Support NeoGAF

[davepoobond]

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

but, does it really?

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.

or anything more, as well. such as "competitive fighter." Which would be a serious fighting game. Party fighter just sounds like it is an illegitimate form of fighting game, which I suppose I can agree with calling it that.


and like i said earlier, 90% of the games out there you "fight" something. doesn't make everything a fighter.

 

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

Smash's most basic game play is... fighting. I mean, literally, people are punching and kicking each other in Smash.

You just described 98% of videogames. I guess near every game is a fighter.

 

[Haly]

You just described 98% of videogames. I guess near every game is a fighter.

Sure, if every game you play is a fighting game.

Which is pretty likely considering the kinds of things you post here.

and like i said earlier, 90% of the games out there you "fight" something. doesn't make everything a fighter.

If Smash had HP bars would it be a fighting game?

What needs to be removed from Smash in order to turn it into a fighting game?

 

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

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?

But isn't shooting also fighting? Oh shit, so you're telling me Duck Hunt is a fighting game? I was really good at that.

 

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

Sure, if every game you play is a fighting game.

Which is pretty likely considering the kinds of things you post here.

If Smash had HP bars would it be a fighting game?

What needs to be removed from Smash in order to turn it into a fighting game?

Fighting games have HP bars... does that make them rpgs? I guess you could even consider super meters mana bars!!! I think we can just axe the fighting genre guys and just calling everything rpgs!

 

[Haly]

Instead of trying to come up with arguments for whether or not Smash is a fighting game, let's just get one thing straight here.

What is a fighting game?

Fighting games have HP bars... does that make them rpgs? I guess you could even consider super meters mana bars!!! I think we can just axe the fighting genre guys and just calling everything rpgs!

Reading comprehension and logic. They're useful skills!

 

[remz]

do people really think the fighting peoples are going to be jumping all over the sony smash bros?

I'll be super suprised if the game gets picked up or taken seriously anywhere near the level of something like SF, Tekken, VF or Marvel, anyone that thinks it will is deluding themselves

 

[donkey show]

What is a fighting game?

Gundam Extreme VS :3

 

[ScreenSplitter]

The main aim of the game is fighting in a ring and taking down your opponent, one way or the other. It's a fighting game. The semantics behind this are hilarious.

 

[Kusagari]

do people really think the fighting peoples are going to be jumping all over the sony smash bros?

I'll be super suprised if the game gets picked up or taken seriously anywhere near the level of something like SF, Tekken, VF or Marvel, anyone that thinks it will is deluding themselves

Who said that?

The fact that the only way to kill people is supers, pretty much guarantees it won't even form a competitive scene like Smash did.

 

[Haly]

Gundam Extreme VS :3

That's just a Third Person Shooter Action game.

It's practically Mass Effect.

 

[TheSeks]

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.

Exactly why it isn't a fighting game. I'm sorry. Holding A and a direction to ring out people after their health hits 200% isn't a fighter. Add in the randomity of items and it's basically a party game. Same with the Sony variation before someone uses that "OMG YOU JUST HATE NINTENDO" argument.

They're both intended for quick pick-up-and-play button mashing elements of five minute sessions.

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 loathing.

While true about SRK loathing, SRK (and most people) wouldn't buy it. Just see SFvsJuggleken.

Instead of trying to come up with arguments for whether or not Smash is a fighting game, let's just get one thing straight here.

What is a fighting game?

No items. Fox only. Final Destination.

Two players. Move lists that aren't simple button mashing (of course, then we can argue if P4U is a fighter, but it is because while it has mashy AAAAAAAAA auto-combos there's other move sets to use and auto-combo is a crutch). No randomize in stages (sup item drops), no having to dash around to platform to stay on the stage to continue to "fight" (Sup Pokemon Parade/Celedon City?)

Basically fighters are where both players have an even chance with no randomity involved. And if your game has to have players stop what they're doing to platform to stay in a match, it isn't a fighter all IMO of course. Because we could say "well, button mashy move lists are in DOA" and while, yeah there's "PP->PK" basic combos and the like the parry system there is deeper than Smash's "fighting" engine.

 

[remz]

Who said that?

