I laughed pretty hard
-
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
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Ahh forgot this...
Well it's true! You should the responses when people saw TvC's arcade control layout.
Now we're getting somewhere!
dance my pretties
Well it's true! You should the responses when people saw TvC's arcade control layout.
Seraphinianus
Banned
why not grow the fuck up and bad mouth the individuals you dealt with instead of taking a random sampling of posts from SRK to throw an entire community under the bus?
And? Fuck those guys.
That does not make it okay for people to define the entire group from the actions of the few.
Are all people who play games pimply faced man baby basement dwellers with poor social skills?
Kontergurke
Member
Since people keep bringing up the "randomness equals not a fighting game"-argument,
I will mention again that there are other fighting games (even good ones!) with randomness in them.
Having randomness in it does not change the genre of a game, though it might make it more or less suited for competitive play.
I will mention again that there are other fighting games (even good ones!) with randomness in them.
Having randomness in it does not change the genre of a game, though it might make it more or less suited for competitive play.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
If the video was "Is Punch-Out a fighting game?" I might listen.
Hot Coldman
Banned
2D and 3D fighters really aren't all that different. Nowhere near the amount of difference between, say, Battlefield and Quake.
Puzzle game, bro!
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I guess I was a bit too harsh in generalization. With that said, I'm not too inclined to go to communities like that. It does give that "impression" so to say, so you have an initial expectations.
Yeah. Even games like KoF have "critical hits" and such.
abstract alien
Member
People like to ignore things if they aren't in favor of their arguments or feelings toward something. Good ole denial.
I don't know anything about Battlefield and Quake, but I disagree that they aren't all that different. Tekken, VF, and SC are worlds apart from SF, KoF, and Marvel.
That's the point I was making. Capcom embraces the competitive scene, but Nintendo doesn't.
But just 'cause Nintendo is doing whatever, it's cool that the competitive Smash Bros. scene is doing their own thing. Admirable.
boiled goose
good with gravy
only when you zoom in closely.
(same with quake and battlefield haha)
They are both clearly shooters and clearly fighters.
It is really sad that Sakurai is actively trying to kill competitive smash instead of embracing it and making it a good game for all levels. It is so bizarre to actively shun your most passionate fans. The fact that smash is less 'competitive' than other fighters does not suddenly change its genre though. Call it 'not a true' fighter, or a 'casual' fighter, or a 'party' fighter or w/e. But it is a fighter .
Soul Calibur and Marvel vs. Capcom 2 are very different games.
To say otherwise would be extremely disingenuous.
Riposte
Member
People get too caught up in words like "jump" "shoot/guns" "punch". These things are visual cues for mechanics which are naturally very different depending on the genre. Jumping in Super Mario 64 doesn't mean the same thing as jumping in Street Fighter. Why does this even need to be said I don't know.
SousedLouse
Member
This video is fantastic. It's pretty much everything I've thought about the genre so far. I'm using this one to shut down any arguments I get when people ask me whether or not Urban Reign is really a fighting game (and Smash, naturally.)
Slight tangent here, but I've seen people trash Virtual Fighter because it only has 3 buttons. "Fuck this game, it's just dick punching! You can't even sweep!" It gets some flack for having a guard button too, but that overlaps with the block button trolling that Mortal Kombat fans deal with sometimes.
And is there a reason why some posters are trying to split this discussion clean down the middle as 'lovers of all that is good and decent in this world' VS 'fighting game fans'? Because comments like these
are pretty petty generalizations; even if some people have said that, it doesn't apply to everyone. There are plenty of people who play Smash, Virtual On, Power Stone and other unconventional fighting games and, at the same time, play more traditional or grounded stuff like Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, Tekken, etc. They play them, talk about them and smack down this argument just like anyone else in this thread who's in the "Smash is a Fighting Game" camp, so there's really no need for such heavy-handed otherization.
