Poll: Best fighting game franchise?

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

SSB.
I really like how i mixes fighter gameplay with platforming, managing to create deep gameplay with only somewhere around 12 different moves for each character, excluding moving and jumping.
It seems more about doing the right things in the right circumstances, than about remembering 100 different moves/combos.
Beeing able to know how to do everything the characters can do very very fast, leaving the real challenge to be how to use those moves proberbly is great, and one of the few cases in which i'll use the "less is more" phrase.
I just played SSBB today after ages of not playing it, and got back into the routine of controlling the characters and making them do what i wanted to with ease in only a few minutes, but when i play tekken (which don't get me wrong, i also enjoy a lot) i spend the first 10 minutes of each character trying to remember how to pull off the different moves, while still limiting myself to a fraction of the characters full moveset, even if it's only been a month since i last played.

I really appreciate how they added costumization regarding what items will spawn, so you can avoid the element of randomness, by excluding the most powerfull items, if that displeases you, and how you can even create your own maps.

While all this is fine and dandy, you need to realize that the element of "how you use the moves you have available" being the focus is still there even in games with moves to be memorized, yes there is work involved, much more work than in SSB, but in the end, once everything is mastered, you're left with a much more complex and deep game to play due to the simply vast array of options available to you.

In short, if you can do all those complex moves whenever you want through practicing enough, then you have 100 moves to use in the same easy fashion that SSB functions on. Can you see how much more fun that would be?


Every player who is good has no trouble doing moves, it still is a matter of applying the easily executable moves properly, only with more moves there's more variety, more complex situations and better gameplay as a result, which is a good thing.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Fighting games are about high level reflexes, intense situational adaptation, thinking on your feet, perfect memorization and execution of complex inputs and a high level of competitive spirit that will drive a person to spend a lot of time and effort in "getting good".

Or you spam the cheapest moves...

Sorry, I'm not saying your comments have no value, just reading that reminded me of something. When I played Soul Calibur (#?, can't remember) at the arcade, the only way I could beat Nightmare and ...(what's his name, the poster boy of the aryan race... long blond guy, big sword...) on the harder difficulties was to pick the chick with the spear/pole and poke them to death/off the edge. I basically turned that game into a single button, button masher... till some asshole put in a quarter and crushed me and my 4 pokes of doom in an area around 20-25 seconds...

I did win one round through pokes, I think he took it personally though due to the beating I got in the final round.

 

[Xeraxis]

To most all, Smash Brothers of course. Glad they are making another one soon, but I wonder what direction they'll take it. I still play the original Smash from time to time.

Close second is Marvel vs. Capcom.

 

[Saelune]

Not sure which s best. Street Fighter is certainly most popular, but I prefer Mortal Kombat which actually is probably one of the deepest games...atleast story wise.

 

[mitchell271]

I love Tekken and vs. Capcom games, but BlazBlue takes my vote. Love those games

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Fighting games are about high level reflexes, intense situational adaptation, thinking on your feet, perfect memorization and execution of complex inputs and a high level of competitive spirit that will drive a person to spend a lot of time and effort in "getting good".

Or you spam the cheapest moves...

Sorry, I'm not saying your comments have no value, just reading that reminded me of something. When I played Soul Calibur (#?, can't remember) at the arcade, the only way I could beat Nightmare and ...(what's his name, the poster boy of the aryan race... long blond guy, big sword...) on the harder difficulties was to pick the chick with the spear/pole and poke them to death/off the edge. I basically turned that game into a single button, button masher... till some asshole put in a quarter and crushed me and my 4 pokes of doom in an area around 20-25 seconds...

I did win one round through pokes, I think he took it personally though due to the beating I got in the final round.

Here's the thing, you simply weren't good enough.

If you're good at the game then mashing is always less profitable, simple as that. It's always better to do a highly complex combo with great skill and timing, at least that's how it is in soul calibur. Sure, if you're a noob at the game then the ratio of skill/reward will indeed reward mashing over trying to do normal moves and messing them up, getting yourself killed in the process, that has nothing to do with the game though, your skill (or lack thereof) is the only issue here. Practice over long time periods will fix this every time.


If a fighter is best played at it's highest level by mashing the same button over and over, it's simply a bad game, a broken game, and we just leave it at that, though no current fighter is that so your point is sorta moot.

 

[teisjm]

SSB.
I really like how i mixes fighter gameplay with platforming, managing to create deep gameplay with only somewhere around 12 different moves for each character, excluding moving and jumping.
It seems more about doing the right things in the right circumstances, than about remembering 100 different moves/combos.
Beeing able to know how to do everything the characters can do very very fast, leaving the real challenge to be how to use those moves proberbly is great, and one of the few cases in which i'll use the "less is more" phrase.
I just played SSBB today after ages of not playing it, and got back into the routine of controlling the characters and making them do what i wanted to with ease in only a few minutes, but when i play tekken (which don't get me wrong, i also enjoy a lot) i spend the first 10 minutes of each character trying to remember how to pull off the different moves, while still limiting myself to a fraction of the characters full moveset, even if it's only been a month since i last played.

I really appreciate how they added costumization regarding what items will spawn, so you can avoid the element of randomness, by excluding the most powerfull items, if that displeases you, and how you can even create your own maps.

