Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
What qualifies as a fighting game?
It just kind of bothers me, what qualifies as fighting game if Super Smash Bros., Power Stone and just about any mascot fighter aren't fighting games? Is it complex controls that require dexterity? Is it the anime style drawings? Is it all the little details such as priority, balance, hitboxes, etc? Why don't Super Smash Bros. and Power Stone quality as fighters? What exactly is a fighting game?
Comments
they aren't?
Super Smash Bros. Is definitely a fighting game.
Fighting/Platformer
There are sub genres of fighting games. Smash Brothers isn't the intense 'intellectual' (shut up I can't think of another word for it) fighter where moves are counted by the frames and cancels are a valid aspect.
On a side note, I hate how people act like the expansions made to solve balance issues are somehow gaming companies trying to fleece players. Those expansions are made for hardcore players to solve balance issues.
They are. The party game/mascot fighter distinction was created by elitist fighting game fans that don't want such a "casual" game being associated with their precious genre.
That is so true.
Except not really. Super Smash Brothers is a fighting game sure, but it's method of play is fundamentally different from a 2-D straight fighter like Street Fighter or Guilty Gear. It is technically a fighting game since there is fighting in it, but it's not a fighting game in the same way.
Which is why there's the insistence that Smash Brothers isn't a fighting game.
Smash Bros. is a weird case. It's not as straightforward in the fighting, nor is it as technically complex as a "straight" fighter; items, jumping around to reach people, ring out as win con, etc. But the method of combat is very much that of a fighting game, and it should still be thought of as such. I don't want to call it a "party fighting game," or anything like that, since high-level play is still very intense and dependent on reflexes as much as any other good fighter, but it's definitely a large variation on the formula. I guess Platforming Fighter is probably the best way to describe it?
Platform Fighter sounds good, but there's a lot of subtle aspects that change the way fighting is done, not the least of which is the stronger element of randomness in SSB, not to mention how you defeat your opponent, and while it is pretty intense on higher level, it just straight up doesn't have the complexity of your traditional fighter.
That's not a bad thing. Not every game has to have cancels and acknowledge the importance of single frames, but it does make it a different kind of game.
There's a surprising amount of jargon (and, therefore, complexity) in Smash Bros., considering how simple it appears to be. I looked at their wiki after it turned out that my roommate's friend is really good at it, and he's now become even more competitive about it and works on stuff like wavedashing now (or, wavedashing as they use it, which I think is different from wavedashing in the Tekken series). It's hardly as complex as Tekken, or as reliant on mindgames to take an advantage, but you can do a fair bit with it.
Oh you can, but they're very different things than you do with Blazblue.
My statement isn't that SSB is simpler/dumber/whatever than traditional fighting games, merely that they are fundamentally different games with some overlapping similarities.
I'd argue that the two are in different subgenres of fighting games, but are both definitely fighting games.
^^, ^ All of this is agreeable.
What All Nines said.
Query:
Do you think it's possible for a fighting game to be in a third-person, "over the shoulder" perspective? Or in a first-person perspective? What about a third-person isometric perspective?
There are already games that have done stuff like that. Or, at least, third-person isometric (the PS2 One Piece games were third-person isometric, I think). I wouldn't see how that's desirable for a 1v1 fighter, but it's doable. If there's one view I wouldn't get/want for a Fighting Game, it's first-person. With the way that the mechanics and everything play out, I could imagine it just being either very clunky or very slow.
That doesn't tell me much -- for instance, a game could be third-person isometric and call itself a fighting game, but meet widespread disagreement from the gamer community. A change of visual perspective also begs the question of how to qualify a fighting game, since something like Devil May Cry has many mechanical similarities but with much larger environments and waves of lesser enemies instead of a series of balanced, one-on-one fights.
Well then, that's when you would have to put in things like One-on-One matches, simple arenas, and ROUND 1 FIGHT, and character selection screen. The things that make it look like a fighting game.
The actually pretty good Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm series probably counts.
Yeah Anarchy Reigns takes place on a third-person view and is a brawl between multiple characters.