Support NeoGAF

[Barrel Cannon]

Is Virtual On a Fighting game? Zone of the ender's vs. mode?

Spoiler

Action games

I consider virtual on to be a fighting game? I consider it a fighter with actiony elements. Same way I consider Power Stone a fighter. I never really considered genres to be that important. In the end it's just some broad type of category.

 

[ScOULaris]

Hm, interesting video. I'll have to check it out later when I have time.

As for the question at hand, I would consider Smash Bros. to be a fighting game series. That being said, it's a more casual fighting game and not one that I consider to be competitive on the level of major Capcom/SNK/Arc Systems Works releases.

Smash Bros. is to fighting games as Mario Kart is to racing games, IMO.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

The way I see it:

Are there a variety of characters (each with their own builds or clones) in the roster?
Are there multiple stages to select?
Are there combos, special moves, whatever?
Are there KOs and timeouts?

If all of the above have been answered with a yes, it's a fighter.

Yuuuuuuuuuuup. What a stupid thing to fight over though.

 

[Jokeropia]

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?

This.

*shrugs*

 

[impact]

Noel Brown is good at it, so no its not a fighting game.

 

[Solune]

Noel Brown is good at it, so no its not a fighting game.

But Noel is the greatest in the world, that must mean Smash is the greatest game in the world.

 

[kuroshiki]

To me it is a party game.

 

[Orin GA]

People still care about this?

 

[Slamtastic]

"Fighting Game":
Mortal Kombat
Killer Instinct
Skullgirls
Street Fighter

"Arena Fighter":
Super Smash Bros
Power Stone
Jump Superstars
Naruto Ultimate Ninja

I'm not sure where I first heard that term , but I think it fits smash, given that the stages affect gameplay. (Of course, I'm only using it as a catch all for any game that similar to fighting games while being too different from the SF mold, or with low competitive value)

 

[Conciliator]

My friend and I have played Brawl almost every weekend for years and before that played Melee almost every weekend for years. We're not experts, but we've had a lot of fun with it and it never gets old(but if I play for more than like 90 minutes a row I get bored). I couldn't give two shits about Nintendo brands in general; neither could he. So I don't know if it's a 'legit' tournament-ready fighting game, but most people aren't that good anyway. It is a ton of fun though. Also videos of tournament-level players are often almost as entertaining and UMvC3 high-level play videos.

 

[A Pretty Panda]

It's cute, most of the people arguing against Smash as a fighting game probably don't know how "real" fighting games work either.

 

[enzo_gt]

It's cute, most of the people arguing against Smash as a fighting game probably don't know how "real" fighting games work either.

It's cute that classification of Smash seems to still, years later, be a pressing issue worth discussing.

 

[Riposte]

"Fighting Game":
Mortal Kombat
Killer Instinct
Skullgirls
Street Fighter

"Arena Fighter":
Super Smash Bros
Power Stone
Jump Superstars
Naruto Ultimate Ninja

I'm not sure where I first heard that term , but I think it fits smash, given that the stages affect gameplay. (Of course, I'm only using it as a catch all for any game that similar to fighting games while being too different from the SF mold, or with low competitive value)

Super Smash Bros doesn't play anything at all like Power Stone or Naruto Ultimate Ninja. In this case it is much closer to the aerial-combat heavy 2D fighting games. Seems like something one would come up to separate games they know how to group and games they don't. Bad criteria.

 

[Anth0ny]

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.

I'm still making my way through the thread, but I had to point out how WRONG this is. There are a ton of Smash players that have made the transition to Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and are fucking shit up. Bum is a top player on the east coast and Falcomist has been performing well on the West coast, just to name a few. Noel Brown and Masta CJ started as Smash players.

The concepts of spacing, mindgames and the rock-paper-scissors gameplay definitely transfers over to other fighting games.

*continues reading thread*

 

[impact]

But Noel is the greatest in the world, that must mean Smash is the greatest game in the world.

Greatest in the world at faux fighting games, sure.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

whole argument is stupid.

Of course it's a fucking fighting game. You fucking fight each other.

 

[A Pretty Panda]

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.

Soul Calibur isn't a fighting game.

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

What does intent have to do with ANYTHING? Did you even watch the video? Combos weren't intended in SF2, how dare players use them in that game or any.