It's like how people keep focusing on the idea that Smash is an outlier because it's so unorthodox, but end up at completely different conclusions, each favoring their own preferences and denouncing the other as abnormal. I've heard people say that because the skills that are developed in Smash don't completely apply to all other fighting games (i.e. other fighting games that they play), Smash can't possibly be a fighting game; while others have said that because other fighting games usually have steeper learning curves, you'd have to be an anti-social jerk (and this is me being polite here) and shut yourself off from the rest of the world in order to learn how to play them. They're popular comments, but they're not really true. Plenty of Smash players dabble in or transition to other games that have similar gameplay to Smash; and it's not like Smash is the first fighting game (or the only one, for that matter) that simplified inputs.
There are plenty of Smash players who play other games just fine, provided that said games have some sort of overlapping game mechanics. I know a couple of Smash heads that picked up TvC and MvC3 because they have wavedashing and strong throws. And when it comes to MvC3 specifically, they really like the movement options that some characters have - being able to use good footsies while rising or falling mid-jump is something that they carried over from Smash, while fly/unfly and grappling are some of their favorite things to experiment with because there's not much like it in Smash. And I doubt that they're the only ones that were able to transition so well, because there are plenty of other players who played or still play Smash and also place in MvC3 tourneys - sometimes they even pop up on major streams, or stuff like Wednesday Night Fights. Let's not forget Unknown, who is, well, unknown outside of beating RyRy, who is a proven Marvel player. Or Noel "Best In The World"
Brown, who started with Melee, I think. There are other players, but I can't really make a list right now.
And when it comes to simpler inputs in fighting games, I find that it usually has something to do with how many things the player has to manage at once. I mentioned it earlier in this post, so I'm going to use Urban Reign as an example; I know, it's more of a beat-em-up in single player, which is a whole other can of worms, but I'm trying to make a point here. So, it's a well known fact that the game has animations taken from Tekken and Soul Calibur (hell, Paul and Law are even guest characters) but the movelists are drastically reduced to simple chains and context-sensitive commands. This was done because the game places a much heavier emphasis on using the environment to your advantage, and because having to keep up with wall juggles, weapon/item tossing, crowd control, double-team moves and meter management on top of multi-directional move inputs would be too much things to keep track of at once - trying to move and attack at the same time with, say, King's command throws would create too many overlapping inputs at the same time. Does that make it a bad game compared to Tekken or Soulcalibur? No, and for the same reason why the simpler inputs don't make it 'inherently superior' either - they're trying to do different things, and as such they handle their controls and gameplay mechanics in different ways.
Honestly, the real issue at the heart of this debate, the real reason why people keep beating this dead horse of a topic, is because people still haven't come up with a definition for a fighting game at all. It's like what was mentioned in the video - for any hard definition that we could come up with, there's an established fighting game out there that blows it to pieces. The only way to develop a rigid definition of the fighting genre would be to willingly ignore games that don't adhere to whatever definition comes up, or try to delegitimize them. And while some people have no problem throwing games that they don't play or fandoms that they're not part of under the bus, others won't tolerate ignoring perfectly good games or scenes, or being thrown under the bus themselves; and the argument continues. It'd be easier to just have a fluid definition, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
I wonder what their thoughts on Virtua Fighter is then.
Slight tangent here, but I've seen people trash Virtual Fighter because it only has 3 buttons. "Fuck this game, it's just dick punching! You can't even sweep!" It gets some flack for having a guard button too, but that overlaps with the block button trolling that Mortal Kombat fans deal with sometimes.
And is there a reason why some posters are trying to split this discussion clean down the middle as 'lovers of all that is good and decent in this world' VS 'fighting game fans'? Because comments like these
are pretty petty generalizations; even if some people have said that, it doesn't apply to everyone. There are plenty of people who play Smash, Virtual On, Power Stone and other unconventional fighting games and, at the same time, play more traditional or grounded stuff like Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, Tekken, etc. They play them, talk about them and smack down this argument just like anyone else in this thread who's in the "Smash is a Fighting Game" camp, so there's really no need for such heavy-handed otherization.
