Support NeoGAF

[jarrod]

I already put Tobal/Ehrgeiz in the fighter group in my first post. You're confusing the presence of certain elements with focus.

Focus is subjective, that's largely dependent on the player rather than design in fighters.

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.

Well, where does Psycic Force fit then? How about Marvel Vs Capcom, where the "focus" could be argued to take place in the air (where there's no tiered block system, it's absolute) and rely largely on distance combat? Or Hero's examples of DBZ Budokai and Naruto? Again, you'll always have games that break specific rules... which is why using a specific rule for something as comprehensive as genre classification rarely works.

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.

Of course, and that's where subgenres come in. There's a marked difference in BEUs and fighters/brawlers, but the latter are closely related in design. They really belong in the same genre.

I'd disagree with Smash Bros evolving from beus though, it's actually more of a cross between the original Mario Bros and SF2.

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.

I disagree. The GT/Mario Kart and VF/SSB comparison seems almost perfectly suitable.

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.

Only problem is Smash Bros doesn't have an absolute guard. And again, plenty of the earlier 'rule breakers' mentioned defy this line of thinking.

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.

Sorry, you're not in a position to safely say anything in this thread.

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.

Sorry, I meant it felt arbitrary as I've personally already heard the term used in reference to other games. Plus, calling something like Virtual On, Destrega or Psychic Force a 'brawl' game just sounds inappropriate, when that's where they fit using your own "absolute blocking" standard.

 

[jett]

Tobal 2 is a straight-up fighter damnit, what the fuck.

Ehrgeiz, on the other hand, is a worthless piece of shit.

 

[Shouta]

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!

Budokai and Gekitou Ninja Taisen are fighting games and they don't have multiple levels of blocking. However, you're wholly ignoring what else he said. Blocking is a key component but there's other things in there.

How about Marvel Vs Capcom, where the "focus" could be argued to take place in the air (where there's no tiered block system, it's absolute) and rely largely on distance combat?

Aerial Raves/Air Combos are initiated on the ground in all vs games (with a number of exceptions in MvC2). The fact that guard in the air is absolute is kind of moot because the majority of the time, combat begins on the ground where High and Low guards exist.

 

[Hero]

Budokai and Gekitou Ninja Taisen are fighting games and they don't have multiple levels of blocking. However, you're wholly ignoring what else he said. Blocking is a key component but there's other things in there.

Oh, so there ARE exceptions to this unwritten 'rule.' That pretty much throws that argument out of the window.

And what the hell am I ignoring? I'm pretty sure that the entire post I quoted was bitching about

It's multilevel striking and blocking.

That's what his whole argument was about. I already showed that his logic was flawed, but I guess you're seeing something I'm not. Why don't you quote it for me?

 

[jarrod]

Budokai and Gekitou Ninja Taisen are fighting games and they don't have multiple levels of blocking. However, you're wholly ignoring what else he said. Blocking is a key component but there's other things in there.

But Manky's standards hinged on a select mechanic shifting focus. Which is why basing overall genre standards on such select details invariably fails... there's always going to be rule breakers if you do that.

Aerial Raves/Air Combos are initiated on the ground in all vs games (with a number of exceptions in MvC2). The fact that guard in the air is absolute is kind of moot because the majority of the time, combat begins on the ground where High and Low guards exist.

Still, a large amount of strategy in the Vs games releies on ranged/distance combat. The line gets blurry when these are your standards.

 

[Kandinsky]

Best game ever.

