Support NeoGAF

[Sayah]

Again, just because they give you the option to change the game to your liking doesnt exactly mean they did it because they thought they would turn it into a competitive
tournament game. Just like im sure that Blizzard didnt intend for me to use WoW as an online hide and go seek simulator. They obviously did it so you can play the game however you want.

My analogy is fine. Youre taking out items so that it will change the game to your liking, just as im unequipping all of my weapons in WoW so I can run around playing hide and go seek like I want to.

And I dont think youre playing the game
WRONG. Like I said earlier, do whatever you want and create as many tournaments as you please, but just because you do those things doesnt mean I have to consider Smash a tournament level fighting game.

I don't think anyone cares if you consider it a tournament level fighting game or not. I could just as easily say SFIV is not a tournament level fighting game and no one would care.

Look at the facts. Smash Bros. has been featured in thousands of tournaments. That makes it a competitive tournament fighter if people are playing it in such a way. Doesn't matter what you think.

 

[enzo_gt]

when someone says "fighting game" they primarily refer to SF-derivative or VF/Tekken-derivative games

I'm not really sure Smash fits into that classification

I know it's a sensitive issue though, and that basically every Smash player that exists, despite the fact that Smash is a good game and tons of people play it/compete at it, will argue until they are out of breath that they should be able to share in the culture of the "fighting game" descriptor

There's certainly always been a bit of "traditional" fighting game envy from the Smash community, but people, especially a subset in the fighting game community who are less open-minded, like to draw the line at design. Something all fighting games share to a large degree that Smash doesn't is that from the development onset they're meant to be played competitively in a tournament setting, with a large focus on making the game competitively viable.

The target audience for "fighting games" is the tournament-going competitive community. The target audience for Smash is Nintendo die hards and maximum accessibility to the masses who may identify even slightly with any one of the characters included.

 

[zoukka]

Again, just because they give you the option to change the game to your liking doesnt exactly mean they did it because they thought they would turn it into a competitive
tournament game. Just like im sure that Blizzard didnt intend for me to use WoW as an online hide and go seek simulator. They obviously did it so you can play the game however you want.

My analogy is fine. Youre taking out items so that it will change the game to your liking, just as im unequipping all of my weapons in WoW so I can run around playing hide and go seek like I want to.

And I dont think youre playing the game
WRONG. Like I said earlier, do whatever you want and create as many tournaments as you please, but just because you do those things doesnt mean I have to consider Smash a tournament level fighting game.

The meta game does not matter when we look at core gameplay components for deciding whether a game fits a genre. A game doesn't even have to be competetive at all. Smash is the same game with or without items core-wise.

 

[orznge]

what's more interesting than the mechanical/linguistic analysis of the "fighting game" classification, is the fact that there have been hundreds of threads made over the course of the last decade on various videogame forums wherein someone with a Smash avatar makes a thread with a misleading title and desperately seeks the validation of the "fighting game community"

 

[Zen_Arcade]

But the game has a built-in tournament mode, you can even turn off pausing and the game states that option is for tournaments. Now, if your argument is that it's too unbalanced or that it has random elements that make it less optimal for competitive play then I agree.


"Party game" bothers me because that
doesn't describe anything gameplay-wise. Mario Party, Dokapon Kingdom, Wii Fit, Guitar Hero - they're all party games and not one of them plays anything like Smash Bros.
- I'd describe it as a fighter-platformer if anything (and again, you don't need any platforming to win a match).

I think by its pretty obvious that by "tournament" that I dont mean you cant play a tournament and that I mean its not intended for a skill based tournament competition like EVO.

And yes, my whole point that the game isnt entirely skill based and has too many random variables that effect fairness. You have to turn off all items, cut out a bunch of stages, and even then there are things like tripping in Brawl that randomly happen and screw up the even playing field.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

when someone says "fighting game" they primarily refer to SF-derivative or VF/Tekken-derivative games

I'm not really sure Smash fits into that classification

I know it's a sensitive issue though, and that basically every Smash player that exists, despite the fact that Smash is a good game and tons of people play it/compete at it, will argue until they are out of breath that they should be able to share in the culture of the "fighting game" descriptor

As someone who has been in the Melee scene since 2004, has hosted majors, and has influence over the "limited rulesets" that are being used as a separator...