While all this is fine and dandy, you need to realize that the element of "how you use the moves you have available" being the focus is still there even in games with moves to be memorized, yes there is work involved, much more work than in SSB, but in the end, once everything is mastered, you're left with a much more complex and deep game to play due to the simply vast array of options available to you.

In short, if you can do all those complex moves whenever you want through practicing enough, then you have 100 moves to use in the same easy fashion that SSB functions on. Can you see how much more fun that would be?


Every player who is good has no trouble doing moves, it still is a matter of applying the easily executable moves properly, only with more moves there's more variety, more complex situations and better gameplay as a result, which is a good thing.

I guess i didn't make myself clear enough, it's the effective simplicity of the figting elements combined with the platforming that makes SSB my favourite.
I'm fully aware, that other fighters (i'll use tekken as example here, cause thats the only one i've played a lot) have way more depth to the choice of moves used, by having mroe moves, and that it opens up a lot more split second decision making when you make it past button mashing, but the fact that every map is the same save for cosmetics, and not affecting the gameplay, apart from one not having borders, removes a lot of depth in that aspect of gameplay.
Sure, if you play SSBB on final destiantion (plain flat map without anything happening) without items dropping, you won't get anywhere near the depth found in a fighter with novel-lentgh command lists, but SSB has maps that are more than just a flat ground, and there is more going on than just you and your opponents actions.
SSB also allows for more than 2 players to play at a time, adding a whole new dimension compared to fighers only allowing 2 players at once.

I'm not gonna try to figure out some objective way to calculate which has more depth, it would be useless anyways, as what someone like is not objectively based solely on depth, and SSBB and tekken works very differently, so they're not easily compareable.

Just out of curriosity, as for me to better understand, have you played any of the SSB games? I'm not trying to get to a point where i can imply that you're wrong by default just for not having played it, that would be stupid, i'm just tring to figure out how in depth i need to explain the features of the game, or whetehr you're as familliar with them as i am, for the sake of the discussion. For refference, i'm only familliar with SSB and tekken, and not a competitive (as in tournaments) player in either.

 

[Odysseous2]

Hm. Looks like we have a real debate on our hands.

Sonic has lasted this long too, so have a bunch of other mediocre to horrible series.

I'll admit that, yes, Sonic is both popular and horrible. But this is because of entirely different circumstances than MK. Sonic is popular because it used to be good. It was right up there with Mario in competing for the hypothetical "crown" of 2D platformers. The reason his name's gone down the toilet now is because 2D platformers are obsolete. Now all Sonic can do is rip off of God of War. So, in theory, it's not even the same game anymore. If you're going to judge the Sonic franchise as a whole, you need to pick one or the other to judge: The time-honored 2D classic, or the modern JRPG-esque God of War clones.

Mortal Kombat, on the other hand, never changed its motif. It stayed a fighter for as long as it's been around. It's not getting a free ride off of any past greatness -- I'd even venture to say that it's better now than it ever has been. Because Sonic changed its motif halfway through his career, his career trends are incomparable to Mortal Kombat.

Now, don't get me wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. If you don't like MK, then that's that. But most everyone will agree with me that, even though it isn't inherently a tournament-level fighter, it's still one of the biggest names in fighting games ever. And that's why it's on the list.

Again, this topic is titled "BEST fighting game franchise"

First of all, yes, I do realize this thread is a bit aptly titled. But think of it like this... If I had called it "Favorite fighting game franchise," everyone would simply be listing what games they like. There would be no debate, because the title wouldn't encourage comparison. Whereas if I called it "BEST fighting franchise" (like I did), it would evoke debate, like we're having now. And what's the point of a forum thread without debate?

And besides. It's nearly impossible to prove that one thing is "better" than another unless the things being compared are practically identical, which fighting franchises are not. In most cases, when one uses the word "best," it's going to be subjectively. I can say that Mortal Kombat is the best fighting game franchise ever, and I wouldn't be wrong. Know why? Because that statement is based on opinion. I can't be *proven* wrong. So I still think it's entirely appropriate to call the thread a matter of "better and best."

A fighting game expert is someone who is at a really high level of skill at the games. Having played every game on the poll means nothing, a lot of gamers have done much more and they too are still nowhere near as good as the experts.

I beg to differ. I suppose you *can* call someone who's good at games an "expert," but does that affect their ability to judge whether the game is good or not? I don't think so. I think I'm about average when it comes to fighting game skill -- I've never competed in tournaments, but I can beat most of my friends fairly easily. Now, just because I'm not an "expert" at these games, does that suddenly make my ability to judge them as works less valid? I think how good you are at a game is fairly irrelevant to the question of whether the game is good or not.

Your simplistic view on what makes fighters good is bothersome. You're like a little kid explaining to his mom why you like these games.

I do understand the level of skill and depth that goes into fighting games. I'm not belittling that. But if you think very, very generally, then you'll find that fighting games are about *fighting!* I know, right? It's a true revelation. Just like all first-person shooting games come down to, well... Shooting. That's not to say that I don't believe the games ever go any deeper. I definitely do. But what I'm saying is that genres are determined by what the game does at its most general level. If the game hosts two players attacking each other in a quick, spectacular melee, you can immediately narrow down the genre to one of two things: Fighter or hack-and-slash.

No, I don't think fighting games are just about punching people. But yes, I do think the *genre* as a whole is just about punching people. That's how you tell that you're playing a fighter.