 

[Nocturnowl]

The one thing i've always pondered when this question arises and the term party fighter is thrown around, what classification do the various anime fighting games fall under from those that use "party fighter" or "not a fighter" as the SSB definition?

 

[Seraphinianus]

Soul Calibur isn't a fighting game.

okay, bless us with your ultimate, perfect definition of fighting games, in which soul calibur is not included.

 

[theBishop]

In the strictest sense, it must be considered a fighting game. But it certainly doesn't scratch the same itch as other fighting games.

Mario Kart has more in common with Forza than Smash Bros has with Virtua Fighter.

 

[Anth0ny]

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.

So wrong. The vast majority of people who play traditional fighting games also mash the fuck out of their controller to get an uppercut or ultra out. If anything, Smash has the least mashing out of any fighting game, since the controls are simplified. Everyone knows how to hold b and charge DK's punch or Samus's shot. Or up B to use Link's spin move. Not everyone can do uppercut inputs, hence mashing.

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.

"It must be a Street Fighter clone to be a fighting game"

I feel dumber for reading this post. I mean, fuck. Have you played a Smash Bros game? This is wrong on every level.

 

[A Pretty Panda]

okay, bless us with your ultimate, perfect definition of fighting games, in which soul calibur is not included.

Did you read the post I quoted?

 

[Criminal Upper]

People still care about this?

You posted on the 7th page of this topic that's being discussed, so yeah.

 

[Slamtastic]

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.

Because respected people from the fighting game community like Ed Ma and Maj are working on it, instead of a man who admits to intentionally removing higher level techniques from his game and irremovable randomness in order to let people with less skill and experience have a chance to beat better people.

 

[boiled goose]

It is a fighting game.

What determines a genre is what do ppl get out if them when you play it.

Fallout is an rpg.
Talladega nights is a comedy.
Smash is a fighter.

 

[Seraphinianus]

Did you read the post I quoted?

whoops, sorry about that!

i should just back out and eat popcorn while hitting F5

 

[Lethality]

I'm still making my way through the thread, but I had to point out how WRONG this is. There are a ton of Smash players that have made the transition to Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and are fucking shit up. Bum is a top player on the east coast and Falcomist has been performing well on the West coast, just to name a few. Noel Brown and Masta CJ started as Smash players.

The concepts of spacing, mindgames and the rock-paper-scissors gameplay definitely transfers over to other fighting games.

*continues reading thread*

Didn't ChrisG start with Smash Bros as well? And he's extremely proficient in EVERY game he plays.

 

[boiled goose]

In the strictest sense, it must be considered a fighting game. But it certainly doesn't scratch the same itch as other fighting games.

Mario Kart has more in common with Forza than Smash Bros has with Virtua Fighter.

Mario kart is Also certainly a racing game.

It is actually a goo way of thinking about it. Smash is the mario kart of fighters.

 

[Hot Coldman]

I feel the video's argument as to the relevance of fighting game terminology in Smash compared to other, traditional fighters basically ends this debate.

I'd also like to point out how bizarre it is that fighting games are pretty much the only genre that doesn't have at least two distinct variations on the core theme. Without getting into the minefield that is WRPGs and JRPGs, you can look at the FPS and take away that it can be streamlined, lightning fast action like Quake or UT, or much more precise, "hardcore" take like CoD or CounterStrike (forgive me for comparing the two, it's just in service of the argument). Again, in racers, there's arcade-y stuff like Mario Kart, Burnout and DiRT and there's more simulation-based games like Forza, GT and iRacing.

Genres tend to have sub-genres, of course, but for the most part everyone will concede that Pikmin and Starcraft are the same genre, as are Micro Machines and Need for Speed, and hell, even Portal and Tetris would be considered genre stablemates by most if you asked them to consider it. So why is the fighting genre so damn narrow? Answer: it isn't, obviously. Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, Soul Calibur, Power Stone, that fucking construction vehicle game and, yes, Smash, are all the same genre.

 

[boiled goose]

I feel the video's argument as to the relevance of fighting game terminology in Smash compared to other, traditional fighters basically ends this debate.

