Does anyone else get angry when fighting games are given such rave reviews?

[mrhappy1489]

I was recently going through a list of games, and noticed that fighting games were obtaining ridiculously high reviews ratings. I know it might just be me, but I personally compare most fighting games to casual games as there really isn't much substance to the actual game in question, hell I got more from watching one of those mortal kombat videos on Machinima than I ever had from an actual game. What really ticked me off was that games like Fallout 3 were obtaining comparatively similar ratings with things like STREET FIGHTER 4! Like I said it might just be me, but I am curious to know if anyone feels similarly on the topic.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I get a little pissed when something like Marvel vs Capcom 3 gets rave reviews in spite of having painfully little content. The only fighting games (that I've played) I feel earn their heaps of praise, and perhaps deserve more, are the new Mortal Kombat and Tekken 6. Otherwise, a solid fighting system alone should not garner a great score. A solid fighting system should be regarded as the bare goddamn minimum.

 

[starwarsgeek]

No. Different genres come with different expectations. Many genres typically focus on the gameplay, so that's what the reviewers focus on. Tell me, if Street Fighter 5 has an amazing plot, but sloppy gameplay, would it be a good fighter?

Sometimes, a good story is a nice bonus, not a requirement.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

You don't understand a damn thing if you think fighters are like casual games.


Fighters are the deepest most hardcore games ever. They're more akin to a sport combined with learning a musical instrument.


Basically, infinitely harder than any and all FPS games or action ones.



"Content" in fighting games isn't the modes, that's a common misconception. Content is how much the actual combat system can support high level complex competition, everything else simply doesn't matter. If any of this shallow fluff such as time attack mode or spectator mode or god forbid that stupid thing in MK where you fight upside-down matters to you, it's a sign you're a newb at the genre and you really should delve deeper before opining about it.

 

[AgentBJ09]

I think it might be you, but I can see where you're coming from.

Fights are very short lived bouts of action, usually decided on a victor within less than a minute. So in a way, you can call them casual games given how short they can be, but when you're attacking someone else and trying to take them out before they do the same to you, there is a lot of skill involved to make sure the loser is not you.

That skill makes those games more fun, since you have to get good just as you would in Fallout New Vegas with using iron sights and scouting targets. If it's not a challenge, like in Marvel versus Capcom 3 with Simple Mode on, or in some other fighters with sticky controls or restrictive combos, then I can see how they may not deserve those high scores.

Fighters like MK9, Virtua Fighter 5, and BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger deserve those high scores however, because they really are good and take some skill to get good at. However, the fighting alone should not be what earns them that high score, which I think is where your frustration may be coming from.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

!!!!OMFGSCORPIONSKILLINGSOMEONEOMFG!!!!

Yeah, I hate it too.

 

[pspman45]

Here is the thing
a fighting game is a totally different experience. while the actual execution may seem monotonous, fighting games have to rely on having a large character roster, and fantastic graphics.
Take a look at Fallout 3, then look at Mortal Kombat 9 (the new one), and you'll see what I mean.
None of the characters share a voice or appearance (except the classic skins, but what did you expect?). There is also a ton more detail put into the little things, for example the X-ray attacks, and the graphical detail on the gore.

In Fallout 3, the graphics are pretty bad. don't argue with me, the textures are low quality compared to other games of the era, some of the characters have the same face, and you can tell when a voice actor is reused. the game is buggy and unstable at times, but it still is one of my favorite games ever.

Fighting games have to rely on Quality over Quantity. while there isn't much to do in it, the things there are to do are extremely polished and nice to look at.
(plus its also fun to laugh insanely loud when you are beating your friend to death with his own health bar XD )

 

[BRex21]

Fighters have never been my thing, but i do have fond memories of playing Tekken and sucessfully beating everyone i know through a system of random button mashing and/or selecting one button to mash. Granted im a person who likes story and immersion, and never seemed to get what i want from a fighter. I'm sure someone likes it if its good at what it does.

 

[badgersprite]

No. Different genres come with different expectations. Many genres typically focus on the gameplay, so that's what the reviewers focus on. Tell me, if Street Fighter 5 has an amazing plot, but sloppy gameplay, would it be a good fighter?

Sometimes, a good story is a nice bonus, not a requirement.

Yeah, this. If fighting games are getting rave reviews, it's because they're doing absolutely everything a great fighting game should do. They shouldn't get low scores because they're not doing things an RPG or FPS should be doing. That would be silly. It would be like a film critic giving Inception 1 star because it doesn't work as a romantic comedy.

 

[Kiefer13]

Just because you're not a massive fan of fighting games and prefer big open world RPGs like Fallout 3 instead doesn't make them inferior games. As has already been said, different genres come with different expectations. With RPGs like Fallout, long quest-lines, large open worlds to explore and plenty of different things to do are expected, and an RPG that has these things will naturally be marked highly. Fighting games aren't anything like RPGs, so they're rated on different things.

I'm not especially into fighting games myself. I enjoy playing them occasionally with friends, but they're certainly not a genre I would claim to have any kind of intricate knowledge of. But fans of fighting games can get just as much enjoyment out of a good one as you or I could get out of an RPG like Fallout 3. So why wouldn't they be rated similarly?

