Board 8 > What is it about fighting games?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I had wrestlemania for the NES.
---

I feel like No Mercy would be considered a fighting game

Imagine if there was a scene for wrestling games at EVO
---

I can see why people might not consider Smash games as being fighting games but what's the justification for excluding wrestling games?
---

Team Rocket Elite posted...

I can see why people might not consider Smash games as being fighting games but what's the justification for excluding wrestling games?

Same as excluding smash and boxing games. Just because you fight, doesnt mean it fits into the same genre as street fighter, etc.

It's mostly how the match gameplay and victory conditions are structured

For me to be a true fighting game, the focus needs to be 100% on the battle with no gameplay or momentum shifts influenced entirely by factors outside of control of the players under standard conditions.

Smash stops being a fighting game with the platforming elements for me. There are many stages where a player can win by taking no offensive action against the opponent. Like if tourneycrab Smash (no items final destination) was the only way to play it I'd actually agree it's a fighter.

On the other hand, wrestling games stop being a fighter because of all the weird ass gimmick matches available, strange things you can do during matches like call in interference, smack the ref and get disqualified, etc etc.
---

Yeah, I have a hard time calling wrestling games fighters because you could have a case where one person literally did no fighting whatsoever, took all the damage, but then won because they hit the pin button and the other person failed the minigame to kick out

If you can win without actually fighting/damaging the opponent, I have a tough time calling it a fighter
---

Fighting games are by far my favorite type of game to watch OTHER people play but I am totally horrible at them and it makes me sad.
---

Lopen posted...

There are many stages where a player can win by taking no offensive action against the opponent.

I could maybe see a no-offense win on like Big Blue or Poke Floats but your opponent would have to suck preeeeetty bad and/or have never seen that level before to spend more time making unforced errors than killing you
---

I'm not denying your opponent would need to suck (item drops can also make this one happen on every stage with the bob ombs and such). That it's theoretically possible at all is a problem to me though. It's a symptom there's not enough focus on player vs player for my tastes to be a true fighter and that it's something a bit different that happens to involve players attacking each other.
---

I don't understand the differece between "I like the fighting" and "I like the button combos/strategy."

nidhogg 2 is my favorite fighting game
---

There's also the fact that half the fanbase plays it with no items and featureless stages (and will turn up their noses at anybody who doesn't), so playing like THAT I would at least expect it to be treated like a fighting game
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

There's also the fact that half the fanbase plays it with no items and featureless stages (and will turn up their noses at anybody who doesn't), so playing like THAT I would at least expect it to be treated like a fighting game

It's treated as a party game people are trying to pretend is a fighting game
---

what would make it not a fighting game at that point? it not taking 15 inputs to do a special? All your objections to Smash-as-fighting-game are things that can be (and are) turned off by the "serious" fans.
---

What makes it not a fighting game is that it's not a fighting game. It's a game with limitations placed on it in an attempt to emulate a fighting game. It for the most part succeeds in emulating a fighting game as most of the red flags are removed (you still have some potential weird stuff due to the defeat condition involving some platforming elements even when tourneycrab stages are chosen) but if this was the default state of the game I don't think anyone would say it's not a fighting game.

But that's still not what the game is. That's what people who want to get into the game srs pretend it is.

It's just like trying to play Halo 3 as a racing game by playing race mode with some restrictions on gun spawns put into place and stage selections, or trying to play Tekken 3 as a volleyball game by playing the volleyball mode.

They succeed as well to some extent but I doubt if there were a national racing game meetup people would be lobbying for Halo 3 to be considered a major attraction, even if it's more popular than most racing games.

Like this isn't meant to be condescending or whatever. I think Smash as a fighting game has better gameplay than plenty of "real" fighting games. I'm just explaining the facts of the matter as I see them, though.
---

I mean, Halo is a completely different genre from racing normally. And Tekken is not remotely a volleyball game in its main mode. So those are some pretty extreme examples considering that Smash, even in full blown casual mode, is something that's still at least pretty close to a fighting game.

So what genre would you call it, then?
---

Smash goes to Evo sometimes so I'm not following the Halo parallel
---

To me it has more in common with the Party Game genre than the Fighting Game genre, so that.
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

Smash goes to Evo sometimes

Lopen posted...

but I doubt if there were a national racing game meetup people would be lobbying for Halo 3 to be considered a major attraction, even if it's more popular than most racing games.