Again, this thread is about which series is "best", GG is pretty much THAT. To not have it in cause it's not popular or "technologically up to date" enough is just ignorant.

Thinking that Guilty Gear is the best fighting franchise is an opinion of yours. I respect that. But I don't respect when you try to make that opinion look like a fact. Look at the results of the poll. Lots of people would disagree with you. It's impossible to determine which series is *objectively* the best, and that's why this debate is happening in the first place.

As much as you might hate to admit it, Guilty Gear is a name that really only fighting enthusiasts would know. The Escapist is a community for gamers of all shapes and sizes. Thus, I picked the most known and renowned titles to include in the poll, because those titles are the ones most people will know. Ask any casual gamer if he's heard of Tekken or Street Fighter and he'll say yes. They're household names. And that's evidence to just how far the series have come. Guilty Gear? Not a household name. And again, I'm not downgrading its importance, but these other franchises are famous for a reason.

My apologies for the wall of text.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

SSB.
I really like how i mixes fighter gameplay with platforming, managing to create deep gameplay with only somewhere around 12 different moves for each character, excluding moving and jumping.
It seems more about doing the right things in the right circumstances, than about remembering 100 different moves/combos.
Beeing able to know how to do everything the characters can do very very fast, leaving the real challenge to be how to use those moves proberbly is great, and one of the few cases in which i'll use the "less is more" phrase.
I just played SSBB today after ages of not playing it, and got back into the routine of controlling the characters and making them do what i wanted to with ease in only a few minutes, but when i play tekken (which don't get me wrong, i also enjoy a lot) i spend the first 10 minutes of each character trying to remember how to pull off the different moves, while still limiting myself to a fraction of the characters full moveset, even if it's only been a month since i last played.

I really appreciate how they added costumization regarding what items will spawn, so you can avoid the element of randomness, by excluding the most powerfull items, if that displeases you, and how you can even create your own maps.

While all this is fine and dandy, you need to realize that the element of "how you use the moves you have available" being the focus is still there even in games with moves to be memorized, yes there is work involved, much more work than in SSB, but in the end, once everything is mastered, you're left with a much more complex and deep game to play due to the simply vast array of options available to you.

In short, if you can do all those complex moves whenever you want through practicing enough, then you have 100 moves to use in the same easy fashion that SSB functions on. Can you see how much more fun that would be?


Every player who is good has no trouble doing moves, it still is a matter of applying the easily executable moves properly, only with more moves there's more variety, more complex situations and better gameplay as a result, which is a good thing.

I guess i didn't make myself clear enough, it's the effective simplicity of the figting elements combined with the platforming that makes SSB my favourite.
I'm fully aware, that other fighters (i'll use tekken as example here, cause thats the only one i've played a lot) have way more depth to the choice of moves used, by having mroe moves, and that it opens up a lot more split second decision making when you make it past button mashing, but the fact that every map is the same save for cosmetics, and not affecting the gameplay, apart from one not having borders, removes a lot of depth in that aspect of gameplay.
Sure, if you play SSBB on final destiantion (plain flat map without anything happening) without items dropping, you won't get anywhere near the depth found in a fighter with novel-lentgh command lists, but SSB has maps that are more than just a flat ground, and there is more going on than just you and your opponents actions.
SSB also allows for more than 2 players to play at a time, adding a whole new dimension compared to fighers only allowing 2 players at once.

I'm not gonna try to figure out some objective way to calculate which has more depth, it would be useless anyways, as what someone like is not objectively based solely on depth, and SSBB and tekken works very differently, so they're not easily compareable.

Just out of curriosity, as for me to better understand, have you played any of the SSB games? I'm not trying to get to a point where i can imply that you're wrong by default just for not having played it, that would be stupid, i'm just tring to figure out how in depth i need to explain the features of the game, or whetehr you're as familliar with them as i am, for the sake of the discussion. For refference, i'm only familliar with SSB and tekken, and not a competitive (as in tournaments) player in either.

Yeah, I own Brawl, I even got it on the midnight event, stayed up till midnight with a bunch of other folk. Do I pass?


Listen, I know brawl is fun, it's just not the same kind of fun as deep fighters. Anything besides 2-3 stages and any items at all completely broke the game and turned it into a game of luck. Playing it as you say without any items on final destination was indeed shallow compared to most fighters out there but it was by FAR the most fun way to play it despite that. I don't wanna get killed by not being worse than my opponent, just because the stage decided to give you a golden hammer at the moment that it did. That whole mood is fine for parties and is what makes SSB more of a party game than a fighting game.

The multiplayer element also adds to this.

As for tekken, I've been playing it since 1996, it's really not the deepest game ever made and depth doesn't solely stem from the sheer volume of moves but also by the way one move can lead onto another. Tekken doesn't have that much of this and it's combos are all mostly juggles.


Try out blazblue: continuum shift one of these days, it has a deep tutorial for newbies and the characters only have about an average of 10-15 special attacks and another 15 or so of normal ones, it's more about all the permutations and sequences available to you than simply memorizing 130 button inputs and that's why I prefer it to tekken.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'll admit that, yes, Sonic is both popular and horrible. But this is because of entirely different circumstances than MK. Sonic is popular because it used to be good. It was right up there with Mario in competing for the hypothetical "crown" of 2D platformers. The reason his name's gone down the toilet now is because 2D platformers are obsolete. Now all Sonic can do is rip off of God of War. So, in theory, it's not even the same game anymore. If you're going to judge the Sonic franchise as a whole, you need to pick one or the other to judge: The time-honored 2D classic, or the modern JRPG-esque God of War clones.