I'd also like to point out how bizarre it is that fighting games are pretty much the only genre that doesn't have at least two distinct variations on the core theme. Without getting into the minefield that is WRPGs and JRPGs, you can look at the FPS and take away that it can be streamlined, lightning fast action like Quake or UT, or much more precise, "hardcore" take like CoD or CounterStrike (forgive me for comparing the two, it's just in service of the argument). Again, in racers, there's arcade-y stuff like Mario Kart, Burnout and DiRT and there's more simulation-based games like Forza, GT and iRacing.

Genres tend to have sub-genres, of course, but for the most part everyone will concede that Pikmin and Starcraft are the same genre, as are Micro Machines and Need for Speed, and hell, even Portal and Tetris would be considered genre stablemates by most if you asked them to consider it. So why is the fighting genre so damn narrow? Answer: it isn't, obviously. Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, Soul Calibur, Power Stone, that fucking construction vehicle game and, yes, Smash, are all the same genre.

I agree with everything except the fact that games like pikmin, overlord, little king's story, etc. are RTS. I think those fall more under the action-adventure category, but elements of strategy games, RPGs etc.

 

[IceDoesntHelp]

I was okay with the video, 'till the end.

 

[BaroqueSampson]

Greatest in the world at faux fighting games, sure.

But...Mahvel...seasons beatings: SUMMER SLAM champ

 

[Trike]

If Rampage and Battletoads had player vs player on a single screen they would be more like Smash than any fighting game.

Guardian Heroes has pvp, guess what game it resembles more: Smash, or King of Fighters?

Would you say Guardian Heroes is a Fighting game?

Pokemon games since Pearl and Diamond have had beauty pageants in them, guess what game it resembles more: Project Runway, or Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3?

Would you say that Pokemon Pearl/Diamond is a fashion sim?

 

[LProtag]

I think the bigger issue here is that the Smash Bros community themselves seem to consider Melee is a fighter and Brawl is not, as evidenced by the end of this video.

 

[Hot Coldman]

I agree with everything except the fact that games like pikmin, overlord, little king's story, etc. are RTS.

Well, they're close enough. RTS in so far as you're commanding a bunch of dudes around. Some games streamline the game down to just one unit (Dawn of War), don't see why one couldn't go the other way and streamline the resource element and concentrate on managing troops. But yes, I get what you're saying, they do have their toes in other, bigger ponds.

 

[boiled goose]

I think the bigger issue here is that the Smash Bros community themselves seem to consider Melee is a fighter and Brawl is not, as evidenced by the end of this video.

Well that is just silly. A 'bad' fighting game is still a fighting game.

Well, they're close enough. RTS in so far as you're commanding a bunch of dudes around. Some games streamline the game down to just one unit (Dawn of War), don't see why one couldn't go the other way and streamline the resource element and concentrate on managing troops. But yes, I get what you're saying, they do have their toes in other, bigger ponds.

It is easy to get stuck on the mechanics of a game to classify a genre, but just like we call Fallout an RPG even though we shoot guns in the first person, those games are action-adventure even though we control a bunch of dudes around.

At the high level, those games are more like Zelda than they are like Age of empires.

They most definitely borrow elements from RTS though.

 

[Divvy]

I think the bigger issue here is that the Smash Bros community themselves seem to consider Melee is a fighter and Brawl is not, as evidenced by the end of this video.

Turns out elitists on both sides are both assholes. Shocking.

 

[Seraphinianus]

But...Mahvel...seasons beatings: SUMMER SLAM champ

don't argue, just pour PJSalt in the wounds of marvel haters we all know what's most hype

 

[likeGdid]

The thread is surprising civil (for a Smash Bros thread)

Developer intent is a big aspect for me. On on hand, it really shouldn't matter, since you can't really dictate how people should enjoy the game. No one would honestly say "That's not how you're supposed to enjoy the game! You're not having fun unless items are on/you go through the game in the correct order/you have more than two people with all weapons available/etc!!!"

On the other hand, if they developer doesn't give a shit about that emerging aspect, you're out of luck, short of making a game yourself or hoping a new game of that genre takes advantage of it.

 

[Anth0ny]

I think the bigger issue here is that the Smash Bros community themselves seem to consider Melee is a fighter and Brawl is not, as evidenced by the end of this video.

Wrong.