Yeah that's why I said this exactly.
---

I feel like "party game" is a non-genre. A lot of the games have literally nothing in common other than being "casual" games that don't quite fit into any of the other major genres.
---

Well if you'd prefer me to say "it doesn't fit into a major genre" I can go with that too.

It's a fighting game/platformer hybrid that to me doesn't fit into either genre very well, and in terms of the standard method of play/victory conditions (the common thread of games in the party genre) shares a lot more in common with party games than fighting games.
---

I think the win condition is the primary thing keeping me from seeing Smash as fully part of the fighting game genre. While the idea of "ring outs" aren't new to fighting games, they've never been the primary win condition before. They were an added danger to try and avoid while also trying to not have all of your health depleted. In Smash, that's the primary goal, and while damage makes it easier to accomplish that, the fact that it can be done when somebody has like 10% damage just feels so different to me. The primary goal isn't depleting a health bar by causing damage, it's trying to get the opponent off the stage, whether that's done by damage or other trickery.

I'd say Smash doesn't really fit into a major genre, yeah. Like, I have no problem lumping it in with fighting games, and having it at EVO and such. But if I was describing Smash to somebody who has played video games but has never played Smash before, I don't think I'd use the words "fighting game" at all, because that'd be a bit misleading.
---

so is Smash closer to a fighting game if you play Stamina mode
---

LeonhartFour posted...

so is Smash closer to a fighting game if you play Stamina mode

To me, yes. Smash with everything off and in Stamina mode is pretty close to more traditional fighters.

It probably seems like nitpicking, but it's stuff like the wacky platforming stage deaths, item deaths, and "ring out" primary win condition that just makes it feel not totally like a fighter to me.
---

Smash would be a full blown no doubter of a fighting game if Tourneycrab stage/item settings + Stamina Mode were the standard to me.

Well, assuming stamina mode has conservative knockback to the point where it's easier to deplete the stamina than to ringout a guy. I've never actually played Stamina mode so I don't know how it works there exactly.
---

Well, the primary goal in stamina mode changes, so people are going to be going for less throws/attacks with big knockback, and more... Combos/trying to rack up damage, so even though ringout is still a thing and (possibly? I can't remember) easy, it's no longer the primary goal and I don't believe damage scales to add extra knockback in stamina.
---

It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure you don't become floatier the lower your Stamina gets.

And yeah, a ringout is still an insta-death.
---

Also I don't actually mind Smash being at EVO either. I'd rather it be there than Blazblue because to hell with watching Blazblue.

I take exception when Smash fans feel it's entitled to be there rather than it merely being there because it has a large following and the EVO administration is pretty loose about letting things in and it's about having fun first. Citing it being there as evidence that it's a fighting game like Tom is doing doesn't make it a fighting game. It just makes EVO not full of hard asses.
---

Saying Smash is a fighting game is like saying GTA is a racing game.
---

Lopen posted...

Well if you'd prefer me to say "it doesn't fit into a major genre" I can go with that too.

It's a fighting game/platformer hybrid that to me doesn't fit into either genre very well, and in terms of the standard method of play/victory conditions (the common thread of games in the party genre) shares a lot more in common with party games than fighting games.

That's fair.
---

Lopen posted...

Tom Bombadil posted...

Smash goes to Evo sometimes

Lopen posted...

but I doubt if there were a national racing game meetup people would be lobbying for Halo 3 to be considered a major attraction, even if it's more popular than most racing games.

Yeah that's why I said this exactly.

so what's your argument then?

Halo 3 doesn't have a "Racing-Evo" following because it's not a racing game
SSB has an Evo following
Therefore, SSB is not a fighting game

what am I missing
---

My argument is that smash fans being entitled about what genre it "deserves" to be in is not evidence.
---

Why does everyone bring up item deaths and stage deaths as if competitive smash doesn't try to eliminate those factors.
---

Lopen posted...

My argument is that smash fans being entitled about what genre it "deserves" to be in is not evidence.

Non-smash fans feeling entitled about protecting their limited definition of fighting games is not evidence of anything either.

