SentientStone
Member
Yes I consider it a fighting game, but within a sub-category under fighting games I call party fighters.
Lets resolve this ONCE AND FOR ALL! Is SSB a fighter?
- Thread starter Azih
- Start date
No one cares if you were up in the junky with older fighting games. It doesn't make you NOT ignorant. And, you are utterly... Retarded. How is SSBM a button-masher's paradise? SCII is a button-masher's dream come true for the mediocre and intermediate players. You can use Talim and button mash your way to victory. SSBM is incredibley bent on mindgames, spacing, fastest highest prioritizing moves, and most effective offense and defense strats. Take Doctor Mario and Mario for example. At first glance the only difference is that Doc has a pill and Mario has a fireball. However, this makes both characters have incredibley different strategies. Doctor Mario is based around pill rushing (short hop pill fast fall) before going in with a SHFFLED sex-kick (short hopped fast falled l-canceled) (sex-kick = nuetral a in the air). Mario on the other hand is based around up-tilting or up-throwing the opponent into a u-air combo, and he can't depend on his fireball to rush. Oh, and if you button mash in SSBM, I pity you. I really do. That is really, really, REALLY sad.
"LOL LOOK AT ME PA I'M FORWARD TILTING DK IN THE BUTT HORF HORF IMA WIN CAUSE THIS GAMES SOOOOOOOO SHALLOW UNLIKE MVC2. HORF MORTAL KOMBAT IS WAAAY DEEPER THEN SSBM WITH IT'S LIMITED MOVESET AND RETARDED MASH Y BUTTON COMBOES AND SUPER DEEP AIRIEL COMBAT, NOT TO FORGET TO MENTION IT'S PHENOMENAL SPACING AND MINDGAMES PUT INTO IT!!!! AND YOU HAVE THESE HECKA YA I MEAN HECKA COOL SPECIALS!!!!!! LIKE FIREBALL!!!! AND SKULL WHICH IS JUST LIKE FIREBALL!!!! AND MISSLE WHICH IS SURPRISE JUST LIKE FIREBALL!!! AND LOOK WOOSH SUB ZERO MADE A SCRUBSICLE!!! HORF"
Carebears for life dood.
MASH MASH MASH! MASH MASH MASH! CHECK IT OUT I'M MASHING THE A BUTTON!!! WHY WON'T YOU GET IN MY PANTS PEACH!?!?!? OMG KO HORF I BEATED A LEVEL 1 COMPUTER!!! HORF
:lol :lol :lol
I'm not even going to respond to that. You just suck.
I would like you to go to WWW.SIRLIN.NET and read each and every article on tournament fighting game SCRUBS. Trust me, you'll have a lot in common!! :lol
It's really hard to show people the depth of SSBM without actually playing the game with them. I had almost 20 guys in my dorm playing the game non stop when it first came out, and most of them were bigger dumbasses* than the guys in this thread.
*I do realize that allot of you are not dumbasses and are just trying to bait people, you guys aren't dumbasses, just losers.
*I do realize that allot of you are not dumbasses and are just trying to bait people, you guys aren't dumbasses, just losers.
Masud, don't be a hater now. We're just here to enlighten people and explain my thoughts. I absolutely love GAF because of all the heated debates! Also, the majority of people in here aren't losers - they have good points, though some of them are ignorant. But it's not always their fault.
IT'S THE DAMN MEDIA AND FANBOYS INSIDE I TELL YA!
scrub scrub scruby ducky scrruuuubbby ducky
IT'S THE DAMN MEDIA AND FANBOYS INSIDE I TELL YA!
scrub scrub scruby ducky scrruuuubbby ducky
Kinda... so I say no.
SSBM is the best game that involves fighting though. It's much deeper and skillbased than traditional fighters, button mashers have no chance against veterans.
Making that clip was pretty difficult. Magic never happens when you want it to.