The fact that the only way to kill people is supers, pretty much guarantees it won't even form a competitive scene like Smash did.

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.

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.

.

I agree with you by the way.

People should just class smash as a subgenre in its own of the greater fighting set and let it be

 

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

Reading comprehension and logic. They're useful skills!

I know they are, so you shoud use them. Just because one game in any given genre shares elements, which are defining traits of another genre, doesn't magically change the classification of said game. Road Rash isn't a fighter because I can punch another dude racing against me. But yeah...

 

[Haly]

Basically fighters are where both players have an even chance with no randomity involved. And if your game has to have players stop what they're doing to platform to stay in a match, it isn't a fighter all IMO of course. Because we could say "well, button mashy move lists are in DOA" and while, yeah there's "PP->PK" basic combos and the like the parry system there is deeper than Smash's "fighting" engine.

Sup, TheSeks, I didn't know you were FightmanGAF.

Regarding those things you listed: If Smash 4 had QCF/QCB inputs, and people played on Final Destination (hurr), with no items, and Sakurai didn't put in tripping, it would be, in your opinion, a fighting game? Or at the very least, a fighting game can be constructed within the bounds of Smash?

I know they are, so you shoud use them. Just because one game in any given genre shares elements, which are defining traits of another genre, doesn't magically change the classification of said game. Road Rash isn't a fighter because I can punch another dude racing against me. But yeah...

So I guess Smash isn't a platformer just because it has platformers.

Thanks! I thought you were arguing against me but all this time you were arguing for me.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Sure, if every game you play is a fighting game.

Which is pretty likely considering the kinds of things you post here.

If Smash had HP bars would it be a fighting game?

What needs to be removed from Smash in order to turn it into a fighting game?

Thing is you can put smash on stamina mode..isnt that basically a hp (stamina) bar just says it in percent.

 

[legend166]

On topic, Smash is a party fighting game to me, I don't see it as competitive.

I don't get what this means. Something is competitive if the participants deem it to be so.

 

[Haly]

Thing is you can put smash on stamina mode..isnt that basically a hp (stamina) bar just says it in percent.

Shhhh, I'm having fun. Don't spoil it.

 

[remz]

Thing is you can put smash on stamina mode..isnt that basically a hp (stamina) bar just says it in percent.

It also sucks playing it that way, for what it's worth.

Sup, TheSeks, I didn't know you were FightmanGAF.

Regarding those things you listed: If Smash 4 had QCF/QCB inputs, and people played on Final Destination (hurr), with no items, and Sakurai didn't put in tripping, it would be in your opinion, a fighting game?

Turning smash into a traditional fighter isn't as simple as just slapping some QCF inputs onto the moves- it's mechanics as so different, inputting the moves in a traditional way will not change that. This is not a bad thing, smash being unique is what makes it good.


Wouldn't that also make smash a one button game? lol.

 

[donkey show]

That's just a Third Person Shooter Action game.

It's practically Mass Effect.

<3

 

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

Shhhh, I'm having fun. Don't spoil it.

Or you're just trying to make my brain hurt. I guess that could be fun.

I'm getting some sleep. be back in the morning for more lol

 

[Haly]

<3

<3

Turning smash into a traditional fighter isn't as simple as just slapping some QCF inputs onto the moves- it's mechanics as so different, inputting the moves in a traditional way will not change that. This is not a bad thing, smash being unique is what makes it good.

Wouldn't that also make smash a one button game? lol.

I'm trying to narrow down the essence of fighting games. Since TheSeks (and no one else) has provided me with a starting point I'm working with it.

 

[mclem]

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

I probably should have specified "A variety of damage boxes, with a majority of them being at close range to the souce hitbox", but, well, yeah. That's what the gameplay boils down to at the purest level. It's what Yie Ar Kung Fu was, it's what Street Fighter 2 was, it's what Virtua Fighter was, and it's what Smash is.

It's not what a platformer is: The opposing hitboxes don't generally have similar abilities, and the objective is often different. It's not what an FPS is: The attacks are usually ranged and often hitscan based rather than damage box based.