 

[NLB2]

Once again little kids, do I have to remind you that you are arguing over a definition? YOU CAN'T ARGUE OVER A DEFINITION! SOME OF YOU DEFINE FIGHTING GAMES IN SUCH A WAY THAT SSB CAN BE CATEGORIZED AS A FIGHTING GAME. OTHERS ARE DEFINING FIGHTING GAMES IN SUCH A WAY THAT SSB CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS A FIGHTING GAME. YOU ARE BOTH RIGHT. SSB IS A FIGHTING GAME UNDER SOME DEFINITIONS OF FIGHTING GAME AND IT IS NOT A FIGHTING GAME UNDER OTHER DEFINITIONS OF FIGHTING GAMES. NOW WHICH DEFINITION IS RIGHT? IT DOESN'T MATTER - YOU CAN'T ARGUE A DEFINITION. JESUS PEOPLE HOW THE HELL CAN THERE BE FIVE PAGES OF THIS SHIT.

Sorry about the caps.

 

[Azih]

Dude, you can totally argue over a definition.

 

[jarrod]

Once again little kids, do I have to remind you that you are arguing over a definition? YOU CAN'T ARGUE OVER A DEFINITION! SOME OF YOU DEFINE FIGHTING GAMES IN SUCH A WAY THAT SSB CAN BE CATEGORIZED AS A FIGHTING GAME. OTHERS ARE DEFINING FIGHTING GAMES IN SUCH A WAY THAT SSB CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS A FIGHTING GAME. YOU ARE BOTH RIGHT. SSB IS A FIGHTING GAME UNDER SOME DEFINITIONS OF FIGHTING GAME AND IT IS NOT A FIGHTING GAME UNDER OTHER DEFINITIONS OF FIGHTING GAMES. NOW WHICH DEFINITION IS RIGHT? IT DOESN'T MATTER - YOU CAN'T ARGUE A DEFINITION. JESUS PEOPLE HOW THE HELL CAN THERE BE FIVE PAGES OF THIS SHIT.

Sorry about the caps.

I disagree!

 

[SantaC]

Dude, you can totally argue over a definition.

it seems rather pointless though. Looking at Nintendo's official site they labeled it a fightning game.

 

[Azih]

it seems rather pointless though. Looking at Nintendo's official site they labeled it a fightning game.

SSB IS A FIGHTNING GAME. BRAND NEW GENRE ALERT!

 

[masud]

it seems rather pointless though. Looking at Nintendo's official site they labeled it a fightning game.

A pointless arguement of GAF? Get out!

 

[shuri]

SSB IS A FIGHTNING GAME. BRAND NEW GENRE ALERT!

Nintendo innovates once again! Tired of labels, they think out of the box!

 

[Shouta]

Oh, so there ARE exceptions to this unwritten 'rule.' That pretty much throws that argument out of the window.

Hail Captain Obvious! There will always be exceptions to rules, everyone knows that. Just because there are exceptions doesn't make the rule moot.

And what the hell am I ignoring? I'm pretty sure that the entire post I quoted was bitching about

That's what his whole argument was about. I already showed that his logic was flawed, but I guess you're seeing something I'm not. Why don't you quote it for me?

the subtle variations in strike ranges and speeds, combo timing, switchups, frame delays, vulnerability windows

That's the one part manky mentions but it's more or less the crux of the idea. The difference between something like Power Stone/Destrega/SSBM/etc and SF/Tekken/VF/KOF is the complexity of the characters and actual combat. You don't have unique strike ranges, attack speeds, and etc to the same extent as Street Fighter in SSBM. While the basic concept of the games are the same, the differences within what they focus on. The games most consider to be fighters focus on the intricacies of personal combat, styles of fighting, strike ranges, pressure games, combos, and all that jazz. SSBM and the like have some of that in common but is ultimately simplified in comparison. Rather than focus on combat on the personal level, they go for more overall material by adding factors like enviromental hazards and items. Power Stone 1 is handled in a similar fashion to Ergheiz (in terms of movement and perspective but I would consider Power Stone 1 a brawler and Ergheiz a fighter (by Manky's standards). The difference is Power Stone 1's in close combat is basic and the gameplay relies heavily on the items found within a stage and the hazards within it. Ergheiz has some items and some enviromental effects but it's close combat system is much more advanced with varying strings/combos/attack levels/etc.