It's like how people keep focusing on the idea that Smash is an outlier because it's so unorthodox, but end up at completely different conclusions, each favoring their own preferences and denouncing the other as abnormal. I've heard people say that because the skills that are developed in Smash don't completely apply to all other fighting games (i.e. other fighting games that they play), Smash can't possibly be a fighting game; while others have said that because other fighting games usually have steeper learning curves, you'd have to be an anti-social jerk (and this is me being polite here) and shut yourself off from the rest of the world in order to learn how to play them. They're popular comments, but they're not really true. Plenty of Smash players dabble in or transition to other games that have similar gameplay to Smash; and it's not like Smash is the first fighting game (or the only one, for that matter) that simplified inputs.
There are plenty of Smash players who play other games just fine, provided that said games have some sort of overlapping game mechanics. I know a couple of Smash heads that picked up TvC and MvC3 because they have wavedashing and strong throws. And when it comes to MvC3 specifically, they really like the movement options that some characters have - being able to use good footsies while rising or falling mid-jump is something that they carried over from Smash, while fly/unfly and grappling are some of their favorite things to experiment with because there's not much like it in Smash. And I doubt that they're the only ones that were able to transition so well, because there are plenty of other players who played or still play Smash and also place in MvC3 tourneys - sometimes they even pop up on major streams, or stuff like Wednesday Night Fights. Let's not forget Unknown, who is, well, unknown outside of beating RyRy, who is a proven Marvel player. Or Noel "Best In The World"
a.k.a. "I Cried Over Smash"
And when it comes to simpler inputs in fighting games, I find that it usually has something to do with how many things the player has to manage at once. I mentioned it earlier in this post, so I'm going to use Urban Reign as an example; I know, it's more of a beat-em-up in single player, which is a whole other can of worms, but I'm trying to make a point here. So, it's a well known fact that the game has animations taken from Tekken and Soul Calibur (hell, Paul and Law are even guest characters) but the movelists are drastically reduced to simple chains and context-sensitive commands. This was done because the game places a much heavier emphasis on using the environment to your advantage, and because having to keep up with wall juggles, weapon/item tossing, crowd control, double-team moves and meter management on top of multi-directional move inputs would be too much things to keep track of at once - trying to move and attack at the same time with, say, King's command throws would create too many overlapping inputs at the same time. Does that make it a bad game compared to Tekken or Soulcalibur? No, and for the same reason why the simpler inputs don't make it 'inherently superior' either - they're trying to do different things, and as such they handle their controls and gameplay mechanics in different ways.
Honestly, the real issue at the heart of this debate, the real reason why people keep beating this dead horse of a topic, is because people still haven't come up with a definition for a fighting game at all. It's like what was mentioned in the video - for any hard definition that we could come up with, there's an established fighting game out there that blows it to pieces. The only way to develop a rigid definition of the fighting genre would be to willingly ignore games that don't adhere to whatever definition comes up, or try to delegitimize them. And while some people have no problem throwing games that they don't play or fandoms that they're not part of under the bus, others won't tolerate ignoring perfectly good games or scenes, or being thrown under the bus themselves; and the argument continues. It'd be easier to just have a fluid definition, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
The mods out there are pretty impressive (although I'm not really digging Project M at the moment). It's just kind of saddening that it took the community to do something that would embrace the depth, rather than Nintendo themselves
I've always thought that if Smash had been done by anyone other than Nintendo, the competitive scene would be much bigger/more accepted. Could be wrong though :/
Hot Coldman
Banned
Well, if you don't know anything about those two games, trust me: they're pretty damn different. And more so then Tekken and Street Fighter; two games that, of course, they're pretty damn different too, but ultimately it's still 2 guys in an arena squaring off (give or take tag mechanics and what have you). Quake is a bunch of dudes shooting each other in an arena- Battlefield is the same, but the arena is much larger, and there's vehicles in the mix. That's two huge differences right there, that go way beyond the way the character feels to control, or damage variables or all that jazz.