Beat-em-ups? Clearly very close to that definition of fighting game - as, let's be honest, you'd expect it to be - but there's still a clear difference of intent. Beat-em-ups are fighting against large numbers of weak hitboxes who generally don't have your range of damage boxes. At a one-on-one level against a boss, a beat-em-up is pretty much indistinguishable from a fighting game (unless you can offer an explanation as to why it's not?)

If you disagree with any or all of this, give me your definition of the genre - at the absolute purest, most abstract level. Forget everything related to theming.

 

[GhostTrick]

Of course it is a fighting game !
I mean it has the gameplay of a fighting game ! You fight people with attacks, you can grab them, you can dodge, jump, you makes combos, special attacks etc...

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Shhhh, I'm having fun. Don't spoil it.

Ok im done..sorry lol

It also sucks playing it that way, for what it's worth.

Yea its not really the same, Ive probably played it like that a few times just messin around..

 

[Frank "Trashman" Reynolds]

I probably should have specified "A variety of damage boxes, with a majority of them being at close range to the souce hitbox", but, well, yeah. That's what the gameplay boils down to at the purest level. It's what Yie Ar Kung Fu was, it's what Street Fighter 2 was, it's what Virtua Fighter was, and it's what Smash is.

It's not what a platformer is: The opposing hitboxes don't generally have similar abilities, and the objective is often different. It's not what an FPS is: The attacks are usually ranged and often hitscan based rather than damage box based.

Beat-em-ups? Clearly very close to that definition of fighting game - as, let's be honest, you'd expect it to be - but there's still a clear difference of intent. Beat-em-ups are fighting against large numbers of weak hitboxes who generally don't have your range of damage boxes. At a one-on-one level against a boss, a beat-em-up is pretty much indistinguishable from a fighting game (unless you can offer an explanation as to why it's not?)

If you disagree with any or all of this, give me your definition of the genre - at the absolute purest, most abstract level. Forget everything related to theming.

Not disagreeing with you exactly. Just not sure that is enough to define the genre. Either way, I just realized it's just about 4am and I want to go to bed. I'll be back tomorrow!

 

[danmaku]

Two players. Move lists that aren't simple button mashing (of course, then we can argue if P4U is a fighter, but it is because while it has mashy AAAAAAAAA auto-combos there's other move sets to use and auto-combo is a crutch). No randomize in stages (sup item drops), no having to dash around to platform to stay on the stage to continue to "fight" (Sup Pokemon Parade/Celedon City?)

Basically fighters are where both players have an even chance with no randomity involved. And if your game has to have players stop what they're doing to platform to stay in a match, it isn't a fighter all IMO of course. Because we could say "well, button mashy move lists are in DOA" and while, yeah there's "PP->PK" basic combos and the like the parry system there is deeper than Smash's "fighting" engine.

But FG do have random elements. The referee in Samurai Shodown throws random objects on the screen. Faust in Guilty Gear has moves with random outcome. Every situation where a "guess" is involved means randomness. It may not be as heavy as items in Smash Bros, but fighting games totally have a random element.

 

[patapuf]

also people shouldn't forget that a game doesn't have to be good to belong to a genre.

Mario Kart has serious issues for true competitive play, yet people won't argue it isn't a racer. I understand why the FGC thinks its a poor competitive game or that it has little depth, that doesn't mean it isn't a fighter, there's casual and non casual games in every videogame genre.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Yep, look at these scumbags raising over $20,000 and shaving their heads for childrens charity, truly the lowest of the low.

It drives me crazy when ignorant people spread ignorance about the FGC. Either educate yourself or keep your uninformed opinions off the internet.

Eh, I really wouldn't put charity as something automatically absolves a group over something.

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.

I guess it's mainly my experience with SRK and that Soul Calibur site. Man, I was really turned off by the site with the way how the people talk there, especially those "Marvel peeps".

dustloop is pretty cool though.

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!

Hahahah, that's actually one of the reasons why the people in SRK hate the game.

 

[CPS2]

I probably should have specified "A variety of damage boxes, with a majority of them being at close range to the souce hitbox", but, well, yeah. That's what the gameplay boils down to at the purest level. It's what Yie Ar Kung Fu was, it's what Street Fighter 2 was, it's what Virtua Fighter was, and it's what Smash is.