But Manky's standards hinged on a select mechanic shifting focus. Which is why basing overall genre standards on such select details invariably fails... there's always going to be rule breakers if you do that.

Manky's standards hinged on the full complexity (or design, if you will) of the entire game and not a mechanic shifting focus, IMO. Of course there's exceptions (I'd be hard pressed to call Psychic Force a brawler but at the same time, I'm not sure I'd call it a fighter either) but that's beside the point. There's always exceptions to rules like I pointed.

Still, a large amount of strategy in the Vs games releies on ranged/distance combat. The line gets blurry when these are your standards.

Man, you're playing with nubs if you think a large amount of strategy in Vs games rely on ranged/distance combat. The only Vs game that has a real ranged/distance game (that I can think of) is MvC2 and even then rush-down play is still more prominent.

At any rate, I agree with Manky's assessment. Brawler is a pretty app term for games like Power Stone/Destrega/SSBM. His reasoning for the term Brawler is pretty sound too heh.

 

[Monk]

That's the one part manky mentions but it's more or less the crux of the idea. The difference between something like Power Stone/Destrega/SSBM/etc and SF/Tekken/VF/KOF is the complexity of the characters and actual combat. You don't have unique strike ranges, attack speeds, and etc to the same extent as Street Fighter in SSBM. While the basic concept of the games are the same, the differences within what they focus on. The games most consider to be fighters focus on the intricacies of personal combat, styles of fighting, strike ranges, pressure games, combos, and all that jazz. SSBM and the like have some of that in common but is ultimately simplified in comparison.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Unique strike ranges and attackspeeds are far more pronouncd in SSBM, and there are combos in SSBM, but not in the traditional sense.


You also have cancels, and and a form of parrying.

 

[Hero]

That's the one part manky mentions but it's more or less the crux of the idea. The difference between something like Power Stone/Destrega/SSBM/etc and SF/Tekken/VF/KOF is the complexity of the characters and actual combat. You don't have unique strike ranges, attack speeds, and etc to the same extent as Street Fighter in SSBM. While the basic concept of the games are the same, the differences within what they focus on. The games most consider to be fighters focus on the intricacies of personal combat, styles of fighting, strike ranges, pressure games, combos, and all that jazz. SSBM and the like have some of that in common but is ultimately simplified in comparison. Rather than focus on combat on the personal level, they go for more overall material by adding factors like enviromental hazards and items. Power Stone 1 is handled in a similar fashion to Ergheiz (in terms of movement and perspective but I would consider Power Stone 1 a brawler and Ergheiz a fighter (by Manky's standards). The difference is Power Stone 1's in close combat is basic and the gameplay relies heavily on the items found within a stage and the hazards within it. Ergheiz has some items and some enviromental effects but it's close combat system is much more advanced with varying strings/combos/attack levels/etc.

So you're saying that I'm 'wholly ignoring everything else he said' is:

the subtle variations in strike ranges and speeds, combo timing, switchups, frame delays, vulnerability windows

.

SSB has all of that. The entire point I'm making is that most of the people in this thread have only played the game a handful of times and think that because they can beat their friends or the mediocre A.I. that they mastered the game when all they've done is scratched the surface.

If you've ever taken a few minutes to watch highly skilled players fight you will be amazed at the complexity of techniques that they utilize with their characters.

And stop bringing the items and interactive environments into play, because in the competitive scene it's mostly always ITEMS OFF and the stage is FINAL DESTINATION. Which, if you don't know, is a completely flat, not-moving, no-hazard level.

I'd even wager to say that SSBM requires more skill than most other fighters since there are so many variables to factor in that you can't simply memorize a combo chain of j. mk, f. p, c. jab, c.hp, AHVBx3.

 

[Monk]

http://ssbm.captainjack.jp/movies/S108-isaifalcon-kenmarth.wmv

^^^^What Hero is talking about.

 

[Ramirez]

Damn,those dudes are good.