I don't get bothered when smash isn't called a fighting game. I don't care one way or the other. Nor do I wish to share in the "culture" of the FGC, since smash has over a decade of rich history of its own.

What does bother me is when people like Zen Arcade, who verifiably doesn't know what he's talking about, call smash uncompetitive or unfit for tournament play. Thats an insult to the hard work organizers such as myself have been putting into the scene, and devalues the accomplishments of our top players.

 

[orznge]

As someone who has been in the Melee scene since 2004, has hosted majors, and has influence over the "limited rulesets" that are being used as a separator...

I don't get bothered when smash isn't called a fighting game. I don't care one way or the other. Nor do I wish to share in the "culture" of the FGC, since smash has over a decade of rich history of its own.

What does bother me is when people like Zen Arcade, who verifiably doesn't know what he's talking about, call smash uncompetitive or unfit for tournament play. Thats an insult to the hard work organizers such as myself have been putting into the scene, and devalues the accomplishments of our top players.

I agree. While I don't like Brawl compared to 64 and Melee and don't consider them "fighting games" since I don't take that term literally, all three of them are very playable at a competitive level. Whether you have to change settings is inconsequential and is mainly an issue of "flavor."

 

[zoukka]

I think by its pretty obvious that by "tournament" that I dont mean you cant play a tournament and that I mean its not intended for a skill based tournament competition like EVO.

And yes, my whole point that the game isnt entirely skill based and has too many random variables that effect fairness. You have to turn off all items, cut out a bunch of stages, and even then there are things like tripping in Brawl that randomly happen and screw up the even playing field.

Balance has nothing to with genre validation. You guys are way off track.

You are looking to define "traditional fighter/competitive videogame"s here. Not a "fighting game". Which is silly because even "balanced" fighters have banned characters and many imbalances.

 

[Sayah]

I think by its pretty obvious that by "tournament" that I dont mean you cant play a tournament and that I mean its not intended for a skill based tournament competition like EVO.

And yes, my whole point that the game isnt entirely skill based and has too many random variables that effect fairness. You have to turn off all items, cut out a bunch of stages, and even then there are things like tripping in Brawl that randomly happen and screw up the even playing field.

Tripping affects fairness? There are so many things I could list in other fighters that affect fairness. From the onset, there are several of those games that you deem to be tournament level that have character balancing issues, infinite's, etc.

There's certainly always been a bit of "traditional" fighting game envy from the Smash community, but people, especially a subset in the fighting game community who are less open-minded, like to draw the line at design. Something all fighting games share to a large degree that Smash doesn't is that from the development onset they're meant to be played competitively in a tournament setting, with a large focus on making the game competitively viable.

The target audience for "fighting games" is the tournament-going competitive community. The target audience for Smash is Nintendo die hards and maximum accessibility to the masses who may identify even slightly with any one of the characters included.

That's not true at all. The target audience is more than just tournament-going folks. Fighting games can sell in the millions and how many folks go to tournaments? A couple thousand. I haven't been to a single tournament in my life and I play various fighters competitively (online or locally) and I like to believe that I'm part of the target audience.

And no, the target is not just Nintendo die hards for Smash Bros. The game is made to appeal to various subsets and groups and that includes competitive players. People have the option to play the game however they want. They are given that option.

 

[Dr.Hadji]

Again, just because they give you the option to change the game to your liking doesnt exactly mean they did it because they thought they would turn it into a competitive
tournament game. Just like im sure that Blizzard didnt intend for me to use WoW as an online hide and go seek simulator. They obviously did it so you can play the game however you want.

My analogy is fine. Youre taking out items so that it will change the game to your liking, just as im unequipping all of my weapons in WoW so I can run around playing hide and go seek like I want to.

And I dont think youre playing the game
WRONG. Like I said earlier, do whatever you want and create as many tournaments as you please, but just because you do those things doesn't mean I have to consider Smash a tournament level fighting game.

You seem to be going off in a direction that's beside the point. Being able to make a GAME out of the interactivity of a game is what you're talking about. That is NOT what the Smash community has done. They took the game that already exists, tweaked the options that were given (without changing the code at all), and continue to play the game that was shipped. House rules and tournament rules are one thing, but what you're saying does not apply.