Mortal Kombat, on the other hand, never changed its motif. It stayed a fighter for as long as it's been around. It's not getting a free ride off of any past greatness -- I'd even venture to say that it's better now than it ever has been. Because Sonic changed its motif halfway through his career, his career trends are incomparable to Mortal Kombat.

Now, don't get me wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. If you don't like MK, then that's that. But most everyone will agree with me that, even though it isn't inherently a tournament-level fighter, it's still one of the biggest names in fighting games ever. And that's why it's on the list.

I'd argue that MK has strayed farther away from it's original form and only now returned.

Sonic has always been sonic, it's just that the spinoffs were different. The main sonic games have never strayed. To liken something like the werehog sonic game with sonic 1-4 is to say that Legacy of Sub Zero is a proper MK game.

MK is jumping around dimensions and trying to be a fighting game by being shallow and gory and adding in super meters and combos that are second hand imitations of actual systems in actually good fighting games and gets praised for that. I find this turn of events highly irrational and it's really not that much open to interpetation as is is simply observed.

First of all, yes, I do realize this thread is a bit aptly titled. But think of it like this... If I had called it "Favorite fighting game franchise," everyone would simply be listing what games they like. There would be no debate, because the title wouldn't encourage comparison. Whereas if I called it "BEST fighting franchise" (like I did), it would evoke debate, like we're having now. And what's the point of a forum thread without debate?

And besides. It's nearly impossible to prove that one thing is "better" than another unless the things being compared are practically identical, which fighting franchises are not. In most cases, when one uses the word "best," it's going to be subjectively. I can say that Mortal Kombat is the best fighting game franchise ever, and I wouldn't be wrong. Know why? Because that statement is based on opinion. I can't be *proven* wrong. So I still think it's entirely appropriate to call the thread a matter of "better and best."

I think a thread shouldn't be made with a reactionary thought process in mind, making a thread to cause debates is arguably trolling you know. As for the title, if something is best there's a lot of criteria to be calculated, I know we wouldn't be able to actually crown one the best but any and all meaningful criteria would have instantly disqualified SSB and MK from any potential consideration. That's what's bothering me right now, that there either are no criteria upon which the selection was made or that it's simply the "best popular fighting series", instead of simply the best, regardless of popularity. Like in that "our awards" episodes of extra credits, we shouldn't only list blockbusters in our lists, we should simply go for the best, even if it's not as well known.

I beg to differ. I suppose you *can* call someone who's good at games an "expert," but does that affect their ability to judge whether the game is good or not? I don't think so. I think I'm about average when it comes to fighting game skill -- I've never competed in tournaments, but I can beat most of my friends fairly easily. Now, just because I'm not an "expert" at these games, does that suddenly make my ability to judge them as works less valid? I think how good you are at a game is fairly irrelevant to the question of whether the game is good or not.

If a game is broken, the experts are those who find out how, if it has easily exploitable mechanics or devolves into stupidity at it's highest level of play, it's a bad game, and only experts play games at their highest levels thus their opinions are law.

In Japan, new fighting games get these events called "location tests" where expert players are invited by the developers to try an experimental build of a new game and deliver their opinions. Then the developers CHANGE the game based on the opinions of the expert players, so as to make it good. If that isn't a show of expert player's opinions mattering more than yours, nothing will ever be.

I do understand the level of skill that goes into fighting games. I'm not downgrading that. But if you think very, very generally, then you'll find that fighting games are about *fighting!* I know, right? It's a true revelation. Just like all first-person shooting games come down to, well... Shooting. That's not to say that I don't believe the games ever go any deeper. I definitely do. But what I'm saying is that genres are determined by what the game does at its most general level. If the game hosts two players attacking each other in a quick, spectacular melee, you can immediately narrow down the genre to one of two things: Fighter or hack-and-slash.

No, I don't think fighting games are just about punching people. But yes, I do think the *genre* as a whole is just about punching people. That's how you tell that you're playing a fighter.

There's more walking than shooting in an FPS, if you don't walk right all your shots will hit air or floor, should we call them FPWs? There's more combat than role-playing in an RPG, should we call those CPGs? Stupid little word games like that don't work. Yes at the basest level fighting games are about two guys fighting...but is fighting what "normal people" would consider fighting or is it something else? Most normal fighting is out of the window, replaced by anime-style exploits or kung-fu movie antics. "Theatrical Brawling games" would be more closely deceptive of a title.


Say, how about we do NOT actually take the title of a genre at face value? Why don't we just let them have that name for simplicity's sake but don't actually attach any further expectations or responsibilities to it beyond loosely relating to it, hmmm?

Thinking that Guilty Gear is the best fighting franchise is an opinion of yours. I respect that. But I don't respect when you try to make that opinion look like a fact. Look at the results of the poll. Lots of people would disagree with you. It's impossible to determine which series is *objectively* the best, and that's why this debate is happening in the first place.