 

[Drinky Crow]

You may be frame watching, move canceling, input buffering, and hit box calculating BUT yer still doing it with fuckin' Fox McCloud and Pikachu.

 

[Azih]

You don't have unique strike ranges, attack speeds, and etc to the same extent as Street Fighter in SSBM

Dude, bad example.

 

[Azih]

You may be frame watching, move canceling, input buffering, and hit box calculating BUT yer still doing it with fuckin' Fox McCloud and Pikachu.

Not a fighter?

 

[SantaC]

SSB IS A FIGHTNING GAME. BRAND NEW GENRE ALERT!

oh so I added an EXTRA N BY ACCIDENT, PLEASE ARGUE ANOTHER 5 PAGES about it.

 

[Brandon F]

I've stayed out of this complete loony bin of a thread, but that video reminded me of some of the Sheik v Samus fights I had with an old college buddy of mine. The 1v1 matches are pretty fuckin intense.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

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.

So what you're saying is that you've been wrong before, and you'll continue to be wrong in the future?

 

[jarrod]

Manky's standards hinged on the full complexity (or design, if you will) of the entire game and not a mechanic shifting focus, IMO. Of course there's exceptions (I'd be hard pressed to call Psychic Force a brawler but at the same time, I'm not sure I'd call it a fighter either) but that's beside the point. There's always exceptions to rules like I pointed.

So 1+1=3? If not for the specific mechanic (absolute blocking) Manky's standard has no seperation. He's using a specific mechanic as a qualifier here, then arguing it shifts focus (not complexity, he's never argued that).

Not to mention Smash Bros itself would by this definition be a 'rule breaker'. That's the problem with such strict genre guidelines, they'll never hold up. If there's all these inevitable exceptions to these narrow definitions what's the point of genre classification at all?

Man, you're playing with nubs if you think a large amount of strategy in Vs games rely on ranged/distance combat. The only Vs game that has a real ranged/distance game (that I can think of) is MvC2 and even then rush-down play is still more prominent.

But the game can still be played that way. Which is why I argue focus is subjective, it's a slippery subject and to use it to define genres seems rather faulty.

At any rate, I agree with Manky's assessment. Brawler is a pretty app term for games like Power Stone/Destrega/SSBM. His reasoning for the term Brawler is pretty sound too heh.

Well, how about Virtual On, Gotcha Force, Psychic Force, DBZ, Naruto, Erghiez, WWE, etc? Where should those fit?

 

[User 406]

Whoa, whoa, settle down Hero. I wasn't commenting on the relative depths of the games as a whole when talking about the complexity of close combat in fighters. In fact, getting indignant about that just underscores what I'm saying about how brawlers and fighters should not be lumped together because the source of their respective depths is completely different.

Yes, I know about throws and breakable guards, both fighters and brawlers have those in common. I'm not at all implying that the full body guard in a brawler is proof against anything but normal strikes. Hell, if it was, there'd be no point in playing.

Read what I said again, realize that I am only talking about close combat, understand that fighters having page long movelists for close combat is due to having multilevel blocking, and above all keep in mind that I am not saying anything about the depth of brawlers in general other than it's in a different area.

Trying to equate the two is pointless. Show me a brawler with as many close in attack strings as a VF character and I'll show you a lot of useless wasted moves. Show me a fighter with the same amount of close combat options as SSBM, and I'll show you a really shitty fighter. The focus is simply very different. Different enough to spawn huge nerdy arguments over classification, and therefore different enough to justify making the distinction. And whether jarrod is offended or not by the idea that something as simple as how blocking is implemented is at the core of this difference, that's what it boils down to.

 

[jarrod]

And whether jarrod is offended or not by the idea that something as simple as how blocking is implemented is at the core of this difference, that's what it boils down to.

I'm not offended, I just feel it more beneficial to classify games logically based on overall design and similarities. I understand the base difference you're talking about here, but I just don't feel it's significant enough to push 'fighters' and 'brawlers' into completely seperate genres, comparable to 'fighters' and beat 'em ups for example.