Uneuqip all your items in Wow all you like. But your example breaks when you stop trying to do quests and take on monsters in Wow and instead play hide-and-seek with your friends. Unless there are built in rules for hide-and-seek with digital score keeping and everything, you're making a game out of the game.

And again, if you insist on using some unintuitive, hidden definition for a tournament level fighting game that excludes smash when Smash is played in tournaments and it is a fighting game, then I really don't care what you think. Basically, communication breaks down when we can't even accept such overwhelming evidence. Either you're trying to say something else, or you're just trolling.

when someone says "fighting game" they primarily refer to SF-derivative or VF/Tekken-derivative games

I'm not really sure Smash fits into that classification

I know it's a sensitive issue though, and that basically every Smash player that exists, despite the fact that Smash is a good game and tons of people play it/compete at it, will argue until they are out of breath that they should be able to share in the culture of the "fighting game" descriptor

1) I'm not so sure people imagine SF or VF or Tekken when they say fighting games anymore. Sure those games are old, but new generations have grown up on different games. We share this gaming community with these guys too.

2) At least for me, there are a lot of aspect of the "fighting game" community/culture that I hate. I don't care to be included in their group if these aspects of who they are are prominent.

3) Our cultural circles overlap. Sure we all play different games, but us Gaffers come together in different threads with different topics to make new groups. So, again, communication is really important. And when communication breaks down so quickly over such small details that can be resolved with a bit of work, you have to wonder if there's more to these issues.

 

[orznge]

1) I'm not so sure people imagine SF or VF or Tekken when they say fighting games anymore. Sure those games are old, but new generations have grown up on different games. We share this gaming community with these guys too.

you're mistaken; most often when people say "fighting games" they are referring to SF-derivative or VF/Tekken-derivative games

 

[GameplayWhore]

There's no fighting in Mario Bros., just jumping. No movesets with different ranges, priorities, frame data, etc. - No need to learn any match-ups, no need to damage your opponent, no strings of attacks, it pretty much lacks everything that makes Smash Bros. what it is.

People looking for an evolution of Mario Bros would be better served by looking up Super Mario War.

Now, could that be considered a fighter, even if it is an outlier with respect to the categories you list above? I mean, it's a multiplayer game on a static screen with various ways of killing opponents where your job is to make your opponents die a certain number of times.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I don't think anyone cares if you consider it a tournament level fighting game or not. I could just as easily say SFIV is not a tournament level fighting game and no one would care.

Look at the facts. Smash Bros. has been featured in thousands of tournaments. That makes it a competitive tournament fighter if people are playing it in such a way. Doesn't matter what you think.

If you didnt care I wouldnt be having an
argument with you and others trying to
convince me otherwise. Ive already said multiple times in this thread that the idea of a Smash tournament doesnt make me rage and that people should do whatever they
want.

Anyone responding to me is doing so only with the intention of trying to convince me otherwise.

I dont care what you do, I watch Smash tournament videos on youtube, and I even play on Final Destination with no items from time to time. But I still take that mode of play with a grain of salt at tournament level play because it seems to me that the game was built to encompass items and crazy levels and wasnt built to be played entirely based on the skill of the player.

 

[Master Milk]

There's certainly always been a bit of "traditional" fighting game envy from the Smash community, but people, especially a subset in the fighting game community who are less open-minded, like to draw the line at design. Something all fighting games share to a large degree that Smash doesn't is that from the development onset they're meant to be played competitively in a tournament setting, with a large focus on making the game competitively viable.

No, traditional fighting games were designed for the arcades, not for competitive play in a tournament setting. Once the arcades were less prevalent and home consoles became the main focus, we got fighting games that were designed with the home console in mind. Smash being designed around consoles doesn't make it any less of a fighter.

The target audience for "fighting games" is the tournament-going competitive community. The target audience for Smash is Nintendo die hards and maximum accessibility to the masses who may identify even slightly with any one of the characters included.

No. Most fighting games are always striving to be as accessible as possible. The tournament going competitive community isn't the target audience at all.