My point is, fighting games can have similarly huge differences between games as well- such as one game being 2 dudes fighting on a flat 3D plane with life bars and super meters, and one game, say, having 2-4 dudes fighting in a varying 2D environment with a ring-out mechanic! I just feel fighting games have wider boundaries than the differences between the wide range of "traditional" fighting games (which are big differences regardless! My inability to play Tekken at all, despite having a decent grip on the Vs. games, is testament to that).
My phrasing was disingenuous. I was speaking relatively- those two games are hugely different, but they could differentiate themselves further from each other in weirder ways and still fall under the same genre umbrella.
Honestly, I really don't care about the competitive fighting scene. I mainly play with my family/friends for fun, and I'm not extremely competitive online either.
I just don't want the game to be a joke where luck and button mashing can lead to as much success as playing with any kind of skill. That's where Brawl failed. The slow speed, off physics, tripping, and generally nerfing of nearly every character's move set. For most characters it felt like it was better to use the same special moves all over again (MetaKnight >_>). And I still can't get over how much they screwed up Samus. Smash missiles, charge shot, j.A....everything.
I really don't care if Smash is labeled as a real fighter, brawler, or whatever. I love using items and stuff. But the fighting mechanics themselves should be geared for both casual and skill play. My whole family had to go back to Melee after playing Brawl for about 3 months. And they've never even watched any competitive fighting game stuff, let alone competed in any. Brawl was just simply more fun to watch than to play.
I just don't want the game to be a joke where luck and button mashing can lead to as much success as playing with any kind of skill. That's where Brawl failed. The slow speed, off physics, tripping, and generally nerfing of nearly every character's move set. For most characters it felt like it was better to use the same special moves all over again (MetaKnight >_>). And I still can't get over how much they screwed up Samus. Smash missiles, charge shot, j.A....everything.
I really don't care if Smash is labeled as a real fighter, brawler, or whatever. I love using items and stuff. But the fighting mechanics themselves should be geared for both casual and skill play. My whole family had to go back to Melee after playing Brawl for about 3 months. And they've never even watched any competitive fighting game stuff, let alone competed in any. Brawl was just simply more fun to watch than to play.
BaroqueSampson
Member
You make the remark that an entire community is scum, and when you're presented with evidence to the contrary you brush it off as if it doesn't matter.
That's messed up, man. You make the entire community out to be misogynistic, aggressive, hateful people even thought that's totally not the case. Ask anyone that takes part in Fightin'GAF.
Not to mention the fact that many posters from the devoted sites are members here.
/raises hand.
Dunno, man. I'd say the ability to sidestep is just as huge a difference as adding a vehicle (which isn't taking into account the other myriad differences). But I agree with your conclusion.
Smash is a fighter. So is Dissidia. /shrug
As a competitive player, I don't care about either, so they can do what they do and more power to them.
the more i think about it, the more i realize that part of the issue is that people are using what should be a "loose" genre definition (fighting game) and using it to define a very specific subset of games within that genre, being games that play like street fighter, tekken, etc. just as the racing genre can house games that play completely different, from gran turismo to super mario kart to daytona usa, so too can the fighting genre.
The Antitype
Banned
If the traditional fighting game is the equivalent of modern MMA or even boxing, then SSB is basically Sumo Wrestling.
They're not the same. They have similarities, but I wouldnt call SSB a fighting game.
They're not the same. They have similarities, but I wouldnt call SSB a fighting game.
Hot Coldman
Banned
As a non-competitive player, it matters even less to me! But sometimes I love to argue semantics.
Pinko Marx
Banned
Can't we just throw SSB into a sub-genre of fighting games and call it a day?
2D Arena Fighter or something. Where as Tenkaichi and Dissidia would be 3D Arena Fighters.
2D Arena Fighter or something. Where as Tenkaichi and Dissidia would be 3D Arena Fighters.
SousedLouse
Member
Agreed, I kind of mentioned that in my big wall o' text there.