When you hinge genre classification on such a microsocopic qualifier, you're bound to get games that break the qualifier and confusion in general. Which is why calling all these games 'fighters', then subdividing down makes far more sense.

 

[miyuru]

This thread is too subjective, it's not about SSB, it's about what your personal definition of a fighter is.

To me the term fighter is very very broad. It's just any game where the main focus is to win matches between fighting characters. So, yeah, to me SSB is a fighter of course, since that is the main purpose.

 

[Artanisix]

http://ssbm.captainjack.jp/movies/S108-isaifalcon-kenmarth.wmv

^^^^What Hero is talking about.

Ken is arguably the best player in the US, and he has the best Marth around. Isai is arguably second best, and his Captain Falcon is what got me into playing seriously. Azen Zagenite is arguably third best in the US, and he's very good all around.

Captain Jack, Korius, and Masashi all place extremely well in Japanese tournaments. They use Doctor Mario, Marth, and Fox respectively.

And like I said before, these guys are a huge level above us all and truly show how the game is played.

Tournament Rules (for guidance):
3 - 5 Stock
7 minutes time
Slobs Pick*
Final Destination, Pokemon Stadium, and Dream Land 64 on RANDOM.
NO ITEMS

*Slobs Pick means the loser of the match (since tournaments play best out of three) either gets to change their character or choose the level. The level's allowed to be picked are Final Destination, Pokemon Stadium, Dream Land 64, Battlefield, Fountain Of Dreams, ... I think there's more but I can't remember.

And uh, I'll argue about the 'fighting' thing in a second. <_>

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Ken is arguably the best player in the US, and he has the best Marth around. Isai is arguably second best, and his Captain Falcon is what got me into playing seriously.

That is arguably the nerdiest thing I've read all day. I salute you.

 

[User 406]

I'm not offended, I just feel it more beneficial to classify games logically based on overall design and similarities. I understand the base difference you're talking about here, but I just don't feel it's significant enough to push 'fighters' and 'brawlers' into completely seperate genres, comparable to 'fighters' and beat 'em ups for example.

When you hinge genre classification on such a microsocopic qualifier, you're bound to get games that break the qualifier and confusion in general. Which is why calling all these games 'fighters', then subdividing down makes far more sense.

Believe me, I'm not basing this on the desire that it be so, but because it's the only explanation that best fits.

"50% of people think Bush is a uniter, the other 50% think he is a divider."

The position you're taking here is similar to those who picked uniter.

So here we've got these games where you control a character and hit other characters with fists, weapons, fireballs, HAMMARA POWAAZ, or what have you, but there is an extremely sharp divide in opinion on whether they all should be classified together. Just about every feature you could think of on one side of this divide has been implemented on the other so some extent, so sure it's natural to think that no division is necessary on the surface, and yet still there's that huge division of opinion adamantly maintained by the people who play them.

So it's pretty disingenuous to think there's no significant reason for a difference in classification. People think they're different, so they are different.

As a long time fighting game player, I clearly see that difference. When I first played Destrega, I saw it. When I first played Powerstone, I saw it. When I first played SSBM, I saw it.

I don't have as many close combat moves as I do in the games I normally play, and I can't block high or low.

The one is intimately linked to the other. The depth I'm used to isn't there. If this game has depth, it's a different sort.

Take SSBM as it is, and add high/low blocking. The game is not drastically changed, since there are no moves that focus on this.

Take VF4E as it is, and give it full body guard. The game is utterly and irrevocably RUINED.

Now, do the same for all the other games that have been mentioned in the thread, and you'll get the same results.

It is a world of difference.

I'm sorry you can't see that. This will be my last post on the subject.

 

[Azih]

Take SSBM as it is, and add high/low blocking. The game is not drastically changed, since there are no moves that focus on this.

Man Link's down+A would be MUCH more useful if there was high/low blocking.