It's not what a platformer is: The opposing hitboxes don't generally have similar abilities, and the objective is often different. It's not what an FPS is: The attacks are usually ranged and often hitscan based rather than damage box based.

Beat-em-ups? Clearly very close to that definition of fighting game - as, let's be honest, you'd expect it to be - but there's still a clear difference of intent. Beat-em-ups are fighting against large numbers of weak hitboxes who generally don't have your range of damage boxes. At a one-on-one level against a boss, a beat-em-up is pretty much indistinguishable from a fighting game (unless you can offer an explanation as to why it's not?)

If you disagree with any or all of this, give me your definition of the genre - at the absolute purest, most abstract level. Forget everything related to theming.

I think your definition covers shmups and probably tonnes of other genres too.

 

[Haly]

The "close to the source hitbox" part of it excludes most SHMUP and most games based around shooting.

And I guess it would need another qualifier like "focuses on competition between players" in order to exclude ARPGs.

 

[Suairyu]

Were there more games like Smash, it'd have its own genre as a sub-genre of the fighting game.

However, there aren't more games like Smash, or at least not enough, so just call it a 'fighting game' and stop being a dick, is what I say.

 

[Haly]

There are a few but they're niche games on the DS I believe.

Jump Superstars comes to mind.

 

[Seraphinianus]

i don't really care unless it's hype to watch and fun to play. it's neither of those for me. somehow, i think "for me" is not even going to let me get away scot-free on this one.

 

[BosSin]

Why do we have to compartmentalise everything?

 

[Haly]

Why do we have to compartmentalise everything?

Nerds on a gaming board, of course!

Although the original conflict stems from one party seeking legitimization and another denying them legitimization so there is a "point" behind it, however trivial it may seem.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

It involves match-ups, hitboxes, mix-ups, frame advantage, zoning, rushdown, combos, guard breaks, moves with start-up/active frames/recovery phases, invincibility frames, wake-up attacks, sidesteps and rolls...

Too much in common with fighting games in terms of how it plays for me to call it anything else just because of distinguishing features.

 

[donkey show]

Why do we have to compartmentalise everything?

Other games that were like Smash were...

That funky Konami fighter with Bomberman and Optimus Prime
Battle Stadium D.O.N. (Dragon Ball, One Piece, Naruto crossover)
Maybe... Guilty Gear Dust Strikers?

 

[Haunted]

Huh, I didn't know people were actually arguing against this, I thought this was a long-running troll joke like $5000 PC and PS3 has no game.

It's obviously a fighting game, Powerstone in 2D. People denying this in a serious manner need to brush up on their genre and gaming knowledge.


next!

 

[CPS2]

Why do we have to compartmentalise everything?

Doesn't "compartmentalise" mean to make a bong out of something?

 

[Hot Coldman]

Game genres are dead, give it up

Also, Captain Falcon stands alongside Ryu and Scorpion as a fighting game great

 

[remz]

Maybe... Guilty Gear Dust Strikers?

Guilty Gear Isuka! More like!

 

[Metal B]

Fighting games is an sub-genre of Beat n'Up (which is also an sub-genre of Action games). The goal of an Beat n'Up is do defeat enemies with mainly close combat fighting skills. The actual difference, which also declares the fighting genre, is one thing: Fairness. Normally the match-ups of Beat n'Up lies on an unfair advantage for the player. The player characters get much more option or better states to easily overcome the enemy NPCs. Only Boss have sometimes skills and states close to the player but on the other hand suffer from noticeable weaknesses.
In fighting games every character has to have a fair chance against all the other characters in the game. What means that everybody can use the same basic options and tools with some befits to underline there unique playstyle. That's why a good fighting game is defined by his overall fairness and a good set of basic and unique options.

To put it all together:
Smash Brothers is a game mainly about close combat fights, where every characters can resort to the same options to make the fights fair and some unique attacks to let them stand out. So it's a fighting game.

