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

[The Heik]

Why the hell would I, a massive fighting game fan, be angry when a fighting game gets deserved rave reviews?

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.

...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?

No what I meant is that in order to reach the point where you can play at the intended level for a fighing game (ie the hardcore level) you have to grind through a lot of the game where you're effectively at a handicap because you haven't played enough to memorize all the character's moves, and that handicap resets every time you swap a character. That's a lot of work in order to reach the point where you can properly apply your personal skills into the mix, and I generally dislike any game where I feel like I have to study for a test in order to play in my free time.

A shooter doesn't have this. Right from the start you have the same simple moves as your opponent and victory exists in using your skills to apply these moves in order to match your situation.

It's a case of application versus memorization.

 

[Feylynn]

No.
Fighting games have way more content than Fallout 3 if you enjoy them and take them seriously, they are an entirely different model.

I'm not big in fighting games and I personally got way more play time out of Fallout then Soul Calibur, BlazBlue, Guilty Gear, and MvC combined.
But I'd rate BlazBlue specifically higher than fallout any day for having a better story, more interesting characters, better graphics and aesthetics, smoother mechanics, and better audio be it voice or music, more original everything, cooler world.
Granted much of this is subjective, if not all of it, that's part of the point though.

The only reasons it doesn't have more playtime is
A: PS3 title, I'm a PC gamer, just inconvenient to switch my monitor and sound setup over to use my PS3, which is overheated and done now anyways.
B: I'm terrible at fighters and have no hope of ever breaking free of my narrow skill cap and playing competitively thus quickly loses its appeal.

I find it strange you'd use the term casual with fighters because I think fighter is one of the most hardcore came genre there is. Hundreds of hours mastering basic techniques and complex split second combo inputs.
(RTS is the first thing that comes to mind for more hardcore than that)
Fighters being so hardcore is the reason I like Fallout more.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

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.

What more do you want than a great fighting system? Fighting games are multiplayer games. If you don't have a friend to play with or an internet connection, then fighting games just aren't for you I'm afraid. I'd much rather a developer spend more time tweaking and balancing a game than adding a bunch of useless single-player elements that no one gives a damn about. This isn't Mass Effect, it doesn't need a story.

 

[Genixma]

If any Tekken, Soulcali, or Street Fighter is getting "Rave" Reviews I know they're getting paid and for Street Fighter I get the feeling it's more for Nostalgia.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Why the hell would I, a massive fighting game fan, be angry when a fighting game gets deserved rave reviews?

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.

...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?

No what I meant is that in order to reach the point where you can play at the intended level for a fighing game (ie the hardcore level) you have to grind through a lot of the game where you're effectively at a handicap because you haven't played enough to memorize all the character's moves, and that handicap resets every time you swap a character. That's a lot of work in order to reach the point where you can properly apply your personal skills into the mix, and I generally dislike any game where I feel like I have to study for a test in order to play in my free time.

A shooter doesn't have this. Right from the start you have the same simple moves as your opponent and victory exists in using your skills to apply these moves in order to match your situation.

It's a case of application versus memorization.

Why do you play fighting games like that? Where are you getting the idea that they have an "intended" way to be played, or that it matters in the slightest what other peoples' intentions for you are?

I mean, if you don't like fighters, fine, I can totally understand, but that's the most bizarre reason I've ever heard for doing so since Yahtzee compared them to minigames. In fact, this whole thread seems to make that weird, dichotomous distinction between "hardcore" and "casual" players not only like it actually means much, but that those are the only two types of fighting game fans there are. Maybe it's just me, but when I play fighters, I just glance at the movelists every so often and play normally. Since I invariably get better at the game and pick up some advanced skills on my own, I'm certainly not a casual, but since I don't actively seek out ways to break the game or focus all my attention on fighting other people of tournament-level skill, I'm certainly not hardcore.