They really should have a replay mode in the next game (Kinda like in Mario Golf where you can save your best matches). So many great fights
SSBM is the best game that involves fighting though. It's much deeper and skillbased than traditional fighters, button mashers have no chance against veterans.
Making that clip was pretty difficult. Magic never happens when you want it to.
They really should have a replay mode in the next game (Kinda like in Mario Golf where you can save your best matches). So many great fights
I would just like to point out how much I love the responses that I see to Pimpwerx's post. Various incarnations of "you suck", "you are so fucking retarded", "you are an ignorant piece of shit with no credibility", etc etc. I love how we can still get the best in Nintendo fanboys to come out on sensitive topics like this!
JackFrost2012
Banned
I don't think SSBM is a button masher, but I do think it's shallow and sucks.
Drinky Crow
Banned
VESTAL WINS, THREAD OVER
WHO'S UP FOR VF4 FUCKING EVO
WHO'S UP FOR VF4 FUCKING EVO
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Fuck that, the Akira knee is just impossible.
I think I know what the SSB controversy stems from.
Most "traditional" SF2-styled fighters focus the gameplay on extremely close-quarter combat, and the fight/parry/dodge gameplay that ties into that. SF2-styled gamers thrive on the "up close and clobber" gameplay, creating chains of attacks which require a good deal of practice to master.
SSB(M) shifts the gameplay focus to longer-range battles. In many cases, SSB games are determined by who dodges/moves/jumps just out an opponent's grasp, then smashes them. The focus is more on manuevering and swapping attacks than it is on standing right next to the guy for the entire match.
Both kinds of games qualify as fighters, and both can be played in similar ways. However, SSB masters tend to move around a lot more than SF2/VF/etc. masters do. Fighter "purists" tend to crack jokes about using projectiles... SSB is loaded with projectiles (hey, every item can be tossed!). "Traditional" fighting game enthusiasts who dislike SSB seem to dislike it because it doesn't focus on the "standing next to your opponent" style of button parrying.
Most "traditional" SF2-styled fighters focus the gameplay on extremely close-quarter combat, and the fight/parry/dodge gameplay that ties into that. SF2-styled gamers thrive on the "up close and clobber" gameplay, creating chains of attacks which require a good deal of practice to master.
SSB(M) shifts the gameplay focus to longer-range battles. In many cases, SSB games are determined by who dodges/moves/jumps just out an opponent's grasp, then smashes them. The focus is more on manuevering and swapping attacks than it is on standing right next to the guy for the entire match.
Both kinds of games qualify as fighters, and both can be played in similar ways. However, SSB masters tend to move around a lot more than SF2/VF/etc. masters do. Fighter "purists" tend to crack jokes about using projectiles... SSB is loaded with projectiles (hey, every item can be tossed!). "Traditional" fighting game enthusiasts who dislike SSB seem to dislike it because it doesn't focus on the "standing next to your opponent" style of button parrying.
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
What? A third one?
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Then why did you say it went into another thread if it was moved into here?
Make sense, shitballs.
Make sense, shitballs.
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Then my confusion is understandable.
Let us take a moment to consider this rivalry we've created, and plan for the future.
Let us take a moment to consider this rivalry we've created, and plan for the future.
krypt0nian
Banned
Is it resolved yet? 
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
And between you and I, my good friend, I'm okay with that definition. Maybe there should be a "very" preceding it, but if it keeps the game out of traditional fighter threads I'll manage.Monk said:
Now that that's out of the way...
SSBM is a brawler. This term was coined ages ago to describe SSBM, Powerstone, and the like, and frankly, I'm scratching my head over this whole argument suddenly flaring up. Just as beat-em-ups and fighters split off as genres after Street Fighter, so also did fighters and brawlers later.
I'm very disappointed in the fighting game fans in the thread who understand intuitively the difference between the fighters like VF/SF/Tekken/KOF/Tobal/Ehrgeiz/GG/Time Killers/etc and the brawlers like SSBM/Powerstone/Poy Poy/Destrega/etc, but haven't grasped the very simple but critical difference between the two. Crying, "Depth!" isn't enough, what's important is where that depth springs from.
