Gaming State of teh Fighting

[Brasil]

So, I've been thinking about this for a while now, pretty much since my Pittsburgh trip.

As you all know, it was a gigantic Smash Bros Melee tourney. I got schooled in the majority of it--sans a particular free-for-all in Hyrule Temple, in which I had taken 356% damage against a spectacular Marth player, who I'm very pleased to say I gave a run for his money, lol.

As I was chilling in the TV Lounge, I was speaking to Justin, the Vice President of OGS. We were talking about fighting games and how interest is generated in them.

Naturally, our conversation concentrated on Melee and Soul Calibur II for a while, during which Justin told me of his newly acquired distaste for Soul Calibur II, because he had played it so much. I was intrigued to say the least, and asked him why he had become so tired of it, only after a few months.

"It lacks something," he said, "It can't captivate the audience like Melee can. I mean, look at Melee, which has been out since 2001, and I look at this turn-out for a Melee Tournament."

It makes sense, too. SCII is an obvious deep engine. Just looking at the superficial mechanics, and you can tell there is a complex system in place. That's what draws people in, I think, the obvious deepness. They see 3D movement, weapons being flung about in 360 degrees, fully directional attacks, and subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, think, "That is a deep game."

Then what happens? They shrug off Melee as some second-rate, inferior, empty fighting game with an engine that belongs in the N64 era, or close to it.

But for a game like Melee, which is incredibly deep when the gamer becomes adept at it--I mean, the stuff I was seeing at this tourney was [i]incredible[/i]. I tell you, when someone bashes Pikachu, I snap at them. Some of these Pikachus at CMU held their own against the top-tier characters (Marth, Fox, Sheik) with little to no trouble at all.

Pikachu is regarded as a middle-tier character, too. And yet gamers continue to praise other games over Melee, simply based on a superficial ideal, lol.

So, my question to all here is, is this representational of the fighting genre? Is this why certain games do so well commercially and find so many gamers to admit they play them? I've found this is the case with SCII, especially.

I'm not against SCII, of course. It's a really great game, but it's limited in the sense that it doesn't have the speed of Melee, that I can't lay into someone with juggling, and when I'm able to, it doesn't feel intuitive like a few choice Melee characters.

I understand the different tastes of different gamers, but I feel certain fighting games are being disregarded simply by image.

What do you all think of the current fighting genre? Where do you see strengths? Weaknesses?

[Shinmaru]

Well, I'm not usually big on fighting games. I play a few every once in a while but, generally, they don't really hold my interest.

The problem, for me, anyway, is that some fighters try to be [i]too[/i] deep; some fighters pack in so much stuff to do and exploit that the game because a bit unenjoyable because you have to master this stuff in order to compete with the better players. That's always been kind of a turn-off to me.

Something like Melee is more my style, since it's deceptively simple rather than "hey, look at all this stuff you can do" deep. Melee is simple enough to be very approachable to the everyday person, yet can become very deep if you let it become so. I've never had a dull moment trying to master the characters of Smash Bros. Melee, heh.

So, yeah...fighters like Soul Calibur II, Tekken, etc. aren't really my style of fighting game, so I'm not gonna go into the whole "state of fighters" stuff; I just thought I'd offer up my comments on Smash Bros. Melee.

[otakukev]

Fighting games aren't my favorite, either; yet I find myself drawn to games like SSBM. I've never heard of any stereotypes between fighting games, but I can see how people would do that. I tend to play games that I think look fun rather than deep. I had gotten SSBM before SCII anyway, so I didn't stereotype against SSBM. Not that I would anyway, tho. :P

I agree with Shin about some fighting games being too deep. Developers just can't seem to keep it simple fighting; if I'd wanted an RPG I'd have gotten one. Take SCII, for example. The Weapon Master mode throws in a storyline, which wouldn't usually bother me. However, there was always some five paragraphs before each fight. They were always too lengthy. I would've preferred just the introduction at the beginning of each chapter. The story explanations took away from the enjoyment of the game for me. Not to say that it is a bad game; that's not my point. I just think it should be more about the fighting than the story.

Then there's Melee. I personally believe that it is one of the best multiplayer games of all time. It just doesn't get any better than four players duking it out at once. How many other games are there where you can beat someone with a paper fan? It is a great game despite the fact that it is mostly two dimensional. I think it would be hard to do a four-player brawl in 3D. Nothing quite compares to the chaos of SSBM; any other fighting game is slow in comparison.

