Go to shoryuken.com for in-depth info on various fighting games' mechanics, and use that to inform yourself. Mainstream reviews, while not bad by virtue of being what they are, really are for the "layman," the dude what hasn't been informed on or knows much of the game being reviewed but is curious and wants to know if it's worth the money.
Does anyone else get angry when fighting games are given such rave reviews?
- Thread starter mrhappy1489
- Start date
Probably because there is just so much less in a fighting game than any non-fighting game.
Now, before all the fighting game fanatics start sending me hate mail, here is what I mean:
Fighting games are all about balance between characters (or the lack thereof, lulz), and the combat. Yes there is a little bit of storyline thrown in occasionally, and each character has their backstory details and whatnot, but in the end, every person that plays a fighting game cares about the action of the game; the fighting.
RPGs like Fallout have character builds, level design, story, etc.
Strategy games have a ridiculous amount of balancing, story, etc.
FPS' have balancing, combat, usually aesthetics, the dreaded realism, etc.
So you see, the reason Fighting games are able to acquire a much higher rating than you would like, is because they are rated on less than any other genre. No no no, I am not saying Fighting games are simple and childish, but a developer can focus all their effort on fewer aspects of a game than say, an RPG, in order to make a better game.
At least, thats what I think.
I personally suck at any fighting game that isn't Soul Calibur 2 or Super Smash Bros.
Now, before all the fighting game fanatics start sending me hate mail, here is what I mean:
Fighting games are all about balance between characters (or the lack thereof, lulz), and the combat. Yes there is a little bit of storyline thrown in occasionally, and each character has their backstory details and whatnot, but in the end, every person that plays a fighting game cares about the action of the game; the fighting.
RPGs like Fallout have character builds, level design, story, etc.
Strategy games have a ridiculous amount of balancing, story, etc.
FPS' have balancing, combat, usually aesthetics, the dreaded realism, etc.
So you see, the reason Fighting games are able to acquire a much higher rating than you would like, is because they are rated on less than any other genre. No no no, I am not saying Fighting games are simple and childish, but a developer can focus all their effort on fewer aspects of a game than say, an RPG, in order to make a better game.
At least, thats what I think.
I personally suck at any fighting game that isn't Soul Calibur 2 or Super Smash Bros.
Why the hell would I, a massive fighting game fan, be angry when a fighting game gets deserved rave reviews?
...I don't get it. You don't learn to play by playing? What, do you just hang out in training mode the entire time?The Heik said:
Only if I don't believe the game deserved it. Thats kind of a stupid question to begin with though. The only people who would respond positively to this thread are people who don't like fighting games.
The question I have to ask is.. Is this assessment based on the single player experience or multiplayer be it 1p vs 2p local or online.
Because if your just playing against AI.. then yes... the games are short on substantive content. However, much like FPSs the bulk of the games content comes from multiple player interaction.
Because if your just playing against AI.. then yes... the games are short on substantive content. However, much like FPSs the bulk of the games content comes from multiple player interaction.
[youtube]gvdf5n-zI14[/youtube] As with pretty much all videogame genres, there are some quality fighting games. Get Soul Calibur IV if you disagree.
Way to really add to the conversation there, guy.Buchholz101 said:
Comparing Fallout 3 and Street Fighter 4 is like comparing apples and oranges...hell that's not even right, it's like apples and cake. They are totally different styles and cater to totally different types of gamers.mrhappy1489 said:
I might add that people pour more hours into mastering Street Fighter 4 than would be necessary to master Fallout 3. How many Fallout 3 tournaments are hosted each year? I guarantee it's much less than SF4...so which is REALLY the "casual" game, and the "hardcore" game? The one where someone could simply read the instruction manual, play, level up, etc., or the one where you have to play for hours on end, getting better and better in order to beat someone who is doing the same thing?
No, that's ridiculous. Obviously someone going into a Fighting game has different expectations than someone going into an RPG like Fallout 3 or Oblivion. If you go into a Fighting game with the same expectations as you would say Fallout 3, you're inevitably going to be disappointed.
So when game reviewers rate a Fighting game, they rate it based on the expectations of Fighting Games and when they review RPGs they rate them based on the expectations of RPGs. The inherent flaw, of course, is that both are shown as an arbitrary number as opposed to a much more helpful detailed descriptive breakdown.