 

[enzo_gt]

That's not true at all. The target audience is more than just tournament-going folks. Fighting games can sell in the millions and how many folks go to tournaments? A couple thousand. I haven't been to a single tournament in my life and I play various fighters competitively (online or locally) and I like to believe that I'm part of the target audience.

And no, the target is not just Nintendo die hards for Smash Bros. The game is made to appeal to various subsets and groups and that includes competitive players. People have the option to play the game however they want. They are given that option.

True, there is an expanded audience for every game, but the core audiences are different. And no, Smash Bros. is not really made to appeal to competitive subsets, notably because of stuff like tripping and little care for mechanics outside of finding more ways to inject fan service like assist trophies. Smash community has made a serviceable competitive game out of scraps, using the options they have given, but they've had to constantly reduce and reduce different aspects of the game to reach that point, which doesn't really tell me that by design it was meant to be that way.

No, traditional fighting games were designed for the arcades, not for competitive play in a tournament setting. Once the arcades were less prevalent and home consoles became the main focus, we got fighting games that were designed with the home console in mind. Smash being designed around consoles doesn't make it any less of a fighter.

Not sure what the arcade/home console distinction has to do with anything. You can have a tournament/competitive setting in an arcade, or on home consoles.

 

[Retro_]

I don't even think multiple characters is a must. After all, people play ditto/mirror matches all the time. They're still playing a fighting game when they do that. Multiple characters is nice, but not necessary.

Playing mirror matches doesn't make those other characters not exist though.

Alot of people don't realize it but the match begins in a fighting game at the select screen. Especially in games where every character has unfavorable matchups so it's worth it for players to be able to play multiple characters.

I do agree though that a game in which there was only one character, would still be a fighting game. but I can't imagine anyone designing a game like that without intentionally limiting themselves and their game to such.

because it's impossible to really design a single character that can really have every tool imaginable in a game at once. Fighting game characters are naturally designed to have strengths and weaknesses.

and because of that I think multiple characters can be considered a basic trait of fighting games.

A game doesn't have to be primarily designed for PVP either. Sure, this is a nice way of thinking about it,but it ignores the fact that we should be able to look at the objective rules of a game and determine a lot about what it is and how it plays.

I don't see how these are mutually exclusive concepts

Who cares if a game is supposedly designed for one thing, yet the modes and options allow something else to emerge or some other kind of gameplay to be prominent.

Again I don't get how I said anything contrary to this. I'm not suggesting that these games need to be strictly played in this way, but merely that they are concepted and designed for a certain purpose. That being 2(or more) players playing competitively against each other.

I mean in fighting games you already see this. You have combo technicians like Desk who explore what's possible in the game engine beyond what's considered practical in a typical PvP setting. There are people I'm sure who play the games exclusively like this. Just like there are people that play older arcade fighting games exclusively in single player, or play with their friends in training mode with unlimited health and unlimited meter for hours just doing shit they think is cool.

Doesn't change the developer intent in designing the game. You're free to play how you want but that doesn't change what the developers had in mind for it's use when creating the game.

 

[CPS2]

Genre:
-fighting game

Sub-genres:
-3D arena fighter
-2D platform fighter
-etc

Power stone is not in the same sub-genre as jump ultimate stars, but they're both fighting games. We've had threads like these a number of times.

 

[zoukka]

True, there is an expanded audience for every game, but the core audiences are different.

The core audience is the biggest chunk of the target audience. This is how core audience is defined from developers point of view. You are mixing "core gamer" in here where it doesn't belong.

 

[enzo_gt]

The core audience is the biggest chunk of the target audience. This is how core audience is defined from developers point of view. You are mixing "core gamer" in here where it doesn't belong.

So what's the appropriate term for the concept I'm describing? Because by that definition, 99% of the games out there's core audience is Joe Blow. All I'm saying is that Smash, relative to everything else that is labelled a fighting game, is less focused on appeasing the competitive community by design, and is so by a significant margin. And that's why people like to exclude Smash. I think that's pretty self-evident in itself if you follow the development of all these games, and pretty clear to anyone on the outside looking in.

Genre:
-fighting game

Sub-genres:
-3D arena fighter
-2D platform fighter
-etc

Power stone is not in the same sub-genre as jump ultimate stars, but they're both fighting games. We've had threads like these a number of times.