It always bugs me when people are biased based on graphical display. Sure, more moving compatibility can be fun. However, the actual content of the game is what should be judged. So what if the characters in SCII can move any direction? There are only two players at any given time, and the arenas are smaller than the ones in SSBM. At first glance, Melee may not seem very deep. Like PoisonTongue said, it becomes very deep when the players are experts. Being able to execute perfect combos then juggling someone through the air is quite a unique experience. There are so many options even based on which character you choose; not just the fact that they all have different attacks, but they're all completely unique--not just different types of slashes, jabs, kicks, etc. While DK can hold on to someone and pull a kamikaze, Peach can throw veggies at another! How cool is that?

I guess my point is that games like SSBM should NOT be judged by their engines. It may be different, sure. But a fighting game is for fighting, not being able to move wherever you want.

You can barely even jump in SCII! :P

[Magnum Apex]

[color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Personally, the fighting game genre has evolved into something I'm not so attracted to. While growing up, I played virtually every single fighting game I ever came across to death. From Street Fighter to Pit Fighter, from Mortal Kombat to Power Moves to Killer Instinct to Clayfighter. I loved the genre.

Then, Tekken came along. It was fun, but it wasn't as good as the experience I had with Ryu or Sub Zero. Soul Calibur came along, and while it was fun, it didn't have a long, lasting appeal for me. Super Smash Bros. came along, and I felt left out because I just couldn't enjoy the game. It couldn't be my connection with the characters, as I've played with Samus, Link, Donkey Kong and Mario since childhood. I couldn't figure it out, but the two SSB games out there are not fun for me, [I]at all[/I]. I don't even consider them to be fighting games, contrary to popular belief.

Maybe I'm stuck in the 2D era of fighting games. When Marvel vs. Capcom came along, I played that game to death, as well as its sequel. I love that game. I've played Capcom vs. SNK 2, and I liked it, too. For me, the best fighting game ever created has been Street Fighter Alpha 3, and no fighter has come half as close to it, in my view. It's just what I like.[/color][/font]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cyke [/i]
[B][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]I couldn't figure it out, but the two SSB games out there are not fun for me, [I]at all[/I]. I don't even consider them to be fighting games, contrary to popular belief.[/color][/font] [/B][/QUOTE]

And why don't you consider them to be fighting games? That's just a bunch of elitist nonsense, in my opinion. Smash Bros. and Melee are just as legitimate as any other fighter; they just have a more "arcadey" (and I use arcadey loosely, since Smash Bros. can get much deeper than the normal arcade game) feel to them. Fighters that are similar to Smash Bros., such as Power Stone and its sequel, I would count into the fighting game genre, as well.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cyke [/i]
[B][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Maybe I'm stuck in the 2D era of fighting games. When Marvel vs. Capcom came along, I played that game to death, as well as its sequel. I love that game. I've played Capcom vs. SNK 2, and I liked it, too. For me, the best fighting game ever created has been Street Fighter Alpha 3, and no fighter has come half as close to it, in my view. It's just what I like.[/color][/font] [/B][/QUOTE]

Sad as it is to say, I'm probably stuck in the 2D era for fighters, as well. It's not for lack of giving 3D fighters every opportunity in the world (hell, I was pretty damn excited for Soul Calibur II's release), but I've never been able to get into 3D fighters all too much. Could be any number of things, heh.

Stuff like Marvel vs. Capcom (and its sequel), Smash Bros./Melee and Power Stone (and its sequel) are more my style of fighting game; fighters that maintain a ridiculous pace and really get me into the game and make it fun.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Shinmaru']And why don't you consider them to be fighting games? That's just a bunch of elitist nonsense, in my opinion. Smash Bros. and Melee are just as legitimate as any other fighter; they just have a more "arcadey" (and I use arcadey loosely, since Smash Bros. can get much deeper than the normal arcade game) feel to them. Fighters that are similar to Smash Bros., such as Power Stone and its sequel, I would count into the fighting game genre, as well.[/quote]

I don't know if elitist nonsense is the proper term, actually. See, from how the fighting genre looks today, and how the fans of the genre behave, I really don't think there is a conscious elitism present.

I really think the reason that a majority of gamers hate Smash Bros, is simply due to...peer pressure, I guess. Social stigma brainwashing, in a sense. Just visiting boards like IGN or Gamespot, there is this fanboy-ism that cannot be rationalized as elitism.

Elitism, from what I've seen, is not a blind distaste for something; elitism comes from experiencing the entire scope, or a very broad scope, of a genre, and thus being so well versed in that genre, that one is able to provide meaningful insight into why a game does not suit their needs.