 

[Artanisix]

So you're saying that I'm 'wholly ignoring everything else he said' is:
.

SSB has all of that. The entire point I'm making is that most of the people in this thread have only played the game a handful of times and think that because they can beat their friends or the mediocre A.I. that they mastered the game when all they've done is scratched the surface.

If you've ever taken a few minutes to watch highly skilled players fight you will be amazed at the complexity of techniques that they utilize with their characters.

And stop bringing the items and interactive environments into play, because in the competitive scene it's mostly always ITEMS OFF and the stage is FINAL DESTINATION. Which, if you don't know, is a completely flat, not-moving, no-hazard level.

I'd even wager to say that SSBM requires more skill than most other fighters since there are so many variables to factor in that you can't simply memorize a combo chain of j. mk, f. p, c. jab, c.hp, AHVBx3.

Thank you Hero. It is apparent that many people who are arguing 'SSBM isn't a fighter. It's way too shallow.' don't know how incredibley deep the game is. It's incredibley complex and not for those who don't take the time to learn every little quirk and trick with your character. For example, say Samus' bomb jump which gives her near-infinite horizontal recovery, or Yoshi's edge egg, in which he runs off the edge of the arena and does his up b special to instantly grab onto the edge. It's just like, say, Iceman's floating IceBeam to get more hits in.

Indeed. No items, and only limited amounts of stages.

I agree with the combo thing. In SSBM, you actually have to ADJUST according to how much percentage your opponent is at. You actually have to space well, due to attacks executing more knockback and stun depending on where you hit with. You actually have to bait EVEN MORE than other fighters due to the stage and the air. You HAVE to L-Cancel EVERY arial move, you HAVE to know how to sweetspot the edge, you HAVE to be able to completely overhaul your strategy midgame to keep the mindgames up and have your opponent guessing. SSBM is deep and complex.

The argument of having a different way to 'block' is only slightly correct. Like someone has pointed out, shields can be pressured by one frame attacks (essentially footsies), can be instantly bypassed via a grab, amd / or be attacked in spots in which the shield isn't shielding due to how the shield constantly gets smaller. Sure, it's not the same as a HIGH and LOW block system, but it's practically the same concept.

Read what I said again, realize that I am only talking about close combat, understand that fighters having page long movelists for close combat is due to having multilevel blocking, and above all keep in mind that I am not saying anything about the depth of brawlers in general other than it's in a different area

SSBM challenges it's players to utilize their own comboes. Take for instance Marth's f-air combo to spike or tipped f-smash, or Fox's waveshine comboes to drill kicks or sex kicks or Up smash, or whatever. And much of SSBM's fight DO occur in close combat. Also, what's with the projectiles and environment bull? Arcade Fighters have projectiles as well (Shoryuken anyone?), and only fair stages with minimal hazards and zero obstructions are chosen in tournaments.

You may be frame watching, move canceling, input buffering, and hit box calculating BUT yer still doing it with fuckin' Fox McCloud and Pikachu.

:lol :lol :lol Nice!

That's the one part manky mentions but it's more or less the crux of the idea. The difference between something like Power Stone/Destrega/SSBM/etc and SF/Tekken/VF/KOF is the complexity of the characters and actual combat. You don't have unique strike ranges, attack speeds, and etc to the same extent as Street Fighter in SSBM. While the basic concept of the games are the same, the differences within what they focus on. The games most consider to be fighters focus on the intricacies of personal combat, styles of fighting, strike ranges, pressure games, combos, and all that jazz. SSBM and the like have some of that in common but is ultimately simplified in comparison.