As much as you might hate to admit it, Guilty Gear is a name that really only fighting enthusiasts would know. The Escapist is a community for gamers of all shapes and sizes. Thus, I picked the most known and renowned titles to include in the poll, because those titles are the ones most people will know. Ask any casual gamer if he's heard of Tekken or Street Fighter and he'll say yes. They're household names. And that's evidence to just how far the series have come. Guilty Gear? Not a household name. And again, I'm not downgrading its importance, but these other franchises are famous for a reason.

My apologies for the wall of text.

I said "pretty much" because it's hard to define. I didn't say I thought it was, I said that that would be my choice were I forced to decide.


The results here are as they are due to the nature of your list, that's why I'm mad! XD

Had you not listed SSB, all of these votes wouldn't have actually gone in it. Had you not given the option for anyone who may have played a game but doesn't truly know or care that much to vote, the picture would be much different and IMO closer to the true picture of "the best fighting game franchise".

 

[teisjm]

SSB.
I really like how i mixes fighter gameplay with platforming, managing to create deep gameplay with only somewhere around 12 different moves for each character, excluding moving and jumping.
It seems more about doing the right things in the right circumstances, than about remembering 100 different moves/combos.
Beeing able to know how to do everything the characters can do very very fast, leaving the real challenge to be how to use those moves proberbly is great, and one of the few cases in which i'll use the "less is more" phrase.
I just played SSBB today after ages of not playing it, and got back into the routine of controlling the characters and making them do what i wanted to with ease in only a few minutes, but when i play tekken (which don't get me wrong, i also enjoy a lot) i spend the first 10 minutes of each character trying to remember how to pull off the different moves, while still limiting myself to a fraction of the characters full moveset, even if it's only been a month since i last played.

I really appreciate how they added costumization regarding what items will spawn, so you can avoid the element of randomness, by excluding the most powerfull items, if that displeases you, and how you can even create your own maps.

While all this is fine and dandy, you need to realize that the element of "how you use the moves you have available" being the focus is still there even in games with moves to be memorized, yes there is work involved, much more work than in SSB, but in the end, once everything is mastered, you're left with a much more complex and deep game to play due to the simply vast array of options available to you.

In short, if you can do all those complex moves whenever you want through practicing enough, then you have 100 moves to use in the same easy fashion that SSB functions on. Can you see how much more fun that would be?


Every player who is good has no trouble doing moves, it still is a matter of applying the easily executable moves properly, only with more moves there's more variety, more complex situations and better gameplay as a result, which is a good thing.

I guess i didn't make myself clear enough, it's the effective simplicity of the figting elements combined with the platforming that makes SSB my favourite.
I'm fully aware, that other fighters (i'll use tekken as example here, cause thats the only one i've played a lot) have way more depth to the choice of moves used, by having mroe moves, and that it opens up a lot more split second decision making when you make it past button mashing, but the fact that every map is the same save for cosmetics, and not affecting the gameplay, apart from one not having borders, removes a lot of depth in that aspect of gameplay.
Sure, if you play SSBB on final destiantion (plain flat map without anything happening) without items dropping, you won't get anywhere near the depth found in a fighter with novel-lentgh command lists, but SSB has maps that are more than just a flat ground, and there is more going on than just you and your opponents actions.
SSB also allows for more than 2 players to play at a time, adding a whole new dimension compared to fighers only allowing 2 players at once.

I'm not gonna try to figure out some objective way to calculate which has more depth, it would be useless anyways, as what someone like is not objectively based solely on depth, and SSBB and tekken works very differently, so they're not easily compareable.

Just out of curriosity, as for me to better understand, have you played any of the SSB games? I'm not trying to get to a point where i can imply that you're wrong by default just for not having played it, that would be stupid, i'm just tring to figure out how in depth i need to explain the features of the game, or whetehr you're as familliar with them as i am, for the sake of the discussion. For refference, i'm only familliar with SSB and tekken, and not a competitive (as in tournaments) player in either.

Yeah, I own Brawl, I even got it on the midnight event, stayed up till midnight with a bunch of other folk. Do I pass?


Listen, I know brawl is fun, it's just not the same kind of fun as deep fighters. Anything besides 2-3 stages and any items at all completely broke the game and turned it into a game of luck. Playing it as you say without any items on final destination was indeed shallow compared to most fighters out there but it was by FAR the most fun way to play it despite that. I don't wanna get killed by not being worse than my opponent, just because the stage decided to give you a golden hammer at the moment that it did. That whole mood is fine for parties and is what makes SSB more of a party game than a fighting game.

The multiplayer element also adds to this.

As for tekken, I've been playing it since 1996, it's really not the deepest game ever made and depth doesn't solely stem from the sheer volume of moves but also by the way one move can lead onto another. Tekken doesn't have that much of this and it's combos are all mostly juggles.


Try out blazblue: continuum shift one of these days, it has a deep tutorial for newbies and the characters only have about an average of 10-15 special attacks and another 15 or so of normal ones, it's more about all the permutations and sequences available to you than simply memorizing 130 button inputs and that's why I prefer it to tekken.

It was never about passing, merely me not wanting to waste time and space trying to explain things if you knew them already.

As for teh maps, i prefer the maps without random insta-gib things comig out of nowhere (spear pillar), prefering the platforming element added in maps without crazy stuff going on, but differenting enough from the static flat maps of most fighter games i've tried. The map editor helps a lot with this.