I chalk up that "Smash hater" attitude to fanboy-ism.

[quote]Sad as it is to say, I'm probably stuck in the 2D era for fighters, as well. It's not for lack of giving 3D fighters every opportunity in the world (hell, I was pretty damn excited for Soul Calibur II's release), but I've never been able to get into 3D fighters all too much. Could be any number of things, heh.

Stuff like Marvel vs. Capcom (and its sequel), Smash Bros./Melee and Power Stone (and its sequel) are more my style of fighting game; fighters that maintain a ridiculous pace and really get me into the game and make it fun.[/QUOTE]

I think that since 2D was the original engine for fighting games--the engine that we grew up with, and the engine that laid the groundwork for the entire genre, our love for 2D comes out of familiarity.

Really, though, it's a matter of gameplay. The 3D fighters I've played have rather awkward mechanics, even Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance and SCII. Their engines do have faults, but SCII is an arcade game, first and foremost. The movement is pure arcade-based, which is disappointing.

SCII is a fun game, of course, but it seems to have a much greater window for button-mashing than MKDA or Melee. Playing it or even just watching someone play it, the moves can be linked, but they're so damn effective when used alone, why would anyone bother to learn the combos? Not to sound cruel, but...while SCII does have room for deeper mechanics, the shallow mechanics outweigh the deeper ones, I think.

That's one reason I love Melee; because yes, you can get corner-trapped and beaten to a bloody pulp, but you can still survive after the beating.

Perhaps it's a lack of skill on my part, but the damage in SCII is unbalanced. In fact, the life bar system is unbalanced. It's archaic, because it's not handled appropriately anymore, I think.

Case in point.

My average Melee match lasts 8 minutes. Some have even reached 13 minutes. I've had a few matches that have gone on for 18 minutes.

The only matches featuring life bar systems that have gone on that long have been in Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance with my brother.

Now, I'm not green when it comes to fighting games, lol. I like to think I know my way around them pretty well, and for that match length experience to only apply to Melee and MKDA is ridiculous. My longest SCII match lasts for 5 minutes.

Is it a matter of a quicker high? Faster not longer? I guess attention spans are waning?

Oh, speaking of fast fingers, Kung Fu Chaos is insane fun. It's one of the best lunatic fighting games I've played. It's so out there and so bizarre and so well executed, that it's a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant or pallid industry.

[James]

[QUOTE=PoisonTongue]
Perhaps it's a lack of skill on my part, but the damage in SCII is unbalanced. In fact, the life bar system is unbalanced. It's archaic, because it's not handled appropriately anymore, I think.

[/QUOTE][font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]I think that Soul Calibur II gets it right from square one. I mean, SCII is an example of a game where you [i]can [/i]button mash, for sure. But if you know the character's moves, you can definitely create a more in-depth experience. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]From my perspective, I'd tend not to compare SSBM to SCII. Although the two games are both fighters, they're also quite different.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Just look at a game like, say...Goldeneye. Compare that to Unreal Tournament. Both games are clearly first person shooters, but both games also have extremely different focuses.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I would tend to say that SSBM is more of a "party game" than SCII. Where SCII is more the focused, single-player experience, SSBM is a game where you're going to get more enjoyment with three other players. That's not to say that SSBM has a shallow single player mode (far from it), but the game is definitely designed more as a "frantic party game" than a really serious fighter.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]But since when does being a "serious fighter" make a game a [i]good [/i]fighter? ~_^[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I've thought, for a long time, that the fighting genre was getting really stale and boring. In fact, this is why I haven't bought any fighters since Soul Calibur on Dreamcast. My last three fighters were Super Smash Bros., Tekken 3 and Soul Calibur 2. I haven't bought any since then, despite the fact that some great ones have been released.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]One of the problems with fighting games, I think, is that developers are finding it hard to avoid the repetition in gameplay.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]This is why I like games like SSBM and PowerStone. Both of these games put a really unique spin on the whole genre.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I'm a huge PowerStone fan. If you have the opportunity to play PowerStone on Dreamcast...I really urge you to do it. It's a truly unique little game, with some nice art design and a fun atmosphere. It's pretty goofy -- it doesn't take itself seriously at all. The great thing is, it works really well.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I remember one level where you're in a bar and you can kick tables at one another. You can kick the tables and chairs in any direction and you can even jump up and hang from the rafters. It's really insane and [i]so [/i]much fun. It works so well because of precise collision detection and superb controls. While the actual movement isn't as fast as SSBM, the game is still incredibly fast-paced.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]Anyway, I'm rambling.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]As far as my feelings about fighting games over the years...I definitely used to play them a lot more back in the days of 2D. Street Fighter II and the Mortal Kombat series were favourites back then. At that time though, both franchises were really the bread and butter of the genre I think. Those and the other Capcom and SNK fighters, anyway.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I don't know if fighters have gotten worse (if anything they're probably a lot more sophisticated), it's just that my own tastes have evolved. If a fighter can interest me these days, then it's probably doing something pretty different. I'm just increasingly bored by the genre as a whole.[/color][/size][/font]

