Yeah it’s shame those elements were dropped from both games as they were a real attempt at moving those series forward. They obviously had too many problems with balancing out how things work and keeping some sort of consistentcy with all those stage variables in play. The issue is that these are tournament fighting games so there always having to consider how these sort of innovations affect serious tournament play. I excpect it makes them reluctant to make any drastic changes.
Dead or Alive 5 looks like it’s really gonna try something new but there calling it fighting entertainment rather than a fighting game which makes me wonder.
As a spectacle it looks fresh and exciting but will it hold up to serious competitive play?
Tekken vs Street Fighter is the other one I’m looking at for major innovation but I would hope that both the Tekken and VF series would one day have another stab at the uneven/undulating stages they tried before.
Because Smash is a platform game mechanically, SNR has alot of shoot 'em up elements, but it’s not really a shoot 'em up now is it. You can play Smash as a platformer, in fact Brawl has a mode that allows you to do just that (Subspace Emissary).
Had Smash been released as primarily focused on a Subspace Emissary like singleplayer mode, then we wouldn’t even be having this argument. Unless off course, you’re saying that multiplayer modes of singleplayer games, as long as they fit within the rules of what “makes Smash a fighter” in your eyes makes them fighters as well.
But really, would you consider stuff like the mp mode of Bionic Commando ReArmed a fighter (platform versus like Smash)? Or would you consider the versus mode of Catherine a fighter (still some physical combat involved, only difference is you win either by making your opponent fall off, or reaching the top first)?
That’s the problem, it’s only you, not what everyone else thinks.
Fighter’s are still not sports games/sims and sports sims still aren’t fighters. They may have started out as similar to martial arts tournaments, but the genre has grown separate and beyond that, into contexts beyond simple martial arts tournaments (most Arc System games aren’t even based on an aribitrary tournament).
Ok, someone define what a fighting game is then. Also, is this a fighting game:
Keep in mind it’s a “UFC/MMA” game with submissions and all that stuff but it’s “arcade fighter style” akin to Tekken(ie. to win you have to deplete a lifebar, no flash kos and so on). Also by that logic as far as Touhou goes, if the games had a bonus mode that turned the game into a shmup, could we argue then it’s not a fighter? Tekken has an entire third person beat em up mode using Tekken’s mechanics but changed around to fit that mode, that doesn’t magically make Tekken not a fighter anymore than a platform Smash mode making Smash not a fighter.
when asked why he thinks Smash Bros is popular despite popularity in fighting games declining: “I think it’s because it is, in fact, not a fighting game. The nature of it is similar to a sports game in which the player shoots an opponent as if it were a ball. The results are different [every time you play], which, I think, is also a unique and attractive quality of the game.”
I don’t know what more you need when the guy who made the game tells you its not a fighting game, its not a fighting game.
Try telling Melee players Melee isn’t a fighter. Also lol considering that’s the same guy who added tripping and removed depth from the games because “it makes people feel bad when they lose”. If Ono made SF5 and added a feature where you can randomly slip and fall during specials, and items, then claimed it’s akin to a sports game and not a fighter, would that make SF5 not a fighter anymore because Ono said so?
Oh wait, they’re adding a gem customization system to SFxTekken and from what I’ve been hearing it’s in the main game and not a special mode. So is allowing players to customize character’s move properties ok in fighters now? I always figured fighter fans would throw a shitfit over stuff like that.
Oh btw I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that Seth Killian considered Smash a fighter, so what gives?
Fighting game = does it have the name Capcom, Aksys, SNK or Namco on it
This topic scratches head
Lol @ boxing games not being a fighting game because it’s realistic enough to be called a simulator (conveniently ignore OG fighters were based on the martial art tournament idea and then deviated away from that over time). If this is not what you were implying, please elaborate because I see the same respect to space and zoning, same end objective of defeating your opponent before he defeats you, same idea of combat to achieve the goal.
And Gran Turismo is no longer a racing game because it’s gotten “too real”?
Fighting game is not some sacred idea that has to follow some strict standards, those are just your guidelines for what you would consider a fighter.