It's the age-old argument that doesn't ever really die. This thread's existence still confuses me, I've read through OP multiple times and I'm not sure what the fruits are supposed to be.

 

[RM8]

Genre:
-fighting game

Sub-genres:
-3D arena fighter
-2D platform fighter
-etc

Power stone is not in the same sub-genre as jump ultimate stars, but they're both fighting games. We've had threads like these a number of times.

I honestly can't believe this is not the consensus.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

There's certainly always been a bit of "traditional" fighting game envy from the Smash community

There has always been a silent competition between the FGC and the Smash community. The envy goes both ways, and when one sees success, the other takes note. Before SF IV's release and the FGC's big boom, Melee's broad appeal, success at MLG, and strong youtube fanbase made a lot of FGC heads rethink their approach. Similarly, the FGC's success with streams and sponsorships have changed the smash community as well.

The competition has been healthy, except for its spillover to public forums, or the debacle at EVO. But now the communities are (finally) coming together, and most of the tension is gone. Interests are aligning and as players play more and more games at once, we'll likely see the communities fuse in a lot of ways.

Or maybe not, who knows.

 

[zoukka]

So what's the appropriate term for the concept I'm describing? Because by that definition, 99% of the games out there's core audience is Joe Blow.

You are describing the hardcore fans of the series. But the game is made and marketed to millions of people who will never play competetively or even know such culture exists. These are "Joe Blow's" who enjoy beating their siblings/parents in a fighting game. A genre that is defined by mechanics like all other games. Not the level of play or the competetive scene.

You guys are so off track it's almost off-topic.

 

[Retro_]

4. Primarily designed for PVP or Versus for 2 or more players. - Karate Champ

Do people really consider Karate Champ a fighting game?

5. Features multiple unique playable characters. - Street Fighter

Same with Street Fighter 1.

Are we including games like Final Fight and Streets of Rage as fighting games now as well?

because I think those two have more incommon with those games than anything people will likely associate with the term "fighting game".

I mean Final Fight was originally supposed to be Street Fighter 2.

I disagree with these two being eliminated for these examples

 

[enzo_gt]

You are describing the hardcore fans of the series. But the game is made and marketed to millions of people who will never play competetively or even know such culture exists. These are "Joe Blow's" who enjoy beating their siblings/parents in a fighting game. A genre that is defined by mechanics like all other games. Not the level of play or the competetive scene.

You guys are so off track it's almost off-topic.

1) Check my edit.

2) Check what I was arguing in the first place, which is why people single out Smash, not as a justification for such.

 

[The Adder]

Do people really consider Karate Champ a fighting game?



Same with Street Fighter 1.

Are we including games like Final Fight and Streets of Rage as fighting games now as well?

because I think those two have more incommon with those games than anything people will likely associate with the term "fighting game".

I mean Final Fight was originally supposed to be Street Fighter 2.

I disagree with these two being eliminated for these examples

How are either of those games like Final Fight or Streets of Rage?

 

[CPS2]

Thread derail - is mahvel animaaay?!

 

[Madouu]

The goal here is to refine the definition more and more until we have one that excludes other genres, but does not fail to include any game that can not be argued as being a non-fighter

I think this approach is fundamentally flawed. If you are starting from scratch to construct a definition for the fighting game genre, then you can not eliminate a statement from your list because it does not apply to one or more specific games labelled as fighters since you are still in the process of defining what a fighting game is.

An example from your list:
"Putting your opponent in the corner and punching them in the face till their dead" can not be considered in a definition for fighting games because this does not apply to Soul Calibur which is a fighter.

It doesn't make sense to me, if you've already decided that Soul Calibur fits the fighting genre definition, then that supposes you already know it.

 

[The Adder]

Thread derail - is mahvel animaaay?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YXW5YKEsTMc#t=15s

Spoiler

*Shrug*

 

[zoukka]

1) Check my edit.

2) Check what I was arguing in the first place, which is why people single out Smash, not as a justification for such.

Well you are just arguing about whether Smash is a competetive fighting game or not. Which is a fine matter, but really... it's about the game mechanics. I hate to repeat myself, but this is not a hard concept to grasp.

Also it's perfectly fine to put Smash in a sub-genre. Most games today belong to some sub-genre, because they have been influenced so heavily by other games in different genres.