The community is just split. Brawl is definitely still a fighter, it's just slower, has no hitstun, is imbalanced and has tripping. Many Melee players were uninterested from the get go, and decided to just stick with Melee.

 

[boiled goose]

'Party game' is not a genre.

Smash is a party game, rockband is a party game, mario kart is a party game, wario ware is a party game, just dance is a party game.

Figther
music/rhythm
racing
mini games compilation
dance/fitness

 

[impact]

But...Mahvel...seasons beatings: SUMMER SLAM champ

But its Marvel 3. It's probably easier than Smash Bros.

 

[A Pretty Panda]

On the other hand, if they developer doesn't give a shit about that emerging aspect, you're out of luck, short of making a game yourself or hoping a new game of that genre takes advantage of it.

That's what they did with Brawl. They tried to remove things so there'd be no competitive play. Moves barely cause hitstun so combos are almost non-existent. And they added the random tripping.

And the community is attempting to make a new game with Brawl itself. There are several mods out there for Brawl, one in particular that tries to make it closer to melee.

 

[Skilletor]

I feel the video's argument as to the relevance of fighting game terminology in Smash compared to other, traditional fighters basically ends this debate.

I'd also like to point out how bizarre it is that fighting games are pretty much the only genre that doesn't have at least two distinct variations on the core theme. Without getting into the minefield that is WRPGs and JRPGs, you can look at the FPS and take away that it can be streamlined, lightning fast action like Quake or UT, or much more precise, "hardcore" take like CoD or CounterStrike (forgive me for comparing the two, it's just in service of the argument). Again, in racers, there's arcade-y stuff like Mario Kart, Burnout and DiRT and there's more simulation-based games like Forza, GT and iRacing.

2D fighters
3D fighters

Bam.

Within 2D Fighters: SF type (footsies, slower), Mahvel type (hectic combos), ASW type games

 

[Alfredo]

The video makes a great point that the biggest thing going against the idea of Smash Bros. as a fighting game is Nintendo themselves.

People always wonder why competitive Smash Bros. always has these ridiculous rule sets, and it's 'cause Nintendo doesn't seem to care about making it competitive. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be competitive, though. Like the video points out, combos weren't actually an intended element of fighting games, but now they're a fighting game staple, because that's how players played the games.

So I really admire the Smash Bros. community for trying to make Smash Bros. competitive. They get so much crap for all the work they put into the community, which is a shame. They need to get Nintendo in on it for it to truly be accepted as an actual "fighting game."

 

[Solune]

But...Mahvel...seasons beatings: SUMMER SLAM champ

Haha people will always use the Mahvel is not a 'true' fighting game or is not an 'honest' fighting game card. Because it's "random" but really they just don't understand the game.

But its Marvel 3. It's probably easier than Smash Bros.

Bam.

 

[El Sloth]

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.

And of course you use GameFAQs to generalize the entire community of people who plays games right? Or 4Chan for internet users in general of course?

Please continue generalizing an entire community of different people from all over the world who come from all walks of life based on your small sampling on the internet.

 

[Skilletor]

The video makes a great point that the biggest thing going against the idea of Smash Bros. as a fighting game is Nintendo themselves.

People always wonder why competitive Smash Bros. always has these ridiculous rule sets, and it's 'cause Nintendo doesn't seem to care about making it competitive. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be competitive, though. Like the video points out, combos weren't actually an intended element of fighting games, but now they're a fighting game staple, because that's how players played the games."

The difference in this logic is that other fighting games then added combos as a core element.

Nintendo added tripping.

 

[El Sloth]

whole argument is stupid.

Of course it's a fucking fighting game. You fucking fight each other.

Everytime someone posts this in this thread it gives off the impression that they just entirely ignored the video that this whole thread is about.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Way to trivialize a good deed.

oh wow, i missed that. what a fucking dick head

I'm just saying. I'm not downplaying any form of charity, but that doesn't make the body any less absolved.

And of course you use GameFAQs to generalize the entire community of people who plays games right? Or 4Chan for internet users in general of course?

Please continue generalizing an entire community of different people all over the world who come from all walks of life based on your small sampling on the internet.

It does mark an experience though, and even then I read posts that somehow reflect that. I recall seeing the "girl players" thread back in SRK and the posts there were... rather uninviting to say the least.