What DOES tick me off though is when games are given perfect scores when they clearly don't deserve them. I feel like the reviewers are being dishonest. On the other hand though, it's not like I ever trusted them to begin with anyway.
So when game reviewers rate a Fighting game, they rate it based on the expectations of Fighting Games and when they review RPGs they rate them based on the expectations of RPGs. The inherent flaw, of course, is that both are shown as an arbitrary number as opposed to a much more helpful detailed descriptive breakdown.
What DOES tick me off though is when games are given perfect scores when they clearly don't deserve them. I feel like the reviewers are being dishonest. On the other hand though, it's not like I ever trusted them to begin with anyway.
The OP asked a question, I answered it. There was no part asking me to explain or describe my position on the matter. If you'd like to talk about it, then ask me a question.Bobby_D said:
I don't really like fighting games but I can't deny that I get more playtime out of Mortal Kombat in an hour than I would out of Metal Gear 4.
That may be a bit of an unfair comparison. Someone else (probably more than one person) pointed out that fighting games offer their own style of play when compared to say, Fallout 3. I've had enough experience with enough fighting games to know that a good fighting game will play differently depending on who you're playing as. So in theory, playing as each character in Mortal Kombat or, Guilty Gear or, Tekken would be like playing a different game.
As for games like Street Fighter and the upcoming Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3...that kinda irks me. It's kinda like what EA does in it's sports division.
That may be a bit of an unfair comparison. Someone else (probably more than one person) pointed out that fighting games offer their own style of play when compared to say, Fallout 3. I've had enough experience with enough fighting games to know that a good fighting game will play differently depending on who you're playing as. So in theory, playing as each character in Mortal Kombat or, Guilty Gear or, Tekken would be like playing a different game.
As for games like Street Fighter and the upcoming Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3...that kinda irks me. It's kinda like what EA does in it's sports division.
I get more annoyed that Capcom can never just let a street figher game alone. SF4 gets good reviews and all off a sudden we get SF4: TURBO EDITION! SF4: TURBO CHAMPIONSHIP EDITION! SF4: TURBO CHAMPIONSHIP EDITION EXTREME EDITION PANTY RAID EXTREME!
And what annoys me is that they all get great scores and nobody calls them out on it.
And what annoys me is that they all get great scores and nobody calls them out on it.
Fighting game reviews are based on the fighting game part.
I appreciate good fighting games more than good action adventure/rpg games, if only because they do not tend to have an epic story to fall back on if the game mechanics are less than wonderful. They have one thing to do and they do it well. They deserve their score.
I appreciate good fighting games more than good action adventure/rpg games, if only because they do not tend to have an epic story to fall back on if the game mechanics are less than wonderful. They have one thing to do and they do it well. They deserve their score.
Those reviewers are payed to say nice things... put 1 and 1 together people and smell the coffee.
I just find it hilarious when fighting and sports games turn up with a 60$ price tag... what the shit
I just find it hilarious when fighting and sports games turn up with a 60$ price tag... what the shit
If you really think Fighting Games are casual just look up the Daigo vs. Justin wong match from a few years ago and pay attention to what Daigo Umehara does in the final round, nothing casual about doing that.mrhappy1489 said:
The OP almost has a point.
Those positive reviews are never justified. There are no game reviewers who can judge fighting games.
First of all, as with all genres, paid reviewers rate the games highly, because they fear the publishers will take away the fat juicy sausage in front of them.
Secondly, even a hardcore SF player cannot properly judge a new fighting game within just a few days, unless it's crap.
To find out if a game holds up really well competitively, you need to tap into months of shared experience between top players. Learn all the moves and counters. What is overpowered? What breaks the game?
The best a honest reviewer could do is say that a game is better than shit, or throw out a disclaimer that the review is for casual gamers, by a casual gamer.
Those positive reviews are never justified. There are no game reviewers who can judge fighting games.
First of all, as with all genres, paid reviewers rate the games highly, because they fear the publishers will take away the fat juicy sausage in front of them.
Secondly, even a hardcore SF player cannot properly judge a new fighting game within just a few days, unless it's crap.
To find out if a game holds up really well competitively, you need to tap into months of shared experience between top players. Learn all the moves and counters. What is overpowered? What breaks the game?
The best a honest reviewer could do is say that a game is better than shit, or throw out a disclaimer that the review is for casual gamers, by a casual gamer.