 

[Jack_Uzi]

I'll fight these reviewers to the death to make them change their view on how they think they should think about these games!! They deserve a honest fight to the death, though.

 

[Aris Khandr]

If the game is good, it deserves a good review. Street Fighter IV was a good game. Maybe not a good game for you, but you don't see me giving Goldeneye and Halo low scores because I don't like FPS games.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Others have said it already in various ways, but I think the simplest way to explain it is to ask a question in return:

Would you give chess a low score?

 

[Xooiid]

Blazblue and it's sequel [Yes, it's a sequel] were deserving of a good review because it actually had some semblance of replay and story. The characters were thought-out, a world was created to house them, and they took time to make an attempt.

Though I love me some MvC3, and will probably buy the new edition in November, I don't see them as on level with stuff like Assassin's Creed or Fallout, and that may be true for the reviewers as well. They may grade them on a separate scale, reserved for fighting games and such. Honestly, that's how i'd do it, mainly ecausethe people that are going to give 5 stars to Halo:Reach or Modern Warfare 3 probably wouldn't give the same to Fallout: New Vegas or Mass Effect 2, because they are, at least in experience, so radically different.

 

[Fidelias]

I kind of agree with you.

Now, I know that fighting games should be about fighting, I get that. But does the tweaking and balancing really take up that much time and effort? It's almost exactly the same as balancing perks and weapons in an fps, and fps's usually have a semi-decent story mode with multiple game modes and content.

The problem that I have with fighting games is that they aren't evolving, unlike the other genres. Even Mortal Kombat 9 only has a few extra content that's actually interesting and different. I mean, think about it, in the same amount of time that fps's have been introducing more weapons, made them semi-realistic, added better storylines, introduced rpg elements, etc., fighting games have, what, added a mode where you can fight without heads?

 

[The Heik]

You don't understand a damn thing if you think fighters are like casual games.


Fighters are the deepest most hardcore games ever. They're more akin to a sport combined with learning a musical instrument.


Basically, infinitely harder than any and all FPS games or action ones.



"Content" in fighting games isn't the modes, that's a common misconception. Content is how much the actual combat system can support high level complex competition, everything else simply doesn't matter. If any of this shallow fluff such as time attack mode or spectator mode or god forbid that stupid thing in MK where you fight upside-down matters to you, it's a sign you're a newb at the genre and you really should delve deeper before opining about it.

I half-agree with you. Fighters are indeed one of the most hardcore genres ever, but unfortunately it's only hardcore for those few people who invest enough time in it to become masters. Your average player will however consider it casual because they rarely go far enough into to get to that point.

I think that's where the OP is coming from. All these rave reviews usually come from experienced players of the genre, who praise the games as fantastic because they know the nuances of them, yet most people never see that true capability because the time and length it takes to get to that point usually turns off most players, and as such it seems like a much less appealing game.

Personally it's why I am not a fan of the fighting genre, as there's a lot of work in order to properly play the game. It's also not so replay friendly, as every time I swap a character I have to remember a whole new moveset, which reduces the actual amount of time that I'm playing.

By comparison, whenever I play a FPS, all I need to do is remember some basic buttons, then make the "combos" up as I go to match the situation. It's a focus on the player's individual skills right off the bat rather than a whole lot of grind and memorization in order to get to that intended play level.

 

[SonicKaos]

I know it might just be me, but I personally compare most fighting games to casual games as there really isn't much substance to the actual game in question,

That is your problem right there. Fighting games are actually THE MOST involving games out there, with an incredible amount of substance to them. However, the "average player" doesn't get into them enough to see it. I used to think the way that you did, until I got hooked on Street Fighter 4. Now I'm all about frame data, option selects, and p-linking my moves so that I make fewer execution errors.

If you don't know what any of those mean, it's because you're a casual fighting game player. Nothing wrong with that mind you, but fighting games have an insane amount of depth to them, and require a lot of practice/knowledge to perform well in. You have to know what mistake by an opponent can be punished by what move of your own, and you have to try to cause that player to make mistakes. The better you get, the more intricate and complex the game becomes. It eventually turns into an experience that goes beyond the game.

In a fighting game, you play the player more so than the game. It's all about mind games.

Fighting games are the most hardcore of hardcore games I believe.

PS. Captcha: two cents worth (how fitting lol)

Edit: Also, the people who review these fighting games almost always suck at them as well. I don't have a clue what they base their scores on, but I'm glad they rate some of them highly still. Pro's usually just complain about one thing or another that bother them in fighting games lol.

 

[mjc0961]

What really ticked me off was that games like Fallout 3 were obtaining comparatively similar ratings with things like STREET FIGHTER 4!

Yet another problem with review scores, or rather a problem with the people who like them interpreting them incorrectly.

Fallout 3 is an RPG. Street Fighter 4 is a fighting game. You should not be comparing their scores in the way you are. A 9 for Fallout 3 and a 9 for Street Fighter 4 would mean that Fallout 3 is a great RPG and Street Fighter 4 is a great fighting game. Not that Fallout 3 is as good as Street Fighter 4 and that Street Fighter 4 is as good as Fallout 3. They are two different types of games that can't really be compared, so you can't really compare their scores either.