Mario Kart is a racing game. Gran Turismo is a racing game. They probably belong to different sub-categories, but both are still racing games.

 

[Ragingnight]

marvel 2 is a party game.

 

[The Adder]

I think this approach is fundamentally flawed. If you are starting from scratch to construct a definition for the fighting game genre, then you can not eliminate a statement from your list because it does not apply to one or more specific games labelled as fighters since you are still in the process of defining what a fighting game is.

An example from your list:
"Putting your opponent in the corner and punching them in the face till their dead" can not be considered in a definition for fighting games because this does not apply to Soul Calibur which is a fighter.

It doesn't make sense to me, if you've already decided that Soul Calibur fits the fighting genre definition, then that supposes you already know it.

There are games which no one will dispute being fighting games. No one will honestly say Soul Calibur doesn't count as a fighting game. The point isn't building the definition from scratch, the point is using the games no one says aren't fighters in order to find the common ground between them while excluding none of them from the definition.

 

[Sayah]

True, there is an expanded audience for every game, but the core audiences are different. And no, Smash Bros. is not really made to appeal to competitive subsets, notably because of stuff like tripping and little care for mechanics outside of finding more ways to inject fan service like assist trophies. Smash community has made a serviceable competitive game out of scraps, using the options they have given, but they've had to constantly reduce and reduce different aspects of the game to reach that point, which doesn't really tell me that by design it was meant to be that way.

They've made a competitive game out of scraps? And what had to be consistently reduced to reach that competitive level? All you're doing is turning off items and selecting neutral or relatively neutral stages. That's it. You're making it seem like it's a big chore to play the game competitively. It's not. I've been playing Smash for years. It is a competitive fighter when it wants to be and the mere fact that people can viably play it competitively at tournaments and the fact that it has been featured in several tournaments across the world makes it what it is. It can be a party fighter when you want to use random item drops and crazy stages but doesn't merely restrict its classification as solely a party fighter. That's all there is to it. You have the option to play it however you want.

If it wasn't meant to be competitive by design, Nintendo wouldn't be going to Namco (a fighting game developer with extensive experience in fighting games) for the next Smash Bros. game.

 

[DR2K]

marvel 2 is a party game.

A party where only 4 out of 56 can play and dance.

 

[Retro_]

How are either of those games like Final Fight or Streets of Rage?

They're just old arcade games that existed prior to the establishment of the genre in my mind. So it doesn't make sense to me that they'd be used to disprove aspects that define it

Like to me they aren't fighting games so much as they are arcade/NES games based on Karate. Like Karateka

I mean think of it this way, if either of those games were released today would you consider them fighting games?

because as the list is right now:

According to that "list", most action games would be fighting games too.

Bayonetta, Devil May Cry, God Hand, Ninja Gaiden, Final Fight, Captain Commando, Streets of Rage, Alien Vs Predator, Odin Sphere, Monster Hunter, Mad World, Yakuza, Vanquish, Viewtiful Joe

all fighting games without those rules

 

[Ragingnight]

A party where only 4 out of 56 can play and dance.

hmm more like 10~ but you had to have atleast one of the 3 holy trinities.

Lets count to be sure.

1) Magneto
2) Storm
3) Sentinel
4) Doom
5) Cyclops
6) Psylocke
7) Cable
8) Spiral
9) Strider
10) Blackheart
11) CapCom
12) Iron Man
Everybody else had 2 left feet.

edit

Forgot Dhalsim and that mummy guy as well.

 

[Phoenixazure]

the more i read the back and forth, the more it feels like another of "why isn't smash part of the FGC" threads ive encountered years ago when i frequented SRK. People who argue against smash hates nintendo,mascots, and consoles while people arguing for smash can't accept that some people believe their series was never meant to be a competitive fighter to begin with.

 

[Retro_]

I have no idea why people are even talking about smash in here

Smash is a fighting game by the criteria defined in the OP. Has been since he created it.

 

[Madouu]

There are games which no one will dispute being fighting games. No one will honestly say Soul Calibur doesn't count as a fighting game. The point isn't building the definition from scratch, the point is using the games no one says aren't fighters in order to find the common ground between them while excluding none of them from the definition.

