not meaning to come off as a dick, but aren't you contradicting yourself? half of fighting game skill comes from memorizing those combos doesn't it?Stammer said:I prefer the Super Smash Bros. games. Reason being: they're extremely simple to play, you aren't required to memorize 100 combos per character, and button-mashing actually loses to skilled players.
It's literally the only fighting franchise that I don't despise with every bone in my body. So it's a pretty clear answer for me.
I guess it depends on one's own definition of "skill". Some people might consider the word to include memorization. Personally I just include execution and timing (which other games still require a lot of, don't get me wrong).suitepee7 said:not meaning to come off as a dick, but aren't you contradicting yourself? half of fighting game skill comes from memorizing those combos doesn't it?
Yeah, I get that there's variety in the genre. But you have to admit, all fighting games come down to a contest of two or more people beating each other up. Sure, some fighters use weapons, others don't. Sure, some are on a 2D plane while others involve side-stepping and such. But they're still all fighters with the same general premises and goals.Manji187 said:Wow...are you sure you want to lump them all together?
Not only will you be comparing apples and oranges (2D and 3D; allows side-stepping). But you'll be comparing different varieties of apples and oranges.
Good points. But I respectfully disagree. Yes...on a very general level fighting games are about 2 players beating each other up. There is an arena, there are life bars, there's always attacking and blocking involved.Odysseous2 said:Yeah, I get that there's variety in the genre. But you have to admit, all fighting games come down to a contest of two or more people beating each other up. Sure, some fighters use weapons, others don't. Sure, some are on a 2D plane while others involve side-stepping and such. But they're still all fighters with the same general premises and goals.Manji187 said:Wow...are you sure you want to lump them all together?
Not only will you be comparing apples and oranges (2D and 3D; allows side-stepping). But you'll be comparing different varieties of apples and oranges.
Comparing Tekken and Soul Calibur is like, for example, comparing Battlefield and Bulletstorm. Sure, they're entirely different in that Battlefield is realistic while Bulletstorm is completely off-the-wall. They have completely different plots and premises and general mechanics, and yet, they both just come down to shooting people. And it wouldn't be so difficult to have a debate over which one was better.
Just because they're different doesn't mean they're not comparable.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think we're on two different pages here lol. Of course it would be impossible to objectively prove that one thing is better than another if they are different things -- Again, Tekken and Soul Calibur, or Battlefield and Bulletstorm. But the fact of the matter is, when someone asks you what the "best" of something is, you're likely never going to actually prove your choice objectively. It all comes down to opinion in the end, and that's why it's possible to compare largely different franchises of the same genre.Manji187 said:Comparison would then prolly go by trait (like physical size)....but then comes the million dollar question. What the hell does "better" mean? When I say that a cat makes for a better pet than a tiger....I go for the domestication trait and make a statement that can be objectively tested/ proven.
When I say (just for the sake of argument) that Street Fighter's projectile mechanics (trait) suck in comparison to those of Garou: Mark of the Wolves...I'll have a hell of a time to objectively prove that statement. Because what would be "better" in this case and why? If I say that it's better because the speed at which it travels is slower by 0.1s (I'm making this shit up for the sake of argument)...you could legitimately say "why the fuck would that matter?" How does that point make it "better"?
That's the thing, here we're arguing so as to show that they're not.Odysseous2 said:For everyone who's wondering why so many of their more obscure favorites were left out of the poll, please remember that there are only 8 possible slots. The franchises I listed are arguably the most known/renowned, so if your favorite just happens to be something else, well, there's an "Other" option for a reason.
Well, that explains a lot (no sarcasm). In that case I find the name of the thread somewhat misleading. It would be more accurate to name it "the best fighting franchise to you/ for you" or "the fighting franchise you like best". Or was that implicit somehow, us being on an internet forum and all? I guess I just made the hasty assumption that it was supposed to be a REAL comparison...based on objective criteria, not subjective evaluation. Oh well, I guess I have learned something.Odysseous2 said:I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think we're on two different pages here lol. Of course it would be impossible to objectively prove that one thing is better than another if they are different things -- Again, Tekken and Soul Calibur, or Battlefield and Bulletstorm. But the fact of the matter is, when someone asks you what the "best" of something is, you're likely never going to actually prove your choice objectively. It all comes down to opinion in the end, and that's why it's possible to compare largely different franchises of the same genre.
If you ask me which is better, Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe or the MK 2011 release, I might say the 2011 release because it's on a 2-dimensional plane. But that's not to say a 2D plane is a better gameplay style than a 3D plane... It all comes down to what appeals to me personally. If you venture out to prove that 2D is better than 3D, you'll never do it objectively because both have their pros and cons. It all comes down to which of those pros and cons mean the most to us as individuals.
*takes a deep breath*
So yeah, if this thread was about finding the definitive "right answer" to the best fighting franchise, then these comparisons would be impossible. But it's not, and that's why the votes are spread so evenly. Because everyone has their personal favorite, regardless of how difficult they all are to objectively compare.
I personally like Dead or Alive, The King Of Fighters, Blazblue, Guilty Gear, Virtua Fighter, Arcana Heart, Melty Blood and anything else you left off the list.Odysseous2 said:snip
Ahhhh quoted for so much truth. There was a time in soul calibur two I'll always remember fondly... Taki had EXC and life was good.But there's nothing quite like a well-balanced fighting game where a skilled player can feed a novice their own ass before they know what's what. So, what franchise is best?