A question: Is your complaint against games that involve more than two active characters fighting, or against more than two human players?
If it is the former, then what about many tag games? Beyond tagging, there are multiple games that include mechanics for controlling multiple characters simultaneously. Of course there is a counter argument here to be made that, at least theoretically, the primary state of the field was at least meant to be 1v1. Even if more hectic games can result in a reality where the majority of time has 3+ characters active.
If it is the latter, then what about tag games that are designed to allow for more than one player on a team. Street Fighter x Tekken, for example was designed and promoted with the idea of two humans fighting against two other humans. Of course a counter argument here is similar to the above, the primary state is theoretically 1v1, with only temporary situations where 3+ players are active.
I’m not even going to try to defend Guilty Gear Isuka. I’d rather just go back to forgetting that that game existed.
EDIT: But a bit of extra food for thought… Would your opinion change if Capcom released Street Fighter 6 with built-in three player Dramatic Battle support from the start? Or if it was a default play style in some Capcom vs Whatever game with a ratio system?
Maki
Sodom
Necro
Eagle
Team Delta Red in S4 as one character
A Tag team sibling Doll just like Chang with Choi in CVS2
Yun with Yang as one character that can only swap for each round.
My single player mode would be
SF2 tournament play-through
with NPC Honda, Hawk, Fei and Deejay.
the Bosses would be enhanced version of Shadaloo kings and Akuma
Ah, the ole “Smash Figher” Debate, or as I’d like to call it “The Debate where every single person who gets involved has true insecurity”. Debate has raged for a decade, and people on both sides are just as hilarious as ever over something that means absolutely nothing.
Okay, I scrolled up. Among various other things you don’t like, you don’t like games designed for more than two players. Even in a team format. Or even when played with only two players.
So by your definition, Street Fighter x Tekken is not a fighting game? Sure, you can choose to play it in two-player form, but it was designed with the idea of being played in either two or four-player form.
I didn’t make an argument of tastes. So you can either address the thesis statements as presented:
Mine: The core idea behind a fighting game is designed primarily for 1v1 combat. The design decisions inform the gameplay in ways that it doesn’t apply to others.
Frost: If it has 1v1 combat then its a fighting game.
SFxT is still a 1v1 game with an extra wacky fun mode for it that Evo used to sink the shit out of the game. There are fighting games with wacky modes bu they’re still designed for 1v1. Tekken 3 isn’t a sports game because Tekken Ball is in it.
As for me I would call Smash as it’s own genre. Since it wasn’t designed to be played by default as a Fighting Game.
Yet some linked the Outfoxies as an early inspiration to Smash, FG by default but Outfoxies and also Vanila Powerstone is more FG like than Smash.
Yet I just don’t think that kind genre is an FG. An FG in a personal standpoint is more focus in design by draining the lifebar and has a well designed close combat gameplay mechanics.IMHO
I don’t consider the optional mode of play as the game default genre. Warcraft 3 isn’t consider a MOBA genre by default. IMHO.
You keep losing me on the forced 1v1 thing… I mean you literally default with 2 players.
If you want to aruge it’s not a fighter because you have to turn items of and change the stage to battlefield… I can see that reasoning, even if I disagree with it.
Samsh is a platform fighter, much like Tekken or soul Calibur or VF are arena fighters. I mean you can even lose in VF and soul Calibur the same way you do in smash.
At one point I didn’t consider smash a fighter either, but around brawl it was pretty clear that the game is a fighter. Just a non traditional one.
I call fortnite, pubg, shooters. The same way I call Halo or overwatch a shooters.
And when it comes to overwatch it’s clearly a hybrid fps/moba…but when it’s all said and done it’s still a shooter.
If people need more details then I’d call them a fps, just like I’d call smash a platform fighter.
But they all are just branches of there respective genre.
It would be silly to not call fornite a shooter even with all the crazy items and 1 vs 100.
Street fighter wasn’t design to have combos eithers
Lots of things aren’t design certain ways but end up being a certain thing.
I’m not a smash pro and I suck at the game, but I don’t think people understand that the mechanics that go into that game and are tweaked changed and update is heavy. Just like any other fighter.
It just doesn’t look like it, the game at face value looks mad simple.
It’s not, it’s a hard game to try and play seriously harder than alot of fighters.
I remember when I first played a “top” smash player… Talk about being totally outclassed.
The only other time I ever felt like that was marvel lol…
It was. That was a wrong trivia, It was latter corrected said by Nishitani. Take note SF2 was designed by the guys that made Final Fight. (Final Fight has combo)
SF2 was the pinancle of the FG genre that separates it from the traditional 1v1 games like Karate Champ like games.
FG genre was not FG genre as a competitive before SF2.
Yet those weren’t my stand point in my opinion, what I said was more focus on draining the lifebar rather than throwing other outside the ring and a have a decent designed close combat system like Tekken and VF.
The key idea here is Focus and designed. Cody does pick items in SFA3 but those weren’t the focus or core gameplay essentials.
Daigo over punk? I hope so, but Punk usually wins.
Do you think Bonchan will choose Sagat against Haitani? Both Karin and Sagat are 5-5 against Akuma I think.
I consider Smash to be a subgenre of fighting games, usually referred to as platform fighters.
I actually agree that WoW / Souls dueling (or arena) has a lot of similarities with fighting games and that those elements/modes, if isolated, could qualify as fighting game modes. The games as a whole certainly do not.
The strict 1v1 requirements mentioned here make no sense to me. If that’s the case, SFxT’s cross rush stops the game being a fighting game for about 5 seconds when one two-player team has three meters, then resumes being one.
Oh, and chess actually also has similarities to FGs. It’s turn based though, and I do consider being real time as a necessity for it being an FG.
Said it here before I think Sagat controls Akuma just fine. I’d bet he will run with Sagat, especially since he’s got way better AA options than his two other mains.
I don’t think there’s any real good video on how to use Falke. I know one guy that has a tutorial but he’s really boring and takes way too long to explain basic things about how she works.
I’ll post it any way, but yeah
In any event, you’re better off just starting playing her and I can answer questions as you go along.
Also to answer your question about Ibuki vs Gail, I think she technically does go about even with him (even though some other Ibuki players are absolutely afraid of him and think she loses bad to him), but I prefer using a character that doesn’t have to engage close with him all of the time. Hence preferring to use Falke. With Ibuki you just have to kinda pick a spot and go all in and the rest of the screen is kinda his until you get there. If you’re off with your traps or spacing at all, all it takes is one b+HP from him and you go flying and lose your health.
Falke is basically just standing at a spot and defending that spot. She’s not really hard to play in that regard. The most trouble I have when using her is making up for a life deficit against characters who run away/play defensively. Guile, Nash, FANG, Dhalsim etc. can be really hard to open up if you start running out of time and need to do some damage. But that’s more of a matchup thing than general playstyle idea.
?