The complexity of the characters? Holy shit I'm not even going to get into that. And your telling me your pansy footsies are tons more intricate and complex then SSBM's characters, in which WHERE you hit with both the attack and where you hit the enemy are important? SSBM has INSANE pressure games - it's all what Falco and Samus are about. With falco, you pressure your oppenet by using short-hopped fast-falled blaster shots. They shots stun and since Falco short-hop fast-falls it there is ZERO frame lag in it, which means Falco can follow up with anything. Samus is also about pressuring. She pressures with missles via missle canceling to make zero lag. She pressures with bombs that force the opponent to venture a different route to her. She pressures the opponent with her insanely quick down smash that set's up for a charged shot or a sex kick. Strike ranges are EVERYTHING in SSBM, like I said. Personal combat? Each character - and yes, even the clones - have a distinct and different playing strategy. And SSBM has comboes, like I said.

 

[Artanisix]

That is arguably the nerdiest thing I've read all day. I salute you.

:lol :lol

 

[Squirrel Killer]

People think they're different, so they are different.

That's a logical fallacy.

As a long time fighting game player, I clearly see that difference.

Let me change the terms a little bit...

Is Morrowwind an RPG?

As a long time RPG player, I clearly see that difference... Oh no! Over the shoulder third-person perspective, there's no way it could be an RPG.

BZZT! Wrong.

Is Ultimate Wizard a platformer?

As a long time platform player, I clearly see that difference... Oh no! I can shoot a projectile, there's no way it could be a platformer.

BZZT! Wrong.

Is Midtown Madness a racing game?

As a racing game player, I clearly see that difference... Oh no! The tracks aren't cordned off, there's no way it could be a racer.

BZZT! Wrong.

Do you guys even know what "genre" means? It's a broad, vague classification. If you hyper-define a genre, you're not defining a genre, you're defining specific traits. Sure you can find meaningful differences between Star Wars and Star Trek, but using those differences to say that they're not both in the sci-fi genre would be doing a disservice to both franchises and meaningful discussion comparing them.

Quality has nothing to do with what genre a game is in. SSBM could be complete crap, but it's still a fighter. See Eternal Champions.

Depth has nothing to do with what genre a game is in. SSBM could have the depth of a kiddie pool, but it's still a fighter. See Time Killers.

The presence/lack thereof of one or two gameplay elements that are usual in the genre has nothing to do with what genre a game is in. SSBM could have a leveling system or completely lack any method to block whatsoever, but it'd still be a fighter. See the first game to introduce weapons and the first game to take out jumping.

Your personal desire to play it has nothing to do with what genre a game is in. SSBM could make you want to gouge your eyes out, but it's still a fighter. See Pit Fighter.

To those who swear SSB/SSBM aren't fighters, you're going to have to deal with this same dumb argument every time until you finally get it through your thick cantalopes that it is a fighter. Sub-divide the genre all you want, it's a non-traditional fighter, it's a party fighter, whatever... but until you stop saying "Ashlee Simpson is a great singer... no really...", you're going to go down this same path, while all the sane people wonder just how much paint you had to eat as a kid to get this brain damaged. Stop looking at the minutia, that's for sub-genres and styles, and look at the overall game... two roughly equivalent opponents/sides physically fight each other over a set period to determine a winner.

Courage.

 

[LakeEarth]

Let me change the terms a little bit...

Is Morrowwind an RPG?

As a long time RPG player, I clearly see that difference... Oh no! Over the shoulder third-person perspective, there's no way it could be an RPG.

BZZT! Wrong.

Is Ultimate Wizard a platformer?

As a long time platform player, I clearly see that difference... Oh no! I can shoot a projectile, there's no way it could be a platformer.

BZZT! Wrong.

Is Midtown Madness a racing game?

As a racing game player, I clearly see that difference... Oh no! The tracks aren't cordned off, there's no way it could be a racer.

BZZT! Wrong.

Do you guys even know what "genre" means? It's a broad, vague classification. If you hyper-define a genre, you're not defining a genre, you're defining specific traits. Sure you can find meaningful differences between Star Wars and Star Trek, but using those differences to say that they're not both in the sci-fi genre would be doing a disservice to both franchises and meaningful discussion comparing them.