I would suggest you make a list of the games you use as a basis then in the OP and only those can be used to eliminate a statement. Else arguments about statements being eliminated because of one game considered or not to be a fighter are bound to happen.

 

[donkey show]

Is Gundam VS a fighting game?

Very much so.

But even if the "traditionalists" don't agree, I don't think it really matters. Gundam Vs. has had its own competitive following in Japan for several years now. Not to mention that Gundam Vs. always runs neck to neck with Tekken for being the most popular played game in arcades.

It's been killing Tekken (and every other competitive small cabinet game) in regards to popularity for the past 2 years now.

 

[kirblar]

The target audience for "fighting games" is the tournament-going competitive community.

Pretty sure you're dead wrong on this point. FGC is a small, but vocal, visible and important minority.

 

[Keru_Shiri]

Genre:
-fighting game

Sub-genres:
-3D arena fighter
-2D platform fighter
-etc

Power stone is not in the same sub-genre as jump ultimate stars, but they're both fighting games. We've had threads like these a number of times.

Pretty much how I see it as well.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

The meta game does not matter when we look at core gameplay components for deciding whether a game fits a genre. A game doesn't even have to be competetive at all. Smash is the same game with or without items core-wise.

I think you should re read the thread, ive said multiple times that I consider Smash a fighting game. The argument im having is about whether or not Smash should be considrered a competitive tournament skill based fighter.

 

[Sayah]

the more i read the back and forth, the more it feels like another of "why isn't smash part of the FGC" threads ive encountered years ago when i frequented SRK. People who argue against smash hates nintendo,mascots, and consoles while people arguing for smash can't accept that some people believe their series was never meant to be a competitive fighter to begin with.

Arguing that Smash is not a competitive game is completely different from arguing that Smash shouldn't be part of the FGC.

I honestly don't care if people don't want to associate Smash with the FGC. But to say that it is not a viable competitive tournament fighter is an outrageous and absurd claim that is in need of serious reevaluation. I honestly do wonder if people making such statements have even played Smash at a serious competitive level.

 

[zoukka]

I think you should re read the thread, ive said multiple times that I consider Smash a fighting game. The argument im having is about whether or not Smash should be listed as a competitive tournament skill based fighter.

It's all cool.

 

[enzo_gt]

Thread derail - is mahvel animaaay?!

Control-wise only, and only MvC3 series. Let's hope Capcom doesn't plague the aesthetics of these games in the future.

Well you are just arguing about whether Smash is a competetive fighting game or not. Which is a fine matter, but really... it's about the game mechanics. I hate to repeat myself, but this is not a hard concept to grasp.

Also it's perfectly fine to put Smash in a sub-genre. Most games today belong to some sub-genre, because they have been influenced so heavily by other games in different genres.

Mario Kart is a racing game. Gran Turismo is a racing game. They probably belong to different sub-categories, but both are still racing games.

No that's not what I'm arguing. I already prefaced by saying Smash was a fighting game.

They've made a competitive game out of scraps? And what had to be consistently reduced to reach that competitive level? All you're doing is turning off items and selecting neutral or relatively neutral stages. That's it. You're making it seem like it's a big chore to play the game competitively. It's not. I've been playing Smash for years. It is a competitive fighter when it wants to be and the mere fact that people can viably play it competitively at tournaments and the fact that it has been featured in several tournaments across the world makes it what it is. It can be a party fighter when you want to use random item drops and crazy stages but doesn't merely restrict its classification as solely a party fighter. That's all there is to it. You have the option to play it however you want.

If it wasn't meant to be competitive by design, Nintendo wouldn't be going to Namco (a fighting game developer with extensive experience in fighting games) for the next Smash Bros. game.

It's not a chore, but the community did end up reducing everything new mechanically added to the newest game anyways in an effort to make it competitive. Probably because all the new stuff like assist trophies and Smash balls is made "for fun" and fanservice first, without any further thought put in. And they would (and do; through modding with stuff such as minus and plus) go further to make it as competitive as they can by going forward and even tweaking mechanics. Nintendo won't fix anything because it's all in their design philosophy, so it's up to the community to make up for their shortcomings. Again, by a large margin, the focus on playtesting for balance and making the game as competitive as possible is much smaller at Nintendo. I really believe that tripping alone, though used as a scapegoat often, really is proof that they could really care less.