As for the items, some of them suffers from mario-kart syndrome, and adds too much randomness, like the golden hammer, lightning, pokeballs and helper boxes amongst others, but i really like the more moderate items, even though they're powerfull, they're not game turning the same way some of the bigger ones are.

I used to play it a lot with my brother, and matches were usually won or lost based on faulty moves by one of us way more often than the random whims of the maps (we did avoid the maps too influent on the maps), and most items could be countered/played aorund in some way, even the more powerful ones, and a lot of the maps can still actively be used to your advantage even though they seem random, they're not siding against one player, we both know whats there, and whats coming, with a few exceptions, and try to play aorund it, or turn it to our advantage.

I've never been a tournament player, and maybe thats what makes SSB appeal to me, i don't mind the dynamicness or the game, as long as i have the posibillity to adjust it to my liking.

I'll keep blazblue in the back of my head till next time i'm out looking for a new fighter.

 

[Inkidu]

I like Soul Calibur. It has a lot of combos and moves but once you learn some basics button presses anyone can be decent with anybody. I made a lot of money letting people pick my character in SC IV.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Fighting games are about high level reflexes, intense situational adaptation, thinking on your feet, perfect memorization and execution of complex inputs and a high level of competitive spirit that will drive a person to spend a lot of time and effort in "getting good".

Or you spam the cheapest moves...

Sorry, I'm not saying your comments have no value, just reading that reminded me of something. When I played Soul Calibur (#?, can't remember) at the arcade, the only way I could beat Nightmare and ...(what's his name, the poster boy of the aryan race... long blond guy, big sword...) on the harder difficulties was to pick the chick with the spear/pole and poke them to death/off the edge. I basically turned that game into a single button, button masher... till some asshole put in a quarter and crushed me and my 4 pokes of doom in an area around 20-25 seconds...

I did win one round through pokes, I think he took it personally though due to the beating I got in the final round.

Here's the thing, you simply weren't good enough.

If you're good at the game then mashing is always less profitable, simple as that. It's always better to do a highly complex combo with great skill and timing, at least that's how it is in soul calibur. Sure, if you're a noob at the game then the ratio of skill/reward will indeed reward mashing over trying to do normal moves and messing them up, getting yourself killed in the process, that has nothing to do with the game though, your skill (or lack thereof) is the only issue here. Practice over long time periods will fix this every time.


If a fighter is best played at it's highest level by mashing the same button over and over, it's simply a bad game, a broken game, and we just leave it at that, though no current fighter is that so your point is sorta moot.

yes... I know, the mashing thing allowed me to beat the comp but against a skilled player, I was horribly outmatched. The irony in my statements are hard to convey in text, it was meant to be taken lightly.

Sorry if it sounded like a legitimate complaint.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

SSB.
I really like how i mixes fighter gameplay with platforming, managing to create deep gameplay with only somewhere around 12 different moves for each character, excluding moving and jumping.
It seems more about doing the right things in the right circumstances, than about remembering 100 different moves/combos.
Beeing able to know how to do everything the characters can do very very fast, leaving the real challenge to be how to use those moves proberbly is great, and one of the few cases in which i'll use the "less is more" phrase.
I just played SSBB today after ages of not playing it, and got back into the routine of controlling the characters and making them do what i wanted to with ease in only a few minutes, but when i play tekken (which don't get me wrong, i also enjoy a lot) i spend the first 10 minutes of each character trying to remember how to pull off the different moves, while still limiting myself to a fraction of the characters full moveset, even if it's only been a month since i last played.

I really appreciate how they added costumization regarding what items will spawn, so you can avoid the element of randomness, by excluding the most powerfull items, if that displeases you, and how you can even create your own maps.

While all this is fine and dandy, you need to realize that the element of "how you use the moves you have available" being the focus is still there even in games with moves to be memorized, yes there is work involved, much more work than in SSB, but in the end, once everything is mastered, you're left with a much more complex and deep game to play due to the simply vast array of options available to you.

In short, if you can do all those complex moves whenever you want through practicing enough, then you have 100 moves to use in the same easy fashion that SSB functions on. Can you see how much more fun that would be?


Every player who is good has no trouble doing moves, it still is a matter of applying the easily executable moves properly, only with more moves there's more variety, more complex situations and better gameplay as a result, which is a good thing.

I guess i didn't make myself clear enough, it's the effective simplicity of the figting elements combined with the platforming that makes SSB my favourite.
I'm fully aware, that other fighters (i'll use tekken as example here, cause thats the only one i've played a lot) have way more depth to the choice of moves used, by having mroe moves, and that it opens up a lot more split second decision making when you make it past button mashing, but the fact that every map is the same save for cosmetics, and not affecting the gameplay, apart from one not having borders, removes a lot of depth in that aspect of gameplay.
Sure, if you play SSBB on final destiantion (plain flat map without anything happening) without items dropping, you won't get anywhere near the depth found in a fighter with novel-lentgh command lists, but SSB has maps that are more than just a flat ground, and there is more going on than just you and your opponents actions.
SSB also allows for more than 2 players to play at a time, adding a whole new dimension compared to fighers only allowing 2 players at once.

I'm not gonna try to figure out some objective way to calculate which has more depth, it would be useless anyways, as what someone like is not objectively based solely on depth, and SSBB and tekken works very differently, so they're not easily compareable.

