in its entirety, it just also adds to it from the platforming genre. No-one would claim that Ratchet and Clank isn't a platformer just because it's got heavy gunplay in it. No-one would claim that Project Gotham isn't a racer just because progression is tied to style rather than direct speed. No-one would claim that Paper Mario isn't an RPG just because player skill can increase the effectiveness of attacks.

So now any game with collision in the form of hit boxes is a fighter? Fighting genre just grew by leaps and bounds.

[Rice-Eater]

It's definitely in a different sub genre to most popular fighting games.

Yeah that's what I consider it as well. Not a traditional fighter, but a fighter nonetheless.

[davepoobond]

just because you "fight" in a game doesnt make a game a fighter.

you technically fight in Streets of Rage, does that make it a fighting game?

You technically fight in Call of Duty. Does that make it a fighting game?

90% of the games out there you "fight" something. That doesnt mean they're all fighting games.

Smash Bros i consider an action game that you "fight" in a "tournament" theme. The appeal is and always has been less about the gameplay and more about the characters you are fighting with.

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

As a platforming game it completely fails as there is no challenge to navigating stages at all. The point of the game is two people duking it out, not the platforming, unless you want to argue that Smash is a platformer on Fountain of Dreams but not Final Destination.

The challenge of navigating the stage in Smash is the opposition. Many platformers have easy to navigate terrain with the challenge being created by the enemy. Some platformers difficulty is in scaling difficult to navigate terrain instead of having the emphasis on the opposition. And having two or more people "duking it out" doesn't automatically make any game a fighter, sorry.

[Conceited]

It's kinda odd that even after all this time people can't really define what a fighting game is.

[Haly]

Smash Bros i consider an action game that you "fight" in a "tournament" theme. The appeal is and always has been less about the gameplay and more about the characters you are fighting with.

Would it be fair of me to say "I consider fighting games to be glorified beat 'em up versus modes"?
No, of course not, yet it still has more merit than whatever this action game where y"ou "fight" in a "tournament" theme" is. Where does the tournament part come in to this? traditional fighters are closer to tournaments because of the typical best of 3 rule.

The second part is also wrong, unless you're a really casual Smash player.

The challenge of navigating the stage in Smash is the opposition. Many platformers have easy to navigate terrain with the challenge being created by the enemy. Some platformers difficulty is in scaling difficult to navigate terrain. And having two or more people "duking it out" doesn't automatically make any game a fighter, sorry.

The goal of Smash isn't to navigate a stage, moving around is simply a tool to achieve a superior position over your opponent. Again, the platforming elements of Smash, while unique and an important part of Smash's identity, are not integral to it. The game plays fine on Final Destination, and if both sides of the stage were blocked in and the only way to KO someone was to knock them upwards, it would still be enjoyable.

[dimb]

Smash Bros i consider an action game that you "fight" in a "tournament" theme. The appeal is and always has been less about the gameplay and more about the characters you are fighting with.

I don't think I've spent days playing Melee because it has the Ice Climbers in it.

[davepoobond]

Would it be fair of me to say "I consider fighting games to be glorified beat 'em up versus modes"? No, of course not, yet it still has more merit than whatever this action game where you "fight" in a "tournament" theme (where does the tournament part come in to this? traditional fighters are closer to tournaments because of the typical best of 3 rule).

actually you raise a good point... but why would it not? I don't actually see fighting games as having that much of an in-depth feature set, and the best mode I've ever personally played in a fighting game was Tekken Force, a side-scrolling beat-em up with the same gameplay as the fighting mode.

most "fighters" are just boiled down to their basic gameplay for the purpose of competitive multiplayer, rather than "being glorified."

I don't think I've spent days playing Melee because it has the Ice Climbers in it.

well thats because you're not a fan of the Ice Climbers. I know that I initially played Super Smash Bros because I liked Fox and wanted to see him out of his Arwing. Just because you can play a game competitively doesn't automatically make it something it isn't.

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

It's kinda odd that even after all this time people can't really define what a fighting game is.

I think you have it backwards. After all this time people can't really come up with a coherent argument as to why we should define Smash as a fighter. I'm almost positive most people here, on both sides of the fence, can define what a fighter is. Even what a platformer etc is. The Smash players just need to take off those blinders before they can do it. I actually like Smash. It's just not part of the fighter genre imo. Unless you guys need it to be a fighter to startenjoying your game of choice? If so I will just agree and walk away for your sake.

[donkey show]

YES!

[davepoobond]

I think you have it backwards. After all this time people can't really come up with a coherent argument as to why we should define Smash as a fighter. I'm almost positive most people here, on both sides of the fence, can define what a fighter is. Even what a platformer etc is. The Smash players just need to take off those blinders before they can do it. I actually like Smash. It's just not part of the fighter genre imo. Unless you guys need it to be a fighter to startenjoying your game of choice? If so I will just agree and walk away for your sake.

it legitimizes the game and proves that they are "good at fighting games" if they are good at smash bros.


also, another argument against smash bros being a "fighting" game is that none of the practical skills you can develop in Smash Bros will help you in Tekken or Virtua Fighter or whatever other fighting game there is. The gameplay is 100% unique to Smash Bros line of games itself.

[Haly]

Because the fighting genre has a cohesive enough identity to warrant (as evidenced by all the people bickering over this topic) its own label.

Smash's most basic game play is... fighting. I mean, literally, people are punching and kicking each other in Smash. This is how the game is sold, the context in which it exists. A label such as "action game" is so needlessly vague that almost anything could be construed to fit it. And such broad labels are typically meaningless especially when it comes to genre definition.

Party fighter is fine, anything less is just disingenuous.

also, another argument against smash bros being a "fighting" game is that none of the practical skills you can develop in Smash Bros will help you in Tekken or Virtua Fighter or whatever other fighting game there is. The gameplay is 100% unique to Smash Bros line of games itself.

This is only because fighting games have had such a long and static history that Smash feels so different.

Contrast the fighting game genre with the RPG genre, which now has all sort of weird suffixes people like to add in front of it like ARPG, SRPG, MMORPG, etc. There is lots of genre blending in RPGs, because there's been many different attempts to differentiate and experiment with game mechanics. Not true of fighting games. It's one of the only genres where the playerbase is completely adamant on keeping one game in an entry as similar to previous entries as possible without being an exact clone.

If fighting games had such a robust history of innovation and differentiation as RPGs did, we would not have this argument today.

[Wichu]

I never understood why this is so controversial. Surely a fighter is a game in which the main gameplay consists of beating other players in a fight to win? Just like how in a shooter you shoot other players to win, and in a racer you race other players?

[freddy]

The real question being explored here is how to make the new Sony fighter seem legit without also legitimising Smash Brothers. Tricky without resorting to colours or cutesy.

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

The goal of Smash isn't to navigate a stage, moving around is simply a tool to achieve a superior position over your opponent. Again, the platforming elements of Smash, while unique and an important part of Smash's identity, are not integral to it. The game plays fine on Final Destination, and if both sides of the stage were blocked in and the only way to KO someone was to knock them upwards, it would still be enjoyable.

MY GOD READ WHAT YOU'RE TYPING. I'm pretty sure just told me the goal isn't to navigate the stage, but that the goal is to gain superior position over your opponent... BY NAVIGATING THE STAGE. A stage filled with opposition creating difficulty! This is one element Smash does share with the fighting genre. But again, the gems system doesn't make SFxT an rpg. Wanting to control space doesn't make Smash a fighter either.

Your posts are going to make my brain explode.