And what Namco is doing in the future with Smash is not representative of efforts in the past in any way, shape or form. For all you know, they're using Namco for the manpower instead of building a new studio up from the start and then dissolving it immediately again for the next few years. Sakurai is still in charge.

 

[orznge]

anyone taking bets on whether SSB4 is going to have tripping?

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

I would suggest you make a list of the games you use as a basis then in the OP and only those can be used to eliminate a statement. Else arguments about statements being eliminated because of one game considered or not to be a fighter are bound to happen.

"I choose these games because they are fighting games."
"Fighting games are like these games."

 

[Sayah]

It's not a chore, but the community did end up reducing everything new mechanically added to the newest game anyways in an effort to make it competitive. Probably because all the new stuff like assist trophies and Smash balls is made "for fun" and fanservice first, without any further thought put in. And they would (and do; through modding with stuff such as minus and plus) go further to make it as competitive as they can by going forward and even tweaking mechanics. Nintendo won't fix anything because it's all in their design philosophy, so it's up to the community to make up for their shortcomings. Again, by a large margin, the focus on playtesting for balance and making the game as competitive as possible is much smaller at Nintendo. I really believe that tripping alone, though used as a scapegoat often, really is proof that they could really care less.

And what Namco is doing in the future with Smash is not representative of efforts in the past in any way, shape or form. For all you know, they're using Namco for the manpower instead of building a new studio up from the start and then dissolving it immediately again for the next few years. Sakurai is still in charge.

Assist trophies are not a new mechanic. It's just another item move similar to pokemon balls.

And as far as I am aware, many tournaments for Brawl have not used the plus/minus versions. I had Brawl Plus for a relatively short period of time and went back to regular Brawl shortly after. The community tried to mod it to make it more similar to melee but that has nothing at all do with how viable the original Brawl is as a competitive fighter. It is very much a competitive fighter and it is and will continue to be featured in tournaments. That, in and of itself, is proof that the game can be a competitive fighter and shouldn't require any debating.

And I like how everyone keeps coming back to tripping. It's like people have found one thing to nitpick and focus on that. Tripping is a mechanic that, I can agree, shouldn't even exist in the game. But again, how does its presence disqualify Brawl as a competitive fighter? Is it because it's random and could be unfair. That point is moot. Which fighting games provide a perfectly balanced and fair fight? I really would like to know.

Tripping in brawl can be random but it's also an exaggerated problem. The majority of the time, you trip, get back up and nothing happens.

I think you should re read the thread, ive said multiple times that I consider Smash a fighting game. The argument im having is about whether or not Smash should be considrered a competitive tournament skill based fighter.

Except Smash does require skill and can be played competitively at tournaments. That is not even an opinion. That is a fact.

 

[kirblar]

It's not a chore, but the community did end up reducing everything new mechanically added to the newest game anyways in an effort to make it competitive. Probably because all the new stuff like assist trophies and Smash balls is made "for fun" and fanservice first, without any further thought put in. And they would (and do; through modding with stuff such as minus and plus) go further to make it as competitive as they can by going forward and even tweaking mechanics. Nintendo won't fix anything because it's all in their design philosophy, so it's up to the community to make up for their shortcomings. Again, by a large margin, the focus on playtesting for balance and making the game as competitive as possible is much smaller at Nintendo. I really believe that tripping alone, though used as a scapegoat often, really is proof that they could really care less.

I think the big strike against Smash is that in order to make it a "competitive" game you have to play a heavily modified version of the standard game, (regardless of which version you're using.)

 

[Empty Space]

anyone taking bets on whether SSB4 is going to have tripping?

Maybe, the original purpose of tripping to SSBB less like a conventional fighting, at least I remember people saying that around the time it came out. If thats true and Sakurai still feels that way then yeah it will stay, but if the intent is to make a better experience for everybody then no it will be gone.

Except Smash does require skill and can be played competitively at tournaments. That is not even an opinion. That is a fact.

Not to put words in his/her mouth, but I think he means more of is it a game that is appropriate to be paired with something Street Fighter or Tekken and less if its skill based. Its a matter of the kind of tone the game brings to the table, I think.