Just out of curriosity, as for me to better understand, have you played any of the SSB games? I'm not trying to get to a point where i can imply that you're wrong by default just for not having played it, that would be stupid, i'm just tring to figure out how in depth i need to explain the features of the game, or whetehr you're as familliar with them as i am, for the sake of the discussion. For refference, i'm only familliar with SSB and tekken, and not a competitive (as in tournaments) player in either.

Yeah, I own Brawl, I even got it on the midnight event, stayed up till midnight with a bunch of other folk. Do I pass?


Listen, I know brawl is fun, it's just not the same kind of fun as deep fighters. Anything besides 2-3 stages and any items at all completely broke the game and turned it into a game of luck. Playing it as you say without any items on final destination was indeed shallow compared to most fighters out there but it was by FAR the most fun way to play it despite that. I don't wanna get killed by not being worse than my opponent, just because the stage decided to give you a golden hammer at the moment that it did. That whole mood is fine for parties and is what makes SSB more of a party game than a fighting game.

The multiplayer element also adds to this.

As for tekken, I've been playing it since 1996, it's really not the deepest game ever made and depth doesn't solely stem from the sheer volume of moves but also by the way one move can lead onto another. Tekken doesn't have that much of this and it's combos are all mostly juggles.


Try out blazblue: continuum shift one of these days, it has a deep tutorial for newbies and the characters only have about an average of 10-15 special attacks and another 15 or so of normal ones, it's more about all the permutations and sequences available to you than simply memorizing 130 button inputs and that's why I prefer it to tekken.

It was never about passing, merely me not wanting to waste time and space trying to explain things if you knew them already.

As for teh maps, i prefer the maps without random insta-gib things comig out of nowhere (spear pillar), prefering the platforming element added in maps without crazy stuff going on, but differenting enough from the static flat maps of most fighter games i've tried. The map editor helps a lot with this.

As for the items, some of them suffers from mario-kart syndrome, and adds too much randomness, like the golden hammer, lightning, pokeballs and helper boxes amongst others, but i really like the more moderate items, even though they're powerfull, they're not game turning the same way some of the bigger ones are.

I used to play it a lot with my brother, and matches were usually won or lost based on faulty moves by one of us way more often than the random whims of the maps (we did avoid the maps too influent on the maps), and most items could be countered/played aorund in some way, even the more powerful ones, and a lot of the maps can still actively be used to your advantage even though they seem random, they're not siding against one player, we both know whats there, and whats coming, with a few exceptions, and try to play aorund it, or turn it to our advantage.

I've never been a tournament player, and maybe thats what makes SSB appeal to me, i don't mind the dynamicness or the game, as long as i have the posibillity to adjust it to my liking.

I'll keep blazblue in the back of my head till next time i'm out looking for a new fighter.

Simply put, if I'm winning but I lose due to a luck-related-thing, both my loss is devalued, since I would have won had that thing not happened, and my foe's win is devalued, since he won just cause he got lucky. In these games players pride themselves in their skill so for one to KNOW that his skill had nothing to do with his victory is enough to rob him of any sense of joy.

Sounds odd but yeah, that's how it is. The bright side is that when games are all about your skill, then the joy you get is exponentially better than that had by people like you and your brother, brawling around and having a cool afternoon without any adrenaline pumping and nervous button taps of doom.


Oh and Blazblue should be less than 20 bucks new now so it's definitely worth a shot. Especially if you like anime-like elements.

 

[DustyDrB]

I have the most fun with Smash Brothers, so that's my answer.

 

[silver wolf009]

Soul Calibur. I love that series; it's always had a special place in my heart. I mastered SC2, and after a brief falling out with SC3 I jumped back in with four. I'm waiting for number five. Hopefully they bring back team battles and maybe a tournament mode.

 

[Mannayz]

I've been playing the Smash Bros. series since it debuted on the N64. Absolutely hectic fun with four players and you can beat the stupid out of whatever Nintendo character you despise the most.

And it also didn't have the overly complicated combos. Which is my only lament about most fighting games.

(Also, I actually liked Castlevania: Judgement quite a bit. Don't hate me.)

 

[Odysseous2]

Believe it or not, I do understand most of what you're saying.

Except for a few choice concerns of mine:

Making a thread to cause debates is arguably trolling you know.

However you might define "trolling," you'll find that these forums are indeed designed to spark debates. Read the forum rules. It's right there. The Escapist wants debates. That's what we're here for.

...that there either are no criteria upon which the selection was made or that it's simply the "best popular fighting series", instead of simply the best, regardless of popularity. Like in that "our awards" episodes of extra credits, we shouldn't only list blockbusters in our lists, we should simply go for the best, even if it's not as well known.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Perhaps this issue was a mistake of mine. Allow me to clear it up.

I believe things are popular for a reason. So, in that mindset, it occurred to me that most people would believe a popular franchise is the best franchise. After all, they're popular because they have a lot of fans and support and enthusiasts, etc. And by the looks of it, a lot of the people responding to the thread are heavy niche gamers. I didn't predict that would be the case. But either way, it's totally understandable to assume that popular franchises have a lot of support.

(And yes, I've seen that episode of EC)

If a game is broken, the experts are those who find out how

If it takes an expert to find out how a game is "broken," then it's probably not broken in the first place. If a game is "broken," that means its mechanics are so unbalanced that it can't be enjoyed. But, if only experts notice the problems, then that means the problems aren't really that obtrusive in the first place. The rest of the community can still enjoy the game all the same. That, to me, doesn't qualify as being "broken."

their opinions are law.