[AzureWolf]

[font=Georgia][color=blue]PoisonTongue, in as much the way you were enlightened to how competitive SSB:M can be by meeting better players, I think the same can be said about SCII. Try the presets and see how they fare in an official tourney, where all the players have memorized every characters' moves, down to that useless up-down combo.[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=blue][QUOTE][color=#696969]I remember one level where you're in a bar and you can kick tables at one another. You can kick the tables and chairs in any direction and you can even jump up and hang from the rafters. It's really insane and [i]so [/i]much fun. It works so well because of precise collision detection and superb controls. While the actual movement isn't as fast as SSBM, the game is still incredibly fast-paced.[/color][/QUOTE][color=blue] If you liked the first one, you should try your hand at at the second one, where two players do the same thing as you did in the first one. Not only that, but the stages were very dynamic: you actually had to keep up with them![/color][/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]As Powerstone testifies, a four player fighting game can be done in 3D. I myself am not a big fan of SCII. For one, my favorite character is not in the game, and it feels stiffer than the first one on DC. Nonetheless, if you want competition, SCII is the game to play. I don't know why no one ever gives the Virtua Fighter series a shot, even after almost every review said it was the best fighter out there. The reason might be along the lines of what you said, PT: that there's peer pressure preventing people from enjoying a game because of others' biases.[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]SSB:M, however, I do not see as one of those games. It was designed as a party game, and that's what it is best used for. What you have to take into consideration is that, although player X is capable of beating player A and player B separately, that does not mean player X can beat player A and player B at the same time. Additionally, player X and player Y, both better than player A and player B in a one-on-one, may not necessarily mean that team XY would beat team AB. There's an exponential difference in skill that occurs, or it might be that new, complex variables are introduced as more players are factored in. Whatever the case - multiplicity/splitting of skills, or additional variables - an individual's skill becomes less and less an influence on the outcome. We can all agree on this through experience, if nothing else, right?[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff][i]So, what about one-on-one's?[/i] Well, there lies the mechanics of the game. SSB:M was designed to be a party game, not a deep, complex fighter. That means that balancing the characters and other factors were targetted towards group playing. SCII, on the other hand, attempts to balance versus matches, where everything is balanced so that the only variable for all match-ups are the skill of the players. Obviously, neither truly succeed, but just looking at what each game aims to accomplish, and the fact that both games were made from very experienced and talented video game companies, can we agree to say that, at least with respect to artful fighting, SCII comes out on top?[/color][/font]

[Magnum Apex]

[quote name='Shinmaru']And why don't you consider them to be fighting games? That's just a bunch of elitist nonsense, in my opinion. Smash Bros. and Melee are just as legitimate as any other fighter; they just have a more "arcadey" (and I use arcadey loosely, since Smash Bros. can get much deeper than the normal arcade game) feel to them. Fighters that are similar to Smash Bros., such as Power Stone and its sequel, I would count into the fighting game genre, as well.[/quote]

[color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Yes, it just might be an elitist thing to say. I can't think of a convincing reason to explain why I feel that the SSB franchise is not a fighting game series, but it's just the way I feel. Whenever I play SSBM, I feel like I'm playing Mario Party rather than Street Fighter II, for example. It's not the arcade style, because I love the MARVEL vs. CAPCOM franchise, and it's not its goofy presentation, because I consider Clayfighter to be, well... a fighter.

The game simply doesn't sit well with me as a fighter, and I therefore can't categorize it under the genre.[/color][/font]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE=Cyke][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]Yes, it just might be an elitist thing to say. I can't think of a convincing reason to explain why I feel that the SSB franchise is not a fighting game series, but it's just the way I feel. Whenever I play SSBM, I feel like I'm playing Mario Party rather than Street Fighter II, for example. It's not the arcade style, because I love the MARVEL vs. CAPCOM franchise, and it's not its goofy presentation, because I consider Clayfighter to be, well... a fighter.