Just because it goes against your traditional idea of what a fighting should encompass doesn’t make it not a “fighting game”.
Virtua On = fighter
That Vs mode in ZOE = fighter
Ready to Rumble = fighter
Smash = fighter, even with all the shit he tried to add to the game to make as far from a fighter as can be, he ultimately made a fighter
Armored Core AC vs AC is a fighter
Shit just call it an “alternative fighter” if it hurts that much to consider as much a fighter as SF/Tekken. Different branches from the same tree.
I have a problem with this for basically that reason. It should not be called a fighting game, or terminology should be evolved that separates regular 2D and 3D fighters from games like Smash, Gundam Vs., Power Stone and a bunch of others. “Fighting games” implies a fairly narrow set of games united by similar basic systems, mechanics and concepts. Smash is definitely a competitive versus game, but it is also definitely not the same kind of game as say, Street Fighter or Arcana Heart. Hence…
…nope! Wouldn’t call that a fighting game. You can find parallels to a lot of the behaviour you see in fighting games in other versus games but unless they are actually reproduced I would hesitate to call them that. Is Senko no Ronde a fighting game? Dissidia? I feel similarly about Smash. That’s not to say it’s a bad competitive game, just that people tend to quarrel about this issue a lot when it’s more a question of semantics than anything else.
I kind of think “versus action game” would describe the overall set of these games (including Smash, Fighters, Gundam, everything), but that’s just personal musings with no real basis in shit.
Definitions exist so that they can help us, not hinder us. These games are wildly different and using the same term for them is pointless, it just causes bickering. If you have some sort of issue with them not being labelled fighters (i.e. every versus game where you control a single character is a fighter… actually what IS the definition?) then we can maybe find some other term for the games on SRK. Alternative fighter isn’t too bad to be honest, for the other games.
Say, is 1v1 Bloodline Champions a fighting game? How about 1v1 Q3? How about Death Vegas?
If its not built as a fighter, if its core mechanics deviate to greatly from the standard it cannot be classified as a fighter, its as simple as that smash is not a fighter the closest it gets is some sort of spin off genera.
Ok, Melee is not a fighter
and what has this got to do with anything other than the fact that the guy who made the game never set out to make a fighter.
If Ono decided the next Street Fighter game was not going to be a fighting game then it would not be a fighting game, Much like how Guilty Gear 2 Overture is not a fighting game
adding customization does not change the games base mechanics in any way shape or form, what exactly is your point here?
Remind me again what has Seth Killian got to do with smash?
Iv been a part of the AC community for over 10 years and i don’t think i have heard anyone ever call it a fighter lol
Blah blah all these labels
Here’s what I’ve figured from my time here
2D Fighters = Fighting games modeled after the 80s/90s arcade fighters
Anime fighters = 2D fighters not made by Capcom or SNK (I thought it was just airdash-y, combo heavy games but how wrong was I)
Doujin fighters = Anime fighters with a low budget
3D Fighters = Tekken/Virtua Fighter/Soul Calibur/Dead or Alive
Alternative Fighters = Fighters that make SRK have hissy fits if you group them together with SF games like boxing games, Smash, Virtua On
Okay, I didn’t mean to get people off on a tangent about whether Smash Bros. is a fighting game or not. It was just an example. Let’s not get off track here.
The standard parts to a fighting game are (off the top of my head):
three-direction jumping using up on the joystick
high/low blocking
normal attacks that use simple button presses and special attacks that require more involved motions
special attacks do chip damage if blocked
2/3 rounds
timed matches, highest life total wins on a time-out
2-d movement only
throws that circumvent blocking
That’s a lot of specific stuff that’s nearly universal, and there’s probably more I’m forgetting. There’s nothing wrong with these things. They’re a good system, and that’s why they’ve been copied so many times. I was just saying it would be okay to think outside the box a little more often. I can understand Capcom using this stuff in all their games, and it’s hard to knock SNK for doing it at this point, but I don’t see why every other company needs to stick so close to Capcom’s base formula.