 

[SpacePirate Ridley]

The video was pretty cool... until the smash guys came telling theres a difference between brawl and melee.
That you dont like brawl it doesnt mean its not the same game with small things changed.
But hey, trip, trip, trip, physics, totally different genre, wa wa wa wa.
Of course you can not like Brawl because it has some different things that hinge your gameplay, but not calling the same game only becuase of that?
Arent other fighting games that changed a little their physics in some sequel that fans liked more/didnt like? Does that mean those games are different because of that? No, only that people will like them more, or less.

 

[Pandaman]

the fact that you need to invent rules like no items and ban stages is a big knock against the game as a fighter, its not a plus for it.

 

[mclem]

I think your definition covers shmups and probably tonnes of other genres too.

Shmups? Damage boxes are predominantly projectiles, enemies don't have similar abilities to you.

 

[Metal B]

the fact that you need to invent rules like no items and ban stages is a big knock against the game as a fighter, its not a plus for it.

This mains nothing, it only shows how unseriosly Nintendo wants the game to be and how important predicable is through let a game be taken seriously. If something is very chaotic, people sill can have fun with it, but they don't take it earnestly and wanna invest there time with it. Lets take for example Roulette a very serious gambling game. Even if it looks unpredictable in first sight, its far from it. You always know all the outcome of the game: there will be a color, a number and some matching fields on the board. Every player can always overlook the risk and the chances for his gambit, which will never change through the game. The ball will never just suddenly explode, the chips never change randomly there position and no one can just come over and screw anything up. Thats why people play and invest money (money equals time) in it. You always wanna have a healthy position between highly predicable and unpredicable for a game.

Thats why people invent the rules of Smash, to make it a game, which can be taken seriously and is worth putting a lot of time into.

 

[Solid SOAP]

You play as a cast of characters whom fight each other, if that isn't a fighting game I don't know what is.

It has party elements added in and is different than the traditional 1v1, so had more games been made like it I'd say it's a subgenre of fighting, but I digress. Calling it anything but makes you sound like a pretentious "hardcore gamer".

 

[Kontergurke]

I'm trying to understand the "Smash is a competitive platformer"-argument.
Because navigating the stage is important, it's more like a platformer?
But navigating the stage is also important in other fighting games, to varying degrees.
In Street Fighter, there are many matchups where you gain a significant advantage if you manage to press your opponent into the corner. In games like Soul Calibur or DOA, in addition to the walls, you also have to avoid ring outs, which means navigating the stage is even more important.
In games like Fatal Fury, you can even switch to a different plane. What's the difference between the plane in the background of FF and the plattform above you in Smash?

What I'm saying is: many traditional fighting games have platforming elements, yet we all call them fighters. At what point does a game stop being a fighting game and become a competitive platformer? Imagine Street Fighter, the same as before, but with little blocks on the stage that you have to jump over or can use as partial cover. Not a fighting game anymore?

About the "simplified controls"-argument:
I think everyone will agree that Tatsunoko vs Capcom is a fighting game, and not a casual fighter or party game, yes?
Did you know that the game features a simplified control method not unlike Smash? The 1 button is for attacks (different attacks with different directions), 2 button does all special moves, press both buttons for Hyper Combos. But even with the simplified button layout, it's still the same game, just easier to get into for new players.

And about the "random stuff"-argument:
As someone else already pointed out, many traditional fighting games have a random element in them.
Did you know that SSF2T had a random reversal time window? Which means, sometimes it would be easier to get your reversal recognised, and sometimes it would be nearly impossible (only 1-frame time window). Which makes the reversal success rate almost as random as tripping.
Imagine if tripping was semi-random like the reversal. Like, there is a chance you may trip after dodging if your next button press isn't coming fast enough (time window varies). This inclusion wouldn't make tripping less annoying, but mechanically it would be exactly the same as in SSF2T.

All in all, I find it strange that adding more options to the base genre is somehow making it not belonging to the genre it came from.
Adding a mana bar to Street Fighter 2 didn't make it a RTS or RPG, it became SSF2T.
If you add items to Street Fighter, it would still be Street Fighter, just with more options.

 

[Suairyu]

the fact that you need to invent rules like no items and ban stages is a big knock against the game as a fighter, its not a plus for it.

No different from having to create multiple character tiers in 99% of fighters due to the developer's inability to properly balance the roster.