Genre is like...a words definition. Ultimately it's something decided by the masses. I could imagine two different people asking "I really want to play a fighting game" and Smash could be exactly what they're looking for or not at all.
---

pjbasis posted...

Why does everyone bring up item deaths and stage deaths as if competitive smash doesn't try to eliminate those factors.

Because those things definitely make it not a fighting game?

Imagine a group of people playing GTA Online. Instead of shooting guns and doing heists, these people only race cars following a very specific ruleset. To the uninformed onlooker, this looks very similar to a racing game. But does that mean GTA Online belongs to the same genre as Forza and Need For Speed?

Smash is the same way. If you play it in a specific way, it looks like a fighting game, but that doesn't mean it IS one
---

The Smash Bros games are designed to allow 1v1 fights with no items as one of the styles of play, via menu options and through the developer balancing the characters for it to... varying degrees of success. It's not anywhere close to assigning external rules to GTA Online to make it only a racing game.
Also, as of 4, one of the two online matchmaking modes was 1v1 with no items on flat stages. Albeit with a kind of terrible ruleset, and I'm told flat stages aren't particularly balanced either.
---

One problem I have with this issue is that people say it's not a fighting game because it has things the others don't, when those things are largely unique to it and things that specifically want to imitate it. Those things make it Smash Bros. I don't think tons of fighting games have the Danger/Mortal Counter system from GG Xrd, the GRD system from UNIEL, or Combo Breakers from Killer Instinct, and barely any have a block button like Mortal Kombat, but that doesn't make those not fighting games.
---

Yeah I think the "it's not designed for that" argument loses a lot of steam with the arrival of sm4sh and For Glory (or was it Brawl that introduced that?) It might not be Sakurai's first choice for what you do with the game, but the online is built primarily around playing it with the set "play it like a fighting game, no fun allowed" rules.

Random question: is Power Stone a fighting game?
---

http://gta.wikia.com/wiki/Races_in_GTA_Online

GTA Online is designed to allow 15 player races with no weapons as one of the styles of play, via menu options and through the developer balancing the cars for it to... vary degrees of success.
---

Is that the primary mode for playing GTA?
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

Random question: is Power Stone a fighting game?

Nope. For mainly the same reasons Smash isn't. 4 player action with a range of movement that no fighting game has
---

paperwarior posted...

One problem I have with this issue is that people say it's not a fighting game because it has things the others don't, when those things are largely unique to it and things that specifically want to imitate it. Those things make it Smash Bros. I don't think tons of fighting games have the Danger/Mortal Counter system from GG Xrd, the GRD system from UNIEL, or Combo Breakers from Killer Instinct, and barely any have a block button like Mortal Kombat, but that doesn't make those not fighting games.

that's the difference between core experience vs unique battle system

fighting game = solo 1v1/2v2/3v3 with life bar depletion as the main goal (ring out and time out are optional) on a flat 2D/3D plane
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

Is that the primary mode for playing GTA?

No, which is why it isn't a racing game.

The primary mode of Smash isn't 1v1, no items, final destination, either, if that's what you're trying to imply
---

random question the second: is DotA (the warcraft mod) an RTS? is LoL?
---

DeepsPraw posted...

Tom Bombadil posted...

Is that the primary mode for playing GTA?

No, which is why it isn't a racing game.

The primary mode of Smash isn't 1v1, no items, final destination, either, if that's what you're trying to imply

I think For Glory gets more attention than For Fun, but I could be wrong there

Pretty sure For Glory is the only one with the ladder, at least
---

Eh, Smash evolved into that for a lot of people. It wasn't originally designed to be that.
---

Again everyone is obsessed with these rigid marks and qualifications.

How healthy is the GTA racing scene? If it's anywhere as big and organized as Smash (which straight up rivals and overlaps with the FGC community) then yes absolutely.
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

random question the second: is DotA (the warcraft mod) an RTS? is LoL?

yes MOBAs are RTS
---

LeonhartFour posted...

Eh, Smash evolved into that for a lot of people. It wasn't originally designed to be that.

Sure, but I think it's factoring in more and more to the design over time.
---

pjbasis posted...

How healthy is the GTA racing scene? If it's anywhere as big and organized as Smash (which straight up rivals and overlaps with the FGC community) then yes absolutely.

Who fucking cares? A fanbase isn't what makes a video game genre. Technical game mechanics do.
---