It might be a perspective thing. I and other fighting game fans see a character roster with different movelists and playstyles, and we think "hey, more content!" It's not a test of skill to have so much to work with, it's variety. It's why we complain about character clones; why have two characters who play exactly the same? That's the comparison I could make to a shooter...but then, I'm not a shooter fan at all. The only shooter I've played since Duke Nukem 3D that I liked was Team Fortress 2...because it has a roster of nine, very different characters and playstyles I can switch between.

I'm under the impression that you just don't find the fighting game mechanics all that fun to play with, something again I can totally understand (I'm the opposite, I can play a good fighting game like Arcana Heart or Melty Blood for hours at a time, just to play). It's more comprehensible than some psychological block that there's an intended "endgame" of hardcore skill. I'm inclined more towards the "screw the hardcore" crowd, myself...

 

[Keldon888]

I don't really understand this thread, if you don't like a genre of games you probably can't view it objectively, especially compared to a genre you do like.

What I like is better than what you like.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I get a little annoyed and often puzzled, but then again, I'm really not a fan of fighting games at all.
I can kind of see how others would enjoy them, but I personally don't see the appeal.

 

[The Heik]

Why do you play fighting games like that? Where are you getting the idea that they have an "intended" way to be played, or that it matters in the slightest what other peoples' intentions for you are?

I mean, if you don't like fighters, fine, I can totally understand, but that's the most bizarre reason I've ever heard for doing so since Yahtzee compared them to minigames. In fact, this whole thread seems to make that weird, dichotomous distinction between "hardcore" and "casual" players not only like it actually means much, but that those are the only two types of fighting game fans there are. Maybe it's just me, but when I play fighters, I just glance at the movelists every so often and play normally. Since I invariably get better at the game and pick up some advanced skills on my own, I'm certainly not a casual, but since I don't actively seek out ways to break the game or focus all my attention on fighting other people of tournament-level skill, I'm certainly not hardcore.

It might be a perspective thing. I and other fighting game fans see a character roster with different movelists and playstyles, and we think "hey, more content!" It's not a test of skill to have so much to work with, it's variety. It's why we complain about character clones; why have two characters who play exactly the same? That's the comparison I could make to a shooter...but then, I'm not a shooter fan at all. The only shooter I've played since Duke Nukem 3D that I liked was Team Fortress 2...because it has a roster of nine, very different characters and playstyles I can switch between.

I'm under the impression that you just don't find the fighting game mechanics all that fun to play with, something again I can totally understand (I'm the opposite, I can play a good fighting game like Arcana Heart or Melty Blood for hours at a time, just to play). It's more comprehensible than some psychological block that there's an intended "endgame" of hardcore skill. I'm inclined more towards the "screw the hardcore" crowd, myself...

Every game has an intended way for it to be played, as the designers all have a certain direction they want to go with their product. Though this intended direction often gets thrown out the window the minute any player gets their hands on it.

And yes I don't really like fighting games, but then again, that's just my personal perspective on it. I'm a reactionary player, who values split-second adaptation over long-term evolution. It doesn't mean the genre is by any means bad. If you love 'em then more power to you man.

It's simply that whenever the fighting genre is compared to others (and it inevitably is) you notice that there are some pretty big gaps in certain respective parts. The real strengths of fighting games only really start to shine once you've dedicated a not-insignificant amount of time into playing them, and most people don't usually spend that much consecutive time on it, leading the players of such games to usually form into two groups; those that occasionally play it, usually with friends because it's a genre that allows for quick player rotation, and those that truly like the game enough to play it thoroughly, becoming more aware of the details and nuances. And these groups get invariably classified as casual and hardcore players respectively. Which I think is the reason why this thread was started in the first place

 

[Chessrk]

All I'm basically hearing in this thread by the anti-fighting game people is:

"I don't like fighting games and have a skewed outlook on what makes a game good. Because I do not like fighting games, they should be deemed garbage by the gaming community. "

"Fighting Games are casual games" & "I hate fighting games because i have to learn how to play them"

=/

Some people don't like Chess; Some people don't see it as anymore than a simple game, but that doesn't make chess any less popular or respected in the world today. The world doesn't revolve around your own tastes; people need to figure that out.