Why do you think FGs aren't in the mainstream eye like shooters are competitively

Kalyx_triaD · January 15, 2009, 2:40am

I am so old. Kids born in the 90’s really make me stare at the ground.

And its good to have some youth opinions on the matter.

DoctaMario · January 15, 2009, 3:06am

I think this is a great idea. I remember in that old Fighter Destiny 2 game for the N64, you could manipulate the time, how many points it would take to win a match, how many points a ring out, special finish, etc were worth, how big the arena was, etc. It would really make it so that players could customize the game they wanted to play. Noobs could have a “no throws” room, while the big boy room could be anything and everything the game allows.

Kalyx_triaD · January 15, 2009, 3:13am

Fighter’s Destiny was an awesome concept. Now that I think about it, a fighting game’s lack of options may well be one of its bigger disadvantages in the gaming market.

jamiejame911 · January 15, 2009, 3:13am

Kalyx_triaD:

Now we’re talking differences in conventions. In a shooter, it’s just plain SMART to avoid gun-fire, flank, and take as much advantage of your enemies as possible.

I explained the difference between fighter competitiveness and FPS matches to my nephew like this: In a fighting game you want at all times to face an equal or stronger opponent. You want a fair and balanced playing field and viable options in any given situations to see who is the better combatant. In a shooting game the goals are same, crush your opponent, but the journey is reverse. In a shooter you want to take advantage of your opponents disadvantages. You must exploit blind spots, group fire a single enemy, toss grenades prior to an ambush, use elevated positions, control the power weapons, and whatever else so much as you’re not flat out glitching the game.

In other words you want to create a challenging environment in a fighter, but an ‘easy to win’ scenario in a shooter. That’s why squash matches are a bore to watch in a fighter as oppose to a tit for tat contests, while blowing out the other team in a shooter is celebrated.

Both genres have high level play, so trying to apply negative connotations to one is folly as far as what I’ve been seeing in this thread goes. Particularly the “Shooters=Newbs” thing going on. Fighting games fell off the mainstream because they were getting too hardcore (among other factors).

The truth!

Momotaro · January 15, 2009, 3:22am

Smash Bros. had a similar option like this. Look what happened to their community.

Kristoph · January 15, 2009, 3:30am

Not much, unless you’re talking about Brawl.

Kalyx_triaD · January 15, 2009, 3:35am

I don’t see Hammers and Pokemon in SF or KOF. We’re talking two different stables here. I was merely suggesting a option set similar to FPS games. People like options haven’t you heard.

Momotaro · January 15, 2009, 3:37am

Sorry I didn’t specify myself. Yes I was talking about Brawl.

Kalyx_triaD · January 15, 2009, 3:42am

The Brawl community bears little impact to the average purchaser of Brawl, who I’d imagine appreciated the options given.

lol, the Brawl community’s a bit yahoo anyway.

Vampire_Saviour · January 15, 2009, 3:51am

This, and the fact that there’s far more mainstream interest in mindless action (Run, point, shoot; yes, I’m saying the genre is boring) in the US.

All of my casual gamer friends who watch me play FG’s (note that they watch me, and do not play) tell me that it looks too hard, or too complicated to learn. I even beat them in the FPS games that they play and claim to be skilled at.

Momotaro · January 15, 2009, 4:01am

So true. Like the old man from Enter the Dragon said, “Any bloody fool can pull a trigger.”

Dandy_J · January 15, 2009, 4:08am

Kalyx_triaD:

Now we’re talking differences in conventions. In a shooter, it’s just plain SMART to avoid gun-fire, flank, and take as much advantage of your enemies as possible.

I explained the difference between fighter competitiveness and FPS matches to my nephew like this: In a fighting game you want at all times to face an equal or stronger opponent. You want a fair and balanced playing field and viable options in any given situations to see who is the better combatant. In a shooting game the goals are same, crush your opponent, but the journey is reverse. In a shooter you want to take advantage of your opponents disadvantages. You must exploit blind spots, group fire a single enemy, toss grenades prior to an ambush, use elevated positions, control the power weapons, and whatever else so much as you’re not flat out glitching the game.

