To rectify the travesty of a Leguna thread morphing into something other then everybody beating up on Leguna (see http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=37073&page=1&pp=50) The great 'SSB=fighter?' must be resolved ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Not only will this allow us to return to kicking Leguna around instead of fighting amongst ourselves, it will also allow for more focused discussion of the various types of fighters. While 3D figher and wrestling game discussions usually do not get derailed, general fighting discussions and 2D fighter discussion inevitably get drawn into a SSB debate. This phenomenon is not unlike the Godwin's law in OT discussions
To end this I propose the following
Fighting Games shall henceforth be referred to as either 'traditional' or 'non traditional' fighters. The defining characteristics shall be as follows:
Traditional fighters are fighters that feature:
One vs One fights at all times (Tag fighters, and striker gameplay, fall under this definition)
Health based gameplay (Winner determined by who has most health when game ends Knock out or Time out)
Environmental interaction limited to, ring outs, obstructions that a character can be knocked against (usually, but not limited to, walls), and slopes.
A fighter is not a traditional fighter if it features:
Multiplayer fights
Victory conditition that are not limited to health or ring out
Random Events (including, but not limited to, powerups and stage effects)
Further a fighter may not be considered traditional if there is a marked emphasis on Environmental Interaction beyond what is specified in the features of Traditional fighters; this includes platorm fighting environments, hazards, using objects in the stage as weapons.
Examples:
By this definition Powerstone 1 is much closer to being a traditional figher than Powerstone 2 is.
Bushido Blade *MAY* be considered a traditional fighter as the only non traditional element is multi level stages, and a stage in which a heavy wind is blowing, these elements are not heavily empahsised and do not have a marked effect on the game.
A thread starter, may specify that the discussion is limited to 'traditional' fighters. If so then bringing up non traditional fighters in any sense ('SSB sucksl' or 'SSB is the best') will be frowned upon. Debates as to whether a particular title fits as 'traditional' shall be confined to their own threads.
Caveat:
Just as traditional fighting games may have non-traditional fighting modes (ex: Tekken Force beat-em-up), it must be allowed for a non traditional fighter to have a traditional fighting mode and these may be fairly brought up in a traditional fighting disucssion. This shall include situations in which a non traditional fighter can have its rule set limited to traditional bounds.
For example SSBM MAY be brought up in a traditional fighting thread IF the only mode that is discussed is one vs one, stock or HP gameplay, on Final Destination (single platform) with all items turned off.
Thoughts?
Not only will this allow us to return to kicking Leguna around instead of fighting amongst ourselves, it will also allow for more focused discussion of the various types of fighters. While 3D figher and wrestling game discussions usually do not get derailed, general fighting discussions and 2D fighter discussion inevitably get drawn into a SSB debate. This phenomenon is not unlike the Godwin's law in OT discussions
To end this I propose the following
Fighting Games shall henceforth be referred to as either 'traditional' or 'non traditional' fighters. The defining characteristics shall be as follows:
Traditional fighters are fighters that feature:
One vs One fights at all times (Tag fighters, and striker gameplay, fall under this definition)
Health based gameplay (Winner determined by who has most health when game ends Knock out or Time out)
Environmental interaction limited to, ring outs, obstructions that a character can be knocked against (usually, but not limited to, walls), and slopes.
A fighter is not a traditional fighter if it features:
Multiplayer fights
Victory conditition that are not limited to health or ring out
Random Events (including, but not limited to, powerups and stage effects)
Further a fighter may not be considered traditional if there is a marked emphasis on Environmental Interaction beyond what is specified in the features of Traditional fighters; this includes platorm fighting environments, hazards, using objects in the stage as weapons.
Examples:
By this definition Powerstone 1 is much closer to being a traditional figher than Powerstone 2 is.
Bushido Blade *MAY* be considered a traditional fighter as the only non traditional element is multi level stages, and a stage in which a heavy wind is blowing, these elements are not heavily empahsised and do not have a marked effect on the game.
A thread starter, may specify that the discussion is limited to 'traditional' fighters. If so then bringing up non traditional fighters in any sense ('SSB sucksl' or 'SSB is the best') will be frowned upon. Debates as to whether a particular title fits as 'traditional' shall be confined to their own threads.
Caveat:
Just as traditional fighting games may have non-traditional fighting modes (ex: Tekken Force beat-em-up), it must be allowed for a non traditional fighter to have a traditional fighting mode and these may be fairly brought up in a traditional fighting disucssion. This shall include situations in which a non traditional fighter can have its rule set limited to traditional bounds.
For example SSBM MAY be brought up in a traditional fighting thread IF the only mode that is discussed is one vs one, stock or HP gameplay, on Final Destination (single platform) with all items turned off.
Thoughts?
