I think SSBB/m is a fighting game… What do you do in it? Fight other characters…
I don’t mind if people think or say it’s boring or shitty, In my opinion it’s very very fun.
EDIT:^ What TheDarkPheonix said.
EDITEDIT: I completely agree with TheDarkPheonix.
daigo jr
daigo jr
daigo jr
daigo jr
daigo jr
Lol, What did I do?
lol
I never hated on Smash itself, just its community. However, I do think that item-free Smash doesn’t really bring anything to the table that SF & Marvel & GG don’t. That’s why I’ve been on the All-Brawl side of things this whole time - Smash doesn’t do anything better than the above mentioned titles, but with the various items & stages it can do something different from them.
-Josh
There was a game on the SNES called Metal Warriors. It had a multiplayer mode with multiple mecha that were radically different, various items, a reasonable move set for each mecha and… various other stuff. Is this a fighting game? I think anyone who played it would have a hard time considering it a ‘fighter’ – though it’s the type of thing some fighting game players might get into (besides the fact that gameplay quickly degenerates to item camping and luck). In a way though it’s not much different from Smash, which more people would be willing to concede is a fighter. So whats different? More projectiles? IaMP is even more projectile based – so is that a fighter? Well, yeah…
So you can argue this any which way and no one will be ‘right’. It all depends on your definition of fighter. But… who cares? Melee (and probably Brawl) have proven to be tournament worthy, generate consistant tournament results and require many of the same skills. If it’s not a ‘fighter’ it’s still close enough. No one gets lynched around here for talking about Twinkle Star Sprite or whatever and Smash has more depth then some of the shitty games that people play around here at the very least.
^ people seem to throw in multiplayer quick when the want to discredit smash as a fighter. But when smash is played at a tourney is not all vs all its one on one and usually theres another for team 2 on 2.
Is pit fighter a fighter? I’ma have to say yes to this one as well, more so then smash even.
edit: infact…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Fighter
Now if pit fighter is a fighting game how is smash not?
Is power stones a fighters? theres no block button!
somethings should be obvious, just because its not traditional doesn’t mean its not of that genre.
I feel that, but what do alot of other fighters bring to the table that previous fighters don’t? most time its just a different fighting engine or play style. I mean I still feel like all fighting games are way to similar outside of capcoms marvel and vs’s series.
What I find hilarious is when people pop up in the fighter communities and say ridiculous shit like “IT ISN’T A REAL FIGHTING GAME” when they can’t even define what a fighting game ‘is’ anyway.
You fight in brawl so it’s as much of a fighter as gg, marvel, 3s or any other game it’s that simple. Saying brawl isn’t a fighting game just because of how different it’s game mechanics are is akin to saying gg isn’t a real fighter because it has FRC:looney: But I do understand how the game’s initial lack of execution requirement and kid-friendly aesthetic would lead some to not take it as seriously as some of the more traditional fighters stated above.
Please can someone close this thread? I doubt anything good can come of it now.
^ Yeah, It’s a fighting game… Close thread.
No fireball motion.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a fighting game.
As stated above, Even Power stone doesn’t have block, But It’s still counted as a fighter.
So… Even if it doesn’t have a fireball motion, It’s a fighting game…
It is pretty fucking gross how people go out of their way to put smash on the same level as ST, GG, 3S, Marvelz, and etc. It is not and it never will be. What’s next, Wii Boxing at evo?
So in other words, Wrestling games are fighting games? You cant put it on the level of SF, Who gives a shit if its popular? That doesnt make it any good…Looks at halo
This is literally the only halfway intelligent thing that’s been said on the subject in this entire thread.
Until somebody comes up with a precise definition for what a fighting game is and makes clear the kinds of things that are included and excluded from that definition, the argument is pointless. At this point, the boundary of the genre is so indistinct that Smash can be categorized as a fighting game until somebody comes along and comes up with a better definition.
And whether or not a game is good or bad has nothing to do with what genre it is, so throw that shit out for starters.
good one.
Trying to define what’s a fighting game is as pointless as trying to define what’s art.
This is a joke, nobody has given one single reason as to why smash (melee) isn’t “on the same level” as traditional fighters, except for “it’s not a fighting game so there,” an argument that has already run into problems of its own.
See above.
I was talking to a friend of mine at my college and he was pissed about people saying Smash isn’t a FG. He sent me this from his email:
(I put the guys statements in bold.)
So what do you guys think?
Difficult, not pointless. Many aestheticians argue that the fuzzy boundary around art is a relatively recent phenomenon, probably emerging around the same time as mass media. Prior to that, art was generally much more elitist, but after that there was the democratization of art.
When something is democratized (taken away from the elite and absorbed into the public), it necessarily becomes more broadly and less clearly defined. Nevertheless, it is an important topic of discussion because art is a relevant part of culture and history–and if one is to study or discuss art, it is important to know just what it is that one is studying or discussing. (Unfortunately, my own knowledge of aesthetics is pretty pathetic, so I couldn’t personally be of much help if someone asked me what art is or isn’t.)
Likewise with fighting games, if we’re to discuss which games are and aren’t fighting games, it’s pretty important to first know just what a fighting game is or isn’t first. If we were to trawl all games that could be termed “fighting games” using the few very basic criteria that we generally use now, I’m sure we could come up with some overwhelmingly common threads that more clearly typify the fighting genre. It’s not that it can’t be done, and it’s not that it would be completely pointless, but it would take so much research that most people here wouldn’t be willing to do it.
So we’re stuck with a very broad, ill-defined category here. And a category that is broad and ill-defined necessarily includes a lot of stuff that might be excluded from a better definition. Sorry, haters, but Smash is a fighting game… at least for the time being.
Don’t even bother with that argument. By your logic, any game where you fight anything is a fighter.
Alot of games have things that fighting games do. Life bars, super bars, rounds, blocking, combos. You have to consider what fighting games have that those games don’t.
Either way, Smash doesn’t deserve the recognition it gets due to it’s piss poor community.