It's multilevel striking and blocking.
In a fighter, the subtle variations in strike ranges and speeds, combo timing, switchups, frame delays, vulnerability windows, and so on stem directly from the fact that a player can be defending, and yet have openings in his guard. Finding the holes in your opponent's guard while keeping him away from yours is where the meat of a fighter's gameplay and strategy is.
For a brawler, blocking is simply an on/off proposition. Combos of physical strikes tend to be far simpler because there's no need for any variation. The depth in a brawler comes from the additional elements outside basic hand to hand, such as projectiles and environmental interaction. Direct physical attacks are deemphasized.
It's for this reason that when beat-em-ups like Dynasty Warriors offer a 2P versus mode, nobody gives a damn because finding an opening to attack boils down to just waiting for the opponent to let go of the block button, and there are typically no other ways to force the issue. There are no mind games.
It just amazes me that this isn't obvious to everyone.
The first time I played a brawler, my first question was, "How do I block?" My second was, "Wait, so you don't need to block high or low?"Seems like a pretty damn obvious and important shift in focus to me.
Actually, it seems rather microscopic and trivial to me. These games all clearly belong in the same genre thanks to a shared overall game design and multiple shared genre convetions. To argue it's an entirely different genre, comparable to the massive shift between fighters and beat 'em ups, thanks only to a single game mechanic sounds a bit reaching.Sea Manky said:
I've also never heard of SSBM or Powerstone being refferred to as 'brawlers'. I have heard the term used to describe planty of other games though, including Double Dragon or SF2. Sounds like an arbitrary classification on your part.
jarrod said:
Right, that's why Mario Kart, Wipeout, and Gran turismo are all in the same genre. I mean, mario kart and Gran Turismo are basically the same game, except one you has cute cartoons instead of real cars and you can shoot people with weapons. And that's virtually the exact same as Wipeout, except you just go really fast in that one on cars that handle differently because they don't make contact with the road. But that's really only 1 gameplay mechanic, to argue that they're in different genres is absurd.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, calling Smash Bros a fighter is like calling Panzer Dragoon and flight "sim" game, and Virtua Cop an FPS.
Sure, you can fly in PD, but it doesn't compare to games like Ace Combat, or Colony Wars.
You can shoot in in VC, but it doesn't compare to Half Life or DOOM.
Just because you "fight" in SB doesn't make it a fighting game, it can't be compared to the likes of Virtua Fighter, Street Fighter, etc.
Also, compare the skill level required in SB, and COMPARE it to VF, SF, etc...it's not even close.
Sure, you can fly in PD, but it doesn't compare to games like Ace Combat, or Colony Wars.
You can shoot in in VC, but it doesn't compare to Half Life or DOOM.
Just because you "fight" in SB doesn't make it a fighting game, it can't be compared to the likes of Virtua Fighter, Street Fighter, etc.
Also, compare the skill level required in SB, and COMPARE it to VF, SF, etc...it's not even close.
jarrod said:
Wait, I thought the whole debate was about subgenres, hence the "traditional" fighters versus "non-traditional" fighters. Generally you don't compare games across sub-genres (for good reason), which is the whole reason this debate started (people talking about SSBM in "other" fighting game threads).
Ninja Scooter
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
actually, thats EXACTLY what it makes it. The fact that this thread is 4 pages long makes me sad. What an elitist, nerdy argument.
Ugh...