The game simply doesn't sit well with me as a fighter, and I therefore can't categorize it under the genre.[/color][/font][/QUOTE]

*shrugs* Your opinion, heh. I'm still of the opinion that Smash Bros. is a fighting game, albeit a fighting game that is definitely not of the norm.

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]SSB:M, however, I do not see as one of those games. It was designed as a party game, and that's what it is best used for. What you have to take into consideration is that, although player X is capable of beating player A and player B separately, that does not mean player X can beat player A and player B at the same time. Additionally, player X and player Y, both better than player A and player B in a one-on-one, may not necessarily mean that team XY would beat team AB. There's an exponential difference in skill that occurs, or it might be that new, complex variables are introduced as more players are factored in. Whatever the case - multiplicity/splitting of skills, or additional variables - an individual's skill becomes less and less an influence on the outcome. We can all agree on this through experience, if nothing else, right?[/color'][/font][/quote]

While an individual's skill may not be the only defining factor when it comes to determining the outcome of a Smash Bros. match, I wouldn't discount the effect that experience in Smash Bros. has in matches so easily.

In fact, I think the examples you mentioned serve quite well for this. For example, in the team battle, perhaps Team AB would simply have more experience as a team than XY - experience fighting as an individual does not always guarantee that you'll be good fighting in a team, as I'm quite sure you know. Conversely, if you put someone more inclined to team play in a fight with someone who has an abundance of single-player experience (as in no team play), the person with more single-player will most likely win.

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff][i]So, what about one-on-one's?[/i] Well, there lies the mechanics of the game. SSB:M was designed to be a party game, not a deep, complex fighter. That means that balancing the characters and other factors were targetted towards group playing. SCII, on the other hand, attempts to balance versus matches, where everything is balanced so that the only variable for all match-ups are the skill of the players. Obviously, neither truly succeed, but just looking at what each game aims to accomplish, and the fact that both games were made from very experienced and talented video game companies, can we agree to say that, at least with respect to artful fighting, SCII comes out on top?[/color'][/font][/quote]

Melee may not have been [i]designed[/i] to be a deep, complex fighter but it [i]can[/i] become one quite easily, I think. The Melee characters are balanced far better than people realize and can be countered with just about any character if you can use some simple strategy.

SCII may come out on top when it comes to delivering a more traditional (i.e. "artful") fighting game but sticking to traditions isn't what keeps me playing games.

[Charles]

All right, AzureWolf is [i]officially[/i] the man. I read through this thread, and up to his post, wondered why no one even made a passing mention of Virtua Fighter. It's simply not possible to entertain a discussion about fighting games without citing it. What a glaring oversight. Absolutely unforgivable.

There's a serious problem when even a few residents of a site pronounce Super Smash Brothers Melee as anything more than a brief footnote in the fighting genre whilst neglecting to give Virtua Fighter its just due. Futhermore, why are we even mentioning this party game in the same breath as Soul Calibur 2? We're talking apples and oranges here. Two games designed to achieve two entirely different purposes (which each title does well, respectively). They're not even interchangeable alternatives to one another.

That's exactly why the attractiveness of both titles will always depend on the audience in question. I'd hardly attribute Calibur's success to superficiality. That's an odd sentiment to express, especially in comparison to Melee, a game that [b]reaches[/b] for nostalgia. Namco really did an excellent job of fine-tuning an engine most considered perfect. Let's not attribute the depth of the mechanics to imagination for imagination's sake. Soul Calibur 2 is literally a game anyone can play, but few can master with a variety of characters. It's something a dedicated player must commit themselves to [i]learn.

[/i]As far as the entire genre is concerned, I think it's holding up well. Only recently it reached a Renaissance of sorts upon hosting two of the best fighters ever released in such a short span of time with Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution and Soul Calibur 2.

Really, guys, if you have yet to play Virtua Fighter Evolution, go out, do so [i]and then[/i] reply to this thread about your take on fighters. It's a bargain title I prefer to even Calibur II. Not for the complexity or the brilliant learning curve--but because it's simply an enjoyable experience no one should miss. Perfection realized. For those of you placingMelee in the same camp as traditional fighters, this is an absolute necessity.

Otherwise, fighters haven't become any more stagnant than other aging genres. Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance was fantastic; I greatly anticipate the prospect of playing the follow-up online. The Guilty Gear franchise should also continue with a four player installment. That'll be insanity, my friends--[i]pure insanity. [/i]

Fighters aren't flourishing but they aren't floundering as a whole either.