-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Fighterpedia takes on the question of whether Smash Bros. is a fighting game.
- Thread starter DanteFox
- Start date
Sidenote: when the UFC folks were designing their last couple of games, one of the places they hit up for advice was VFDC. Wrestling games could be fighters- lifebars aren't a requirement for a fighter, as folks accepted Bushido Blade as a fighter.
The real reason Smashers have to deal with this is because they are the furries of the FGC (no offense to furries intended). This means that it's cool to shit on Smash and its fans. Personally, I think the game is dull, but I have no problem with it, it's no worse then SFxTK.
Silver_key
Neo Member
Sometime I think that the motivation is a deep fear that their fighting game community will die or have reduced membership. So game X sucks and you shouldn't play it and anyhow everyone plays game Y and game X is dead because nobody plays that scrubby ish.
Flying Wonkey
Member
Riposte
Member
"Sports" is not a videogame genre. (Just like there is no "fantasy" videogame genre and, if you can believe this, no "horror" videogame genre.)
Golf games have nothing to do with MMA games (these are indeed 3D fighting games) which have nothing to do with basketball which has nothing to do with snowboarding.
Basketball, American Football, Hockey, and Soccer (if we ignore the pure manager sims) can work as a collection for a RTS sub-genre, but there is no solid reason to also include everything that looks like something has aired on ESPN at some point.
Golf games have nothing to do with MMA games (these are indeed 3D fighting games) which have nothing to do with basketball which has nothing to do with snowboarding.
Basketball, American Football, Hockey, and Soccer (if we ignore the pure manager sims) can work as a collection for a RTS sub-genre, but there is no solid reason to also include everything that looks like something has aired on ESPN at some point.
Pretty fair and non-partisan video which digs into the question of what makes a fighting game and whether smash qualifies as one:
Is Smash Bros a fighting game?
I don't see how you can say otherwise without sounding like a big baby imo.
Even Yie Ar Kung Fu is a fighting game. Even Urban Champion is a fighting game.
In the end, what you label a game is irrelevant because the game isn't this genre or that, it just is. But games are separated and categorized into genres to make it easier for people who enjoy certain types of games to maintain interest in them and buy them.
Thus, when you categorize games it's important to take the audience into account. "Sports" games exist because there are a lot of people who are interested in them purely because they simulate sports that they follow as an interest outside of gaming. It's a legitimate genre, and like "fighting games," it has its grey areas, where conventions from other genres are incorporated and it blurs the lines.
But continuing on that point, the audience for SSB is completely different from fighting games. That doesn't make it better or worse, but SSB isn't an Evo game and it likely won't ever be. The audience for SSB has very little overlap with the fighting game community and this is an important part of this ultimately unimportant discussion.
Thus, when you categorize games it's important to take the audience into account. "Sports" games exist because there are a lot of people who are interested in them purely because they simulate sports that they follow as an interest outside of gaming. It's a legitimate genre, and like "fighting games," it has its grey areas, where conventions from other genres are incorporated and it blurs the lines.
But continuing on that point, the audience for SSB is completely different from fighting games. That doesn't make it better or worse, but SSB isn't an Evo game and it likely won't ever be. The audience for SSB has very little overlap with the fighting game community and this is an important part of this ultimately unimportant discussion.
Then I wonder where Smash Bros.'s audience comes from because most of the platformer fans I've had try it didn't care for it much. Hell, I don't like Smash Bros. much and I adore platformers.
It's not as if everyone who likes one game from a genre has to like every game from it (this would be taking your comment about platform game fans at face value when I'm not sure I'd call it a platformer either). There are fighting game fans who love Tekken but hate Virtua Fighter.
I like SSB and I like fighting games, but I still don't think SSB is a fighting game.
This is a warped idea of how competitive Smash works. And it all spawned from some stupid meme about "No items, Fox only, Final Destination."
In Super Smash Bros. Melee, at high level play, there's a stage list. The stage list consists of the "most fair" stages. The most fair stages can have hazards as long as they are avoidable. Melee has been around for several long years, competitively speaking as well. The scene has evolved and the rules have changed many times as years went on. In the beginning, items were tried out, for a long time. I think at least several months? Then they were slowly one by one turned off and then eventually, completely disabled.
Then you had a stage list I mentioned before. You have Neutrals and you have Counter-picks. Just like you can counter-pick a character, you can counter-pick a stage. In the beginning of the competitive scene, most of the stages were allowed. Green Greens is an example of a stage that was allowed at the time that as the scene evolved, it was one of the first stages removed from the counter-pick list. Poke Floats was also a legal stage until at least 2006-2007 (there's a video of Vidjogamer playing a Fox with Peach from 2007 iirc). Then it too got banned due to certain tactics being employed on the stage.