Come on, there's dramatic fundamental game design differences in the previous games. Virtua Cop and Panzer Dragoon are actually more relatable to each other than the games you listed. C-Fight for Freeform said:
Compare the skill level in DOA to VF. It's not even close. I guess DOA isn't a fighting game? What other genres use "skill" as a qualifier?Fight for Freeform said:
Nope, it's about genre comparison. Most agree Smash Bros, VF and SF2 are all pretty different and would fall into their own subgrenes... but really, they're all fighting games. Just as Ridge Racer, Gran Turismo, Mario Kart and WipEout are all racing games, but file down into their own subgenres.Nerevar said:
jarrod said:
That's all it takes sometimes. Can you suggest another reason why there is such a difference in the variety of moves and the emphasis on close combat that clearly makes fighters and brawlers different in so many peoples' eyes?
Picture Virtua Fighter with a full-body block. Most of the moves and combos currently in the game would be completely useless. Likewise, imagine SSBM with high/low blocking. Do you think the close combat moveset would be as simple as it is now?
Yes, it's a simple difference, but it touches at the very core of the game's focus.
jarrod said:
This argument raged on usenet in the rec.games.video.* groups years ago, and that's the distinction that was made. No, I didn't make it up.
Ninja Scooter said:
So you are telling me that Spike Out is a fighting game.
And you are telling me that the Legend of Zelda is a fighting game, since you fight bad guys...
Great!
Exactly. Smash Bros's design is so different, you can't clump it with games like SF, VF, or Tekken.
Skill was the second part of the equation. I first mentioned that the mechanics were different, and as a result the skill needed is different as well. DoA controls a lot like VF2...the only problem is that it's counters are too powerful, reducing the level of skill required.
Then we must be dealing with very loose definitions. You can call Panzer Dragoon a flight game...but to compare it to the likes of Ace Combat, Starfighter, Colony Wars...is ludicrous.
Thus, comparing Smash Bros to VF, Tekken, etc. is absolutely ludicrous.
Even funnier how some assholes make sweeping generalizations. I'd like some of these people's names thanks.Link316 said:
I dunno, you're essentially using a mechanic to justify a difference in something as loose as 'focus' to justify an entire genre seperation. That's a slippery slope... plenty of "traditional fighters" rely on on plenty of distance combat and plenty of "nontraditional fighters" have an emphasis on close range as well. Where's Tobal/Ergiez fit? Psychic Force? Marvel Vs Capcom? Do all these games really belong in seperate geners?Sea Manky said:
You'll always have games that 'break' with select mechanics, that's why using them as absolute genre definiers rarely works. All these games have a shared fundamental design, they should all be grouped in the same genre. That doesn't mean they're all exactly alike, and genres can again be subdivided down (like kart racers or simluation RPGs) but these games all clearly have a shared design.
I believe you, it just still seems arbitrary. Like I said, 'brawlers' has been used to describe countless fighters and beus alrteady, in fact I think it'd be a better term to describe beus.Sea Manky said:This argument raged on usenet in the rec.games.video.* groups years ago, and that's the distinction that was made. No, I didn't make it up.
Are you really this dense? Let's at least try to elevate the discussion please.Fight for Freeform said:
Great. Now how about illustrating that without defaulting to nonsensical examples of totally unrelated games?Fight for Freeform said:
Let me get this straight, it's okay if "skill" level is entirely different so long as a game controls similarly. These rules are fascinating!Fight for Freeform said:
Problem being, I never heard anyone call Panzer Dragoon a flight sim. Meanwhile Nintendo and the media at large refer to Smash Bros as a fighting game.Fight for Freeform said:
Drinky Crow
Banned
Hey, Mihail: I'm a mod, too.
jarrod said:
jarrod said:
Ya'know, I could really care less about this argument (I'm here as I'm rather quite boredjarrod said:
), but I'll be damned if those 3 quotes don't make you a hypocrite.It's amusing, really. In a "Zelda = RPG!" argument, you've resorted to the same things (against me, no less) to try to 'disprove' my definition of things, and now you're getting pissed at him for doing the same thing? C'mon, Gran Turismo is an RPG, remember? Yeah, "nonsensical examples of totally unrelated games" that you brought up! There were more, but I can't be bothered to bring up every example of non-sensical shit you've said in the past about genres, as there's just not enough time in my day.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: arguing with jarrod about genres is counter-productive, at-best. Don't waste your time people.