Treating the fighting genre as a more fluid category, something that can accommodate more unorthodox stuff, would pretty much bury this argument once and for all. But that means that we'd have to pay attention to context, and maybe not crow over playing 'purer' or 'more innovative' games every waking moment of the day, and that's a hard sell.
Barring that, I'd be OK if we could just agree which games are competitive and which aren't. At least that distinction lies solely with the people who actually play the blasted games, instead of forcing them to 'legitimize' it in the eyes of others. That way, whatever you consider Smash to be, it would be clear that the game itself has enough substance to bring people back and allow them to compete with one another at a high level of play. But that would have its own problems too. What do you call games with dead or insular communities? Or good games that are simply overlooked? That's another set of issues that would just cause more bickering and in-fighting.
Well...the latter could work, but remember that a good chunk of games that are like Smash Bros. started out as clones of Smash Bros. Battle Stadium D.O.N., the Naruto: Ultimate Heroes series, DreamMix TV World Fighters, Jump Super Stars, etc. I guess you could call them Smashlikes? I dunno lol
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
So what i get from all of this is that only SFII clones can be considered fighting games.
LOL
LOL
Criminal Upper
Banned
That's what I'm hearing.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
All I can add to this mess, is this:
I've watched Smash Bros controversy for the last 11 years ever since Melee hit it big, and my main take-away remains...
... fighter game dudes hate Smash because Princess Peach beats up on you.
Strip all the bullshit away and that's the tiny little petty nugget left inside.
People actually willingly go out of their way to rationalize that all sorts of games are "fighting games" if those games are manly and cool. Take Virtual On. There's plenty of passionate descriptions of how that game is really a fighting game with a unique perspective and game system.
Smash Bros has always been hated by a large number of people who play fighting games because, frankly, it offends their ego. It's "kiddy". People are shallow like this.
The Capcom revival fighters really highlighted this because they got a lot of people looking at the games again who had been out of the loop in one way or another.
Rewind to when SFIV was revealed. There were some hardcore people who despised new characters like El Fuerte or Rufus because they were not mature and serious business. They despised the game's graphics because they were "fucking cartoony" and not man's graphics like a proper fighting game would have.
Then MVC3. Despite the fact that the basic premise of the game is cross-over madness, more than a few people wailed at characters like Amaterasu. "A fucking DOG? This isn't even a FIGHTING GAME anymore. It's trash!"
*shrugs* That's all it ever seems to come down to. People are so petty that they'll actually rationalize a game they dislike isn't even in the same genre as whatever games their delicate soul holds dear. Just to distance themselves from it.
And so Smash Bros is eternally reviled by a noticeable percentage of the fighting game community.
I've watched Smash Bros controversy for the last 11 years ever since Melee hit it big, and my main take-away remains...
... fighter game dudes hate Smash because Princess Peach beats up on you.
Strip all the bullshit away and that's the tiny little petty nugget left inside.
People actually willingly go out of their way to rationalize that all sorts of games are "fighting games" if those games are manly and cool. Take Virtual On. There's plenty of passionate descriptions of how that game is really a fighting game with a unique perspective and game system.
Smash Bros has always been hated by a large number of people who play fighting games because, frankly, it offends their ego. It's "kiddy". People are shallow like this.
The Capcom revival fighters really highlighted this because they got a lot of people looking at the games again who had been out of the loop in one way or another.
Rewind to when SFIV was revealed. There were some hardcore people who despised new characters like El Fuerte or Rufus because they were not mature and serious business. They despised the game's graphics because they were "fucking cartoony" and not man's graphics like a proper fighting game would have.
Then MVC3. Despite the fact that the basic premise of the game is cross-over madness, more than a few people wailed at characters like Amaterasu. "A fucking DOG? This isn't even a FIGHTING GAME anymore. It's trash!"
*shrugs* That's all it ever seems to come down to. People are so petty that they'll actually rationalize a game they dislike isn't even in the same genre as whatever games their delicate soul holds dear. Just to distance themselves from it.