The only real variations that have been done (outside of Smash and other debateable (apparently) fighters) are the 3-d fighters, which all sort of do the same thing too.
Oh and Khentimentiu, are you seriously suggesting giving chars moves diff properties based on items you have so they play differently doesn’t change anything?
Had Street Fighter II been released with literally only the results screen stages, where floating heads trash talk each other, and the game was focused on that, then SFII would have been a visual novel. Yet Street Fighter II was not. And Smash Bros. was not. How is Smash Bros. mechanically a platform game when characters have a multitude of physical attack options (a single attack button for normals and one for specials, with directional buttons cycling through the different normals and specials)? Platformers like Super Mario Bros. have very limited attack functions. If you touch an enemy you usually die unless you’re jumping on them. You can’t juggle the first goomba you see in World 1-1. Mario is a platformer because jumping on platforms and reaching the end of the stage is how you win the game. In Smash Bros, beating up a guy who is also trying to beat you up is how you win the game.
If you’re going to continue defending your position, you have to list in minute detail all of the ways Smash Bros. is NOT a fighter, versus the many ways that it is.
I can’t speak for ReArmed but in Catherine, you only have a very limited amount of physical attack options (mainly shoving and pillow slapping last I saw). Fighting games have a focus on attacking an opponent with a wide variety of physical attacks. Yie Ar Kung Fu has this. Smash Bros. has this. Even Senko no Ronde has this. Catherine does not.
And you have to try harder than saying “you’re wrong because many people on Shoryuken.com disagree with you.” Tell me, exactly, how I am wrong.
I have already pointed out that it is irrelevant whether an individual fighting game is based on a tournament storyline and setting or not. The games are still set up like competitive sports. There is an arbitrary timer. There is a flat arena. Whether the setting is the inside of a clock tower or a blue mat in a sports arena, whether the fighters are wearing coats with belt buckles and spiky hair or karate gis and crew cuts, the rules of every traditional fighting game sets itself up like a simulation of a combat sport. Lifebars represent karate point systems. Matches are usually comprised of the best two-out-of-three rounds.
There are two schools of thought regarding the placement of sports games (I’ll include the likes of NBA Jam and Madden with UFC Unleashed and Fight Night here) in the tree of video game genres. Fighting games are merely a huge subgenre of action games, which platformers, FPSs, beat 'em ups, etc. belong to. Simulation games are games which aptly simulate and gamify aspects of everyday life. Sports take place in real life, yes, but they’re also games that exist independent of reality.
Examples of action games:
Pac-Man
Street Fighter
Mega Man
Castlevania
Call of Duty
Examples of simulation games:
Sim City
Rollercoaster Tycoon
Panzer General
Wonder Project J2
The IDOLM@STER
If action games and simulation games are two of the five or six major branches of video game genres, then where does Fight Night Champion lie? Sure, it’s a simulation game, but it has more in common with the games in the action branch than games in the simulation branch. Maybe it’s a … hybrid that includes elements from both types of game? Just maybe?
Smash Bros. is a mixed child. It’s father was Donkey Kong, but it’s mom was Street Fighter II. Senko no Ronde’s dad is Dodonpachi, but its mom was also Street Fighter II. Does being a mixed race fighter negate that you’re a fighter at all?
THIS is the evolution in FG, but ppl scrapped it badly. A true GEM obscured by the ones that didnt like change, a REWARDING and MAD FUN and DEEp fighter in all that matters, and one tha can mix casual players hold by the execution barriers with over the top zonners and all-footsies players.
Behold (yes we got tournaments for this ish and watch the comeback at the end)
Between CV:Judgment and Primal Rage, you have a habit for sticking up for some of the least-loved fighters… which is actually kinda cool, haha.
This may be old news for you, but Ninja Gaiden 3 will have an online vs mode. It won’t be the main focus of the game, of course, but it does seem like they’re treating it with some importance.
Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks also a versus mode… people who have spent some time with it liked it better than the 3D MK fighting games.
Japan already has a solution. Smash is classified separately as a “V.S. Platform” game (while traditional FGs are classified as “V.S. Fighting”). Why certain communities can’t accept this separation is beyond me.