Quality has nothing to do with what genre a game is in. SSBM could be complete crap, but it's still a fighter. See Eternal Champions.

Depth has nothing to do with what genre a game is in. SSBM could have the depth of a kiddie pool, but it's still a fighter. See Time Killers.

The presence/lack thereof of one or two gameplay elements that are usual in the genre has nothing to do with what genre a game is in. SSBM could have a leveling system or completely lack any method to block whatsoever, but it'd still be a fighter. See the first game to introduce weapons and the first game to take out jumping.

Your personal desire to play it has nothing to do with what genre a game is in. SSBM could make you want to gouge your eyes out, but it's still a fighter. See Pit Fighter.

To those who swear SSB/SSBM aren't fighters, you're going to have to deal with this same dumb argument every time until you finally get it through your thick cantalopes that it is a fighter. Sub-divide the genre all you want, it's a non-traditional fighter, it's a party fighter, whatever... but until you stop saying "Ashlee Simpson is a great singer... no really...", you're going to go down this same path, while all the sane people wonder just how much paint you had to eat as a kid to get this brain damaged. Stop looking at the minutia, that's for sub-genres and styles, and look at the overall game... two roughly equivalent opponents/sides physically fight each other over a set period to determine a winner.

Courage.

 

[DDayton]

Tournament Rules (for guidance):
3 - 5 Stock
7 minutes time
Slobs Pick*
Final Destination, Pokemon Stadium, and Dream Land 64 on RANDOM.
NO ITEMS

I never understood the "No Items" rule -- it seems to limit SSBM from being the game that it is and making it too much of a generic fighter. Items are random, but they can be used in a variety of ways... the ability to use nearly any item as a projectile does help even the odds with some of the characters.

 

[SaitoH]

Without reading everything that has transpired I'll say this: Zelda is an action/Rpg, Metroid is a first person adventure, Mario kart is a kart racing game, and Smash Bros isn't a fighter. Don't like my labels? Tough.

Taking age into consideration, next time someone asks me to recommend a fighting game on the Gamecube, I'll hand them Smash Bros and see what they say. Too bad the GC isn't really known for its fighters, but it still should be interesting.

*awaits 20 page dissertation on how I'm wrong*

^w^

 

[miyuru]

Arcade Fighters have projectiles as well (Shoryuken anyone?)

:lol :lol :lol

EDIT: I'm just pulling your leg bro, I know it was an honest mistake. Great post btw, I agree with you.

 

[jarrod]

I'm sorry you can't see that. This will be my last post on the subject.

Oh I can see it just fine, it's just not nearly a fundamental enough difference to push such similar games into completely seperate genres. I'm not the one lacking vision here.

I could also do without the snarky political associations as well... I might not be offended but it certainly seems you're giving it an earnest try.

 

[Matlock]

In short: Super Smash Bros. Melee is not a fighter because--

1) Nintendo characters
2) Lack of learning curve
3) GameCube controller

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Smash Bros isn't a fighter. Don't like my labels? Tough.

So how many paint chips did you eat as a child? Do the different colors have different tastes?

As for Matlock... the controller makes a difference? Nice troll attempt.

 

[Date of Lies]

I dont care if you want to call it a "brawler", a "party fighter" or even a "n-fan jerkfest" as long as you recognize that SSBM has more depth than 70% of the fighters out there. It has atleast as much depth as Soul Calibur 2 (this is not an insult, I love SC2), and it has more depth than CvsSNK2 (and I am a HUGE fan of that). The only games that clearly present more depth and complexity than SSBM are VF4 and 3rd Strike.

If you refute, I am ready to back it up with clips of extremely skillful players. I myself have played this game regularly for years, atleast 1000 hours poured into it. I thought I had seen it all. Until I went to a championship and got blown away by things I had never imagined, things even the developers may not have envisioned. My friend (who is a huge 3rd strike fan) refused to acknowlege SSBM as a fighter with any depth was also blown away and walked out of the championship with only praise and high regard for the game.