:lol Sometimes I'd probably defend the forum, but if you're able to read through that entire Mistwalker on XBox 2 thread and not leave dumber because of it, you're a stronger man than I.Mihail said:
Well, you're damned already by entering this thread. Sakaguchi on Xenon is an elightened discussion by comparison.Scott said:Ya'know, I could really care less about this argument (I'm here as I'm rather quite bored
Difference being, my GT comparison related directly to the topic at hand (stats=RPG) rather than trying to argue Panzer Dragoon is flight sim in an RPG thread. Come on now, that difference is crystal clear.Scott said:
And to clairify on the Zelda=RPG issue (please let's not go into it much here), I've always maintained it doesn't really matter what you call Zelda (adventure, ARPG, whatever) so long as it's grouped with like games. So if you refer to Zelda an adventure game, so are Alundra, Terranigma, Ys and Mana. If it's an ARPG so are those games. Again, my genre classification arguments tend to center on central game design above all else, grouping like with like.
Up your butt and around the coner.Scott said:There were more, but I can't be bothered to bring up every example of non-sensical shit you've said in the past about genres, as there's just not enough time in my day.
You're just jealous I make better lists.Scott said:
I don't know about that, anything RPG related gets my attention more... and, unfortunately, when GAF runs with an RPG thread, the result is rarely pretty.jarrod said:Well, you're damned already by entering this thread. Sakaguchi on Xenon is an elightened discussion by comparison.
The reason I brought up the Gran Turismo thing is partly because of what you said in the other thread:jarrod said:
...as my first post in the "Zelda = RPG" thing had a qualifier just like that about how the games still have to adhere to certain mechanics (of Adventure games or Action/RPGs). I'm sorry, but you totally ignored that and went on listing games like GT, hell even a sports game I think, despite that. I'm finding it hypocritical.
And "like with like" is exactly what the stats thing was supposed to do, especially if you want to "center on the central game design above all else." Take these games down to a programming level, and Zelda varies wildly from Action/RPGs, even down to the simplest damage algorithms for a weapon. But you're right, not the time nor place to get into this.
Stupid Mandark. :|jarrod said:
jarrod said:
I already put Tobal/Ehrgeiz in the fighter group in my first post. You're confusing the presence of certain elements with focus. Ehrgeiz has a lot of the elements of a brawler, with distance weapons and environmental interaction, but it still has the extreme specialization of close combat moves that is a hallmark of a fighter, which incidentally is the reason fighting game fans are frothing at the mouth over this argument.
This specialization grows directly out of the fact that guard is not absolute.jarrod said:
But just like species branch off with enough difference, so do genres. And there is so much specialization towards complex close combat in the fighters, that they really should be considered separate from brawlers. It's true that both of these spawned from the original beat-em-ups, but they really do diverge significantly, even more so than the racing subgenres you mentioned earlier.
Early fighting games weren't nearly as complex as they are now, in fact their moveset wasn't much bigger than beat-em-ups had. Now if Street Fighter hadn't introduced high/low blocking, the moveset would never have gotten so complex and specialized. Brawlers like SSBM are far closer to the original beat-em-ups in close combat moveset and full body blocking, but with a lot more emphasis in the areas of distance attacks and environmental interaction.
The key difference again being that openings in guard encourages development of depth through complex movesets aimed at hitting those openings, while absolute guard necessitates depth through maneuver and distance attacks to catch the opponent on the move. One very simple difference in a particular game mechanic, two very divergent styles of gameplay.
And yes, there will be games that come close to these boundaries of distinction, but that's true of all genres, and I think we can safely say that in this case, VF and SSBM do not.
jarrod said:
Actually, I found the brawler term to be quite elegant. The word brawl brings to mind things like bar fights, where groups of people fight, and they pick up chairs and bottles and whatnot. Doesn't really suit beat-em-ups since that's typically you and maybe a friend against a horde. And calling a fight between two people in a tournament type setting a "brawl" is, well, just wrong.