No one's opinions are law. Unless you live in Cuba.

There's more walking than shooting in an FPS

Yes, but the shooting is still what the game is all about. Take a rail shooter on the Wii, for instance. Many of them don't even have walking mechanics, like Dead Space Extraction. It just moves for you automatically. Why is that possible? Because FPS's are about shooting, regardless of how much walking is typically involved.

"Theatrical Brawling games" would be more closely deceptive of a title.

A theatrical brawl is still a fight.

Say, how about we do NOT actually take the title of a genre at face value? Why don't we just let them have that name for simplicity's sake but don't actually attach any further expectations or responsibilities to it beyond loosely relating to it, hmmm?

This isn't about expectations. I challenge you, find me one fighting game that doesn't involve two people fighting. If you can do that, I will personally use my own life savings to found the church of Dreikoism.

Games of a certain genre are always, always, always labeled under that genre for a reason. Fighting is fighting. Where to go from there is what makes each franchise different. But I assure you, each and every one of them somehow incorporates fighting into the mix.

The results here are as they are due to the nature of your list, that's why I'm mad! XD

Understandable. But not even Christ alive could create a list that would please everyone. Especially not with only 8 slots. You can't blame me for using my own personal brain to come up with the available choices.

I'd be impressed if you still have more rebuttles for me

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If it takes an expert to find out how a game is "broken," then it's probably not broken in the first place. If a game is "broken," that means its mechanics are so unbalanced that it can't be enjoyed. But, if only experts notice the problems, then that means the problems aren't really that obtrusive in the first place. The rest of the community can still enjoy the game all the same. That, to me, doesn't qualify as being "broken."

It takes experts to find it within an hour or two. Everyone would find it eventually, experts are able to do that in the limited time the location test allots. Metagame takes MONTHS to develop, it takes experts to be able to jump months ahead of the average player and detect things that once discovered would break the game all across the skill board.

No one's opinions are law. Unless you live in Cuba.

They may hold the tests there, I haven't inquired as to the location tests'...locations .

Yes, but the shooting is still what the game is all about. Take a rail shooter on the Wii, for instance. Many of them don't even have walking mechanics, like Dead Space Extraction. It just moves for you automatically. Why is that possible? Because FPS's are about shooting, regardless of how much walking is typically involved.

Thank you, and in fighting games, despite the title being what it is, it's all about highly complex reactionary and foretelling gameplay, the ability to read your foe and perfectly execute button sequences in fractions of a second. No matter how much "other stuff" you may or may not have in the game (fatalities, stupid upside down modes, items, lava pits) it's always going to be about that and if the "shooting" sucks it's a bad fighter.

A theatrical brawl is still a fight.

A theatrical brawl is also a way to expend energy, should we name things anything that they can pass as instead of what is closer to their actual identity?

This isn't about expectations. I challenge you, find me one fighting game that doesn't involve two people fighting. If you can do that, I will personally use my own life savings to found the church of Dreikoism.

Games of a certain genre are always, always, always labeled under that genre for a reason. Fighting is fighting. Where to go from there is what makes each franchise different. But I assure you, each and every one of them somehow incorporates fighting into the mix.

Well, there's Dead or Alive Beach special, which is a fighting game about girls going to the beach and wearing skimpy clothes and tanning and playing volleyball and what not.


But other than that, just because there's fighting it's not a fighting game, just like how MW2 having RPG elements doesn't make it an RPG. You need to have more things besides the most basic form of fighting in order to have a fighting game.


Oh and keep your savings child, I have enough churches bugging me as is.

Understandable. But not even Christ alive could create a list that would please everyone. Especially not with only 8 slots. You can't blame me for using my own personal brain to come up with the available choices.

I'd be impressed if you still have more rebuttles for me

That's why you should have aimed at pleasing people actually really into fighting games over people who have played fighting games as one of 20 genres they dabble in. They are the ones the most invested thus they have a higher priority. What you called "niche" above is indeed that, but niche fighting games are at the same time really popular with the serious folks since the serious folk are not enough to make something "not niche" but they are enough to keep a series alive for years, make it hype, give it spotlight during tournaments etc.

 

[Odysseous2]

Thank you, and in fighting games, despite the title being what it is, it's all about highly complex reactionary and foretelling gameplay, the ability to read your foe and perfectly execute button sequences in fractions of a second. No matter how much "other stuff" you may or may not have in the game (fatalities, stupid upside down modes, items, lava pits) it's always going to be about that and if the "shooting" sucks it's a bad fighter.

I agree. XD I wonder if that was even part of the argument, or if it was just a point both of us were trying to make in increasingly obtuse ways.

Well, there's Dead or Alive Beach special, which is a fighting game about girls going to the beach and wearing skimpy clothes and tanning and playing volleyball and what not.

Well, fuck.

But other than that, just because there's fighting it's not a fighting game, just like how MW2 having RPG elements doesn't make it an RPG.

... Actually, I think putting RPG elements into MW2 *would* make it an RPG. Fallout: New Vegas comes to mind.

That's why you should have aimed at pleasing people actually really into fighting games over people who have played fighting games as one of 20 genres they dabble in. They are the ones the most invested thus they have a higher priority.

Fair enough. I'll remember that for next time.