And so Smash Bros is eternally reviled by a noticeable percentage of the fighting game community.
SousedLouse
Member
SolarPowered
Member
Leave it to Kajima to spell it out clearly. Smash doesn't pander to the sensibilities of some people and it really irks them peach knocks them off the side of the stage with that iron tuckus of hers.
The reaction that some of my friends had to Ammy when I picked her against Wesker(first character they'd pick) was hilarious and pretty much matches your description. Shit, more lighthearted characters like Morrigan that don't fit the "srs" mold also get shit on constantly despite the fact that only a couple of players even know how to use her correctly. Compare that to stuff like the first UMvC3 major with 23/32 Wesker teams and the funny memes that people came up with to cope with that.
People need to have more fun with their games instead of worrying about how people perceive them. It's not like we are talking about playing Hentai games here.
Barrow Roll
Member
Metaknight was banned because he overcentralized the entire metagame. The metagame was literally use Metaknight, counter Metaknight or secondary Metaknight. It was detrimental, but the Unity ruleset is no longer being enforced and the Unity Ruleset Committee (the folks who banned Metaknight in the first place and took a lot of heat for it) has been disbanded.
Agree with this 100%.
SousedLouse
Member
Well of course not.
The type of person who thinks Smash isn't a fighting game would probably accept Variable Geo or Metal and Lace as 'proper' fighting games, what with the lifebars and supers and such.
Seraphinianus
Banned
and fast forward to today and nobody gives a crap about amaterasu's looks, Morrigan is top tier and Wesker use is on the downswing.
you guys are so fast and loose with your generalizations.
boiled goose
good with gravy
definitely.
It is absolutely hilarious that people insist smash is not a fighting game.
People who play both Smash and other traditional fighters at a high level would never think otherwise.
It is those that are apathetic or antagonistic to smash that try to dismiss it.
It is absolute silly.
counters, zoning, buffering, camping, double KO, criticals, frame advantage, armor, canceling, hit stun, infinite, juggling, mix ups, parrying, priority, recovery, short jumping/hopping, special moves, combos,rounds, damage, taunts, blocking, grabs, throws, turtling, camping, etc.
are all terms that apply to the smash brothers series.
how in hell can someone say these games are not fighters is absolutely beyond me.
The input is different? It is not as competitive at the highest levels? what a bunch of crap.
This is pretty much what I feel. Also people saying the simplified control scheme discredits it is really stupid as well. And turning off items? It's not like Smash hasn't tried to keep items on before in competitive matches. And the flat stages only thing is bullshit too. There are more stages than just Final Destination allowed in competitive play.
It's just pure elitism that makes people want to discredit Smash as a fighter. Say what you want about how competitive it is (which I'd argue that Melee is competitive in nature and Brawl thanks to its mechanics, discourages competitive play and isn't very competitive), but to say it isn't a fighter is just plain ignorance.
Very well said. To add to the items thing, items spawn on certain points of the stage, and it really skews some matchups in some cases too. A Pikachu that can item drop combo with a baseball bat is frightening at higher levels of play, and if you're DK or someone slow, good luck ever getting to that item all the way across the stage before Pikachu does. Items just makes better players better, and makes slower characters' weaker movement more apparent. It adds a bit too much of a random factor too thanks to the spawn point and the fact that explosive containers can't be turned off (though it can in Brawl). Charging up a smash attack and an explosive container just happened to spawn in front of you? Well there goes your tourney match buddy! That being said, it was still tried out for awhile.
Frank "Trashman" Reynolds
Banned
no dude, punching is fighting. if a game has fighting how can you argue it's not a fighter? you can't.
Nice summary of Smash is a fighting game.
Did I ever tell you about that time I was playing an eroge called Shikigami? It involves adult cutscenes of course, but it's pretty cool because you battle monsters with a deck that comprises of defense cards and offense cards, very similar to Baten Kaitos. But I guess that doesn't really take away the fact that it's an eroge.
DanteFox
Member
Pretty much.