And anyway, if we're going to make a distinction, the first one made will always be arbitrary by definition. Sea Manky said:Now that that's out of the way...
SSBM is a brawler. This term was coined ages ago to describe SSBM, Powerstone, and the like, and frankly, I'm scratching my head over this whole argument suddenly flaring up. Just as beat-em-ups and fighters split off as genres after Street Fighter, so also did fighters and brawlers later.
I'm very disappointed in the fighting game fans in the thread who understand intuitively the difference between the fighters like VF/SF/Tekken/KOF/Tobal/Ehrgeiz/GG/Time Killers/etc and the brawlers like SSBM/Powerstone/Poy Poy/Destrega/etc, but haven't grasped the very simple but critical difference between the two. Crying, "Depth!" isn't enough, what's important is where that depth springs from.
It's multilevel striking and blocking.
In a fighter, the subtle variations in strike ranges and speeds, combo timing, switchups, frame delays, vulnerability windows, and so on stem directly from the fact that a player can be defending, and yet have openings in his guard. Finding the holes in your opponent's guard while keeping him away from yours is where the meat of a fighter's gameplay and strategy is.
For a brawler, blocking is simply an on/off proposition. Combos of physical strikes tend to be far simpler because there's no need for any variation. The depth in a brawler comes from the additional elements outside basic hand to hand, such as projectiles and environmental interaction. Direct physical attacks are deemphasized.
It's for this reason that when beat-em-ups like Dynasty Warriors offer a 2P versus mode, nobody gives a damn because finding an opening to attack boils down to just waiting for the opponent to let go of the block button, and there are typically no other ways to force the issue. There are no mind games.
It just amazes me that this isn't obvious to everyone.
Seems like a pretty damn obvious and important shift in focus to me.
So SSB doesn't count as a fighter simply because there's no multiple-layered blocking system? So what do you consider Dragon Ball Z: Budokai games? They only have one level blocking sytem. How about the Naruto:Gekitou Ninja Taisen games for Gamecube? There's only a standing block system. I guess that's not a fighter either!
What about a game like Dead or Alive where it's more advantageous for you to counter (which, you know, is really difficult. Three directions plus the block button, it's rock-paper-scissors with boobs!) attacks than just block. You classify this as a fighter, right? Despite the fact that the counter damage can range from anywhere from 10%-30% of your health bar from a simple jab or kick? I guess that's 'deep.'
Obviously you haven't spent any amount of serious time with SSB. Shields can be overcome by utilizing throws, and when you block it's fairly obvious to your opponent. The shield also diminishes over time, and any part of your character that is exposed is fair game to being attacked, so that constitutes a multi-layered hit detection system to me. I bet you didn't even know that there's two different types of shields either.
Regardless, in SSB the emphasis is actually more on dodging attacks than blocking them anyhow. With the sidestep dodge, rolling dodge, and mid-air dodge, a player has to utilize these three to be even slightly proficient.
Minotauro said:
We're half-way there, kids! Keep going!
What's really amusing to me is that I honestly think the people going back and forth agree for the most part. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), the complexities of the argument just don't allow them to see it.
But the problem there is "stats" being just one unique qualifier that would divide a group of games with shared design into 2 entirely different genres. On one side you'd then have Zelda/Alundra one one side, Ys/Terranigma/Mana on the other. I'm talking here about overall game design, certainly when you break down to individual mechanics, these games all start to go in different directions, but when you step back back and look at fundamental design, they're more like each other than anything else. Like Manky here, you're trying to use a mechanic qualifier to seperate similar games into differeing genres despite an overall shared design, scope and focus. It's counter intuitive do that, we'd have a million different genres apllying the same rules everywhere. Victorian classification gone wild.Scott said:
Similar threads
- Poll