False. Platformers can have highly involved and detailed combat systems. What defines a platformer is that involves moving around platforms on a stage. Also, one of the most ubiquitous ways to die in a platform game is to get sent off screen, either by falling off the platform, or getting moved beyond the visible edges of the screen for certains tages - something which Smash replicates since being sent off screen is the only way to die in it.
But we don’t go around calling them “fighting games” now do we?
So what defines a fighter is moving around on a flat floor? Are Tekken 4 and VF 3 not real fighters then, since a bunch of the stages had odd terrain?
Khentimentiu, one of the things I’ve seen said commonly among fighting game fans is that you can’t have randomness occuring in games or customizations that affect gameplay(ie. it’s ok for Kazuya to have an item in Tekken that lets him shoot an eye laser, it’s not ok for him to have an item where different players can change how EWGF works mechanically or changing the timings of said move). So how is having that in SFxTekken not breaking one of the “rules” of a fighting game? See what I mean? When people keep coming up with all these rules of what makes a game a fighter and generally basing them off of what SF or a similar game did, you then end up with examples of games doing things that then break these rules. How far does it go? If Smash isn’t a fighter because it has platforms, is SFxTekken not a fighter because it breaks the rules by letting people edit how attacks function and thus eschewing established balance?
Fighter fans generally look down on Mugen for the very ability it gives you to change properties of moves like that, calling it “not a real fighter”(even when some quality mugen fans are such hardcore fighter fans they pour endlessly through frame data to recreate a character flawlessly like the real games), same as how people said SF3 “4th Strike” doesn’t count because the guy making it is changing established move properties. So if Ono lets us do it, now it’s ok to break these rules, but if some guy in Mugen takes real game data and recreates Ken accurate to SF3 but gives his Dragon punch some sort of frame advantage that wasn’t in the game originally, he committed an unholy sin?
Also as a Bloody Roar fan this is rather ironic, seeing as how I’ve seen people who had the gall to claim BR wasn’t a “real fighter” but a party game akin to Smash due to the ease of comboing/doing moves as well as the beast transformation system; comparing the games to Soul Calibur 2/Tekken as to how a “true 3d fighter must be”. What would you think of some person claiming BR is a party game not a true fighter because “It doesn’t follow all of the established tried and true things that make Tekken the industry standard for 3d fighters, and the beast system is much more akin to a system found in Devil May Cry games, not a fighter. Fighters shouldn’t allow characters that transform and gain entirely new moves and properties on attacks.”
You’re oversimplifying. The environment and the moving around it is part of what defines platformers, but not fighting games.
What defines a game as a fighter, or as part any other genre, is that it follows the mold, the tropes and memes set by the pioneers of the genre. In the case of fighting games that would be basically Street Fighter 2. Games may borrow, innovate, evolve or add on to the groundwork laid by it, but in the end, they can still trace their lineage to Street Fighter 2 (in the same way most Fantasy can trace itself back to LoTR (and further down to the Ring of the Nibelung)). Smash only takes one thing from SF2, which is player vs. player combat, and even then PvP combat wasn’t something inherently unique to SF2. This is why I’ve always espoused the way the Japanese have classified it. They realized that it doesn’t really fit with other fighting games and hence have classified it as “VS - Platform.”
Except Smash(well Melee, can’t speak for Brawl), doesn’t just take “one thing” from SF2; it had features in the combat such as comboing, canceling, wavedashing, and other things that are considered features evolved from fighters, not platformers. I’m assuming the combat is what makes a fighter separate from other genres with pvp, if the environment apparently is not. Smash is vastly different from a “platformer”, it isn’t like they just took Super Mario or Kid Chameleon and let you beat up another player, they added a complexity to the combat generally only found in fighting games(the fact Sakurai felt he had to dumb down Melee means it must have had some form of complexity to it). Dissidia has platformer elements in some of the ways Smash has, that doesn’t make it a platformer with pvp slapped on to it, does it? So what kind of innovation or evolution is allowed before a game reaches a certain threshold and is no longer considered a fighter?