Stages don't just get banned because "oh they're not flat". No, they get banned because of hazards, how big they are, how small they are, their boundaries, what characters can do on those stages, what the stage offers to certain characters, and if there's a broken tactic with the stage. For example, Rainbow Cruise was a super popular counter-pick in Melee for a long time, until a few years ago (I think 2009?) where it was finally banned due to certain tactics and the way the stage got in the way of the match itself.
Eventually, the stage list got narrowed down. Melee players have tried nearly every stage in a competitive setting. These things weren't just banned outright because "oh it's not flat, ban it", no these things were tried out just like the Fighting Game Community gives their games a chance with certain components. The stage list now consists of the following:
Starters/Neutrals:
Yoshi’s Story
Fountain of Dreams
Battlefield
Final Destination
Dream Land
Counterpick:
Pokemon Stadium
Now, before people freak out at how many stages aren't used, keep in mind that this is just the generally accepted stage list. It's possible for TOs to add in certain stages if they want to. But nowadays, because the game has been around for so long, everybody knows how those other stages that aren't included, play. So they don't typically include them, especially if they want players to show up to the tournament.
So as you can see, the Neutrals list largely consists of "flat" stages, but it's not just FD or BF, there's Fountain of Dreams with platforms that move up and down. There's Dream Land where the wind can in fact screw up your spacing. There's Yoshi's Story which has really close boundaries, Randall that can save people (which by the way is in fact on a TIMER, you can keep track of him!) and it also has long stretching walls that go down that you can use to recover from with wall jumps.
Pokemon Stadium also constantly transforms, shifting from "flat" to "slopey" to "flat" depending on the forms. Each form has its unique platform layout and geometry. It's allowed because the transformations don't contain hazards that only get in the way. The only forms that impact the match are Rock and Fire, which only make the players separate themselves because one side on both those forms can lead to an easy KO.
So, as you can see, it's not about "flatness". This is a warped idea and it needs to stop. It's just like the items thing with Evo. Mr. Wizard believed that items weren't tried out enough. But the thing is, the Smash Community tried items in Melee and because items were largely unchanged in how they spawn, drop, rate, whatever in Brawl they were disabled outright. Even still though, there is an item specific ruleset people in the Smash Community have created so they aren't completely closed to the idea of items, it's just the way Sakurai and his team have implemented them that gets them disabled.
*Phew*, I hope that's educated people enough. Though, knowing me, this is going to be skimmed over and not read. :V
Riposte
Member
Completely different priorities. Genres are models of critical thinking. They are created to enable clarity within one's own thought process and easier communication between like minded individuals. What the unwashed masses think is irrelevant. I would never judge a game by its audience.
Not necessarily true.
Completely incorrect.
EDIT: I guess I should say that you think there are "Evo games" is very short-sighted. You think the Street Fighter dudes want anything to do with a poverty game or Tekken? This is slowly changing, but those communities couldn't be farther apart.
For the sake of conversation, what would you consider it?
He's hoverhanding so hard that he summoned another hoverhand from offsides. This man is ACE!
You're joking. You have to be. Either that or all you've ever watched on streams is Brawl. :V
sixteen-bit
Member
Yeah. Hell, Brawl was at Evo 2008.
LOL okay there.
Actually I find Smash Bros to be one of the more entertaining fighting games out there. Way to throw your opinion out there as fact.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Obviously it is a fighting game. It's as much a fighting game as Super Mario Kart is a racing game.
I mean, I am sure there are some hardcore sim nerds who think that Super Mario Kart or whatever is not a racing game. They are wrong.
Fighting game fans need to get over themselves.
I mean, I am sure there are some hardcore sim nerds who think that Super Mario Kart or whatever is not a racing game. They are wrong.
Fighting game fans need to get over themselves.
ihearthawthats
Banned
that description is much too vague. many action, fps, and rpg games also fit this description. games like rakion and bloodline champions generally get called "arena" games, and i consider them similar to fighters much like smash would be. fps are generally seperated by the camera view and usage of gun weapons. rpg are generally seperated by the player stats, weapon stats and skill stats.
the fighting game definition needs to be a bit more specific than that. smash does not really fit under the traditional fighter, despite sharing smiliar characterisics of one. dota games created the moba genre, and i feel that smash is in a genre of its own as well. whatever you want to call that, i don't really care tbh (and to be completely honest, i don't even care if smash is called a fighting game).
does it matter what genre smash is though? no, people use "not a fighting game" in a derogatory way which is pretty immature. fps, arena, moba, etc games can be just as competitive as fighting games. smash doesn't need to be a fighting game in order to be a legit competitive game.