In other words you want to create a challenging environment in a fighter, but an ‘easy to win’ scenario in a shooter. That’s why squash matches are a bore to watch in a fighter as oppose to a tit for tat contests, while blowing out the other team in a shooter is celebrated.

Both genres have high level play, so trying to apply negative connotations to one is folly as far as what I’ve been seeing in this thread goes. Particularly the “Shooters=Newbs” thing going on. Fighting games fell off the mainstream because they were getting too hardcore (among other factors).

I don’t really agree with anything here, I mean you’re just talking about things that are anecdotal or come down to opinion. People getting raped in fighters can be hype (remember Soo vs Justin exhibition a few years back?), and close matches in FPS games are definitely celebrated. That shit has more to do with the people and who they are than the games themselves. In a fighting game, you can exploit good/bad match ups, or use some kind of tactic that counters the play style of your opponent, and play safe to minimize risk and maximize rewards. That’s straight up basic game theory, and it applies to both fighting games and FPS games just the same.

snaek · January 15, 2009, 4:19am

Kalyx_triaD:

I explained the difference between fighter competitiveness and FPS matches to my nephew like this: In a fighting game you want at all times to face an equal or stronger opponent. You want a fair and balanced playing field and viable options in any given situations to see who is the better combatant. In a shooting game the goals are same, crush your opponent, but the journey is reverse. In a shooter you want to take advantage of your opponents disadvantages. You must exploit blind spots, group fire a single enemy, toss grenades prior to an ambush, use elevated positions, control the power weapons, and whatever else so much as you’re not flat out glitching the game.

In other words you want to create a challenging environment in a fighter, but an ‘easy to win’ scenario in a shooter. That’s why squash matches are a bore to watch in a fighter as oppose to a tit for tat contests, while blowing out the other team in a shooter is celebrated.

that is soooo wrong
and i feel sowrie for ur nephew for bein fed this bullcrap

can we plz get back on track and compare competitive fighters vs competitive fps?
and not comparing competitive fighters vs casual fps?

like wtf…of course its not gonna be a fair fight and ppl will think fighters r harder when u compare competitive vs casual… -___-’

Kalyx_triaD · January 15, 2009, 4:21am

Who was talking about casual FPS? The post above yours dealt with my post more elegantly than this rubble. C’mon dude. :rolleyes:

snaek · January 15, 2009, 4:24am

only the first part was directed to u
the rest was directed to almost every other post…but im not gonna bother to quote the whole thread…

Kros · January 15, 2009, 4:35am

Second.

ElderGOD · January 15, 2009, 4:49am

Yes, fighting games have a huge flaw, they require at least two people for them to be fun, that means that if a person wants to enjoy a fighting game, that said person must have at least one friend.

If you have no friends, you’re shit out of luck.

Fighting games are awesome, endless replay value imo.

Mag-fucking-neto.

Kalyx_triaD · January 15, 2009, 5:18am

My nephew’s an avid gamer in his own right and legit kicked my ass in Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm on PS3, a far more inclusive game than most past fighters. I’ve been tutoring him as a gamer since he was 3 and I find his own decisions regarding the industry are well informed and I’m proud. I rather not have someone come out and rip on one of my lessons between uncle and nephew - it wasn’t the point of the post and you had no business judging my interaction with family.

Anyway, I wonder how companies will ride the wave SF4 and HDR is causing. Will they take advantage is bring fighters back to the mainstream? Even shooters were niche until console FPS’ like GoldenEye and Halo shot it to primetime advertising. Then the Rainbow Six’s, Call of Duty’s, and Fall of Man’s of the world had to sustain. What fighting games will sustain the wave in the future?

System_1 · January 15, 2009, 5:27am

qw, vq3, and promode are the only fpeses worth playing

everything else is absolutely awful

warsow might end up decent if the devs get their act together

snaek · January 15, 2009, 5:28am

ur intentions may be good
but im sowrie…the point in ur original post was pretty biased and nowhere near correct
both viewpoints exist in both games

and if u dun feel comfortable bout me commenting on ur point while mentioning ur nephew
then dun include ur nephew in ur point…