-
to comment on the actual video, they fell into their own trap they established in the beginning on using things that do apply to fighters but also apply to non-fighters. on the checklist at the end, they stated rps, matchups, a scene, etc for reasons why smash is a fighting game. i didn't realize these concepts were exclusive to fighting games. pokemon for example has rps, matchups, and a scene.
the other half of their list were based on smash requiring player intervention. tweaking in-game options and creating out-of-game rulesets banning certain things, etc. this is not much different than going in to guardian heroes and selecting the "versus" mode.
I look at video gaming largely as a commercial industry. It exists as an industry because it has an audience that is willing to pay for it, and ultimately how games are categorized, created and peddled is all centered and revolving around the audience and what they want. "The unwashed masses" vs "like minded individuals" is pretty laughable. What you sound like is "people who like the games I like and like games for the right reasons" vs "people who like shitty stuff." Ugh.
I don't need genres to help me critically analyze a game. This may be where we differ.
If I were to categorize SSB I'm not sure I could think of a simplified genre to throw it into. To me "fighting games" is a very specific genre in the modern gaming zeitgeist. I'd say it's a "Brawler"
I can understand that coming from some quarters- as the anime games do cannibalize each other to a degree, but not from Capcom/Tekken fans. Very few folks in the FGC don't play the Capcom games (I'm one of those folks now), most folks play Tekken as well.
I don't have any particular issue with this designation. What other games would you say are similar to Smash Bros. and would thus lead to a similar audience type, or is it too distinct to have many comparables?
Heh, "party". Why is Tekken or Soul Calibur not a party game? I honestly can't understand this arbitrary categorization.
Is Mario Kart a party racer? Is Pokemon a party rpg? Is Halo 1 a party fps?
Riposte
Member
In other words you don't engage in videogame criticism. Which explains why your ass-pull genres like "Brawler" doesn't necessarily conflict with what I'm saying nor does it have much to do with anything in this thread. You want to focus on demographics. Like I said before though, you have an incorrect understanding of what "Evo" means in terms of an audience.
Most people don't look deeply into games or try understanding them. Those opinions are not worthwhile.
Yeah, I would like another Power Stone as well. It's not exactly like Smash but it was unconventional.
IA lot of people mentioned stuff like Power Stone and Virtual On and those are decent likenesses to me. They're "versus" games but have terrain multi-level stages. Navigating the stage is an important part of all three games and is a big distinction for me between fighting games and SSB
No, it's not. I loved Power Stone. I could barely play Smash Bros. for more than a few hours.
Who are you to speak for most people and dismiss their opinions as "not worthwhile" because they don't want to engage in pretentious discussions about something that may just simply be a fun time killer, especially with someone like you who talks in a vague, elitist tone? I'm done with you.
Fair enough, we all have a right to an opinion. I liked both a good bit and consider them both fighting games.
SC and Tekken aren't easy to pick up and filled with kerazy items for people to have fun with
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I wonder what their thoughts on Virtua Fighter is then.
Exactly, hence I said the people who spout ignorance probably only play Capcom fighters
Which is hilarious, since I recall Capcom making Pocket Fighter. That one has less buttons that Tatsunoko vs Capcom!
Riposte
Member
What's vague about my tone?
A fighting game's multiplayer only becomes difficult once you face someone clearly better than you. With two noobs it would be quite easy to pick up for both players.
sixteen-bit
Member
under 2 million units sold amirite?
ipitydatfu
Member
:lol
Ok, I laughed.
Ghost_Protocol
Member
It's a party fighter that a hardcore fanbase has decided to cling to. That's all. It's a fun game.
But to suggest a "fighting game" that randomly trips up your character is on the same technical/competitive level as a Street Fighter 3 or Guilty Gear XX is laughable.
But to suggest a "fighting game" that randomly trips up your character is on the same technical/competitive level as a Street Fighter 3 or Guilty Gear XX is laughable.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Then COD is also a fighting game. Thanks for your input.
Seraphinianus
Banned
Exactly, hence I said the people who spout ignorance probably only play Capcom fighters
Which is hilarious, since I recall Capcom making Pocket Fighter. That one has less buttons that Tatsunoko vs Capcom!
Now we're getting somewhere!
dance my pretties
Why would you do that?
Member
If cod didn't have shooting and instead had kicking/punching/etc then yes, it would be. Similarly, if Smash Bros. was mainly shooting, then it would be a sidescrolling shooter. (There are many games like that, none I know off the top of my head.)
Fighting with guns = shooter. Fighting with fists, kicks, and the occasional strange powers like Hadouken = fighter.
Holy Order Sol
Member
Brawl is not the only Smash game. And 2X has random damage/simultaneous throws decided on a clusterfuck of a formula.
Seraphinianus
Banned
it has knives. Rocket Raccoon has a knife. the one male in Melty Blood has a knife.
Always knew MK9 wasn't a fighter.
Seriously, Cross Assault Mahvel? And people get crazy livid enough about that game already? :lol
BaroqueSampson
Member
Way to trivialize a good deed.