Current Events > So is Smash Bros the biggest fighting game out there at the moment?

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/smash-bros-picked-over-street-fighter-v-for-evo-japans-sai-tournament

Individual Smash Bros videos can average about 50,000 views in one day, and there is a huge amount going on in the tournament scene.
Meanwhile, Street Fighter is fading, and there is literally nothing else.
Ironic really.
---

It is the biggest party game, way more popular than its fellow party games Warioware and 1-2 Switch.
---

It would be if it was a fighting game.
---

Smash Bros isn't a fighting game.

It's a fighting lifestyle

I'm gonna run the Smash 4 scene with Jigglypuff
---

It's definitely the most popular fighting game right now, yeah.
---

Yep most popular fighting game by a large margin now
---

I would argue that it offers a deeper experience too.
Seems very balanced and lots of exciting matches.
---

WonkyKong posted...

I would argue that it offers a deeper experience too.
Seems very balanced and lots of exciting matches.

It's poorly balanced and the game has zero depth

Smash isn't meant to be a competitive game

Yup, incredibly popular and with a skill cap so high new moves and ways to play get discovered every year.
---

TheMarthKoopa posted...

It's poorly balanced

half the cast in melee is viable and most of the cast in Smash 4 is so the balance isn't really that bad outside of, iunno, Brawl. Even 64 seems to be fine.

and the game has zero depth

it has a significant amount of depth

if it didn't have depth then the mainstay games wouldn't have a consistent top echelon of players

Smash isn't meant to be a competitive game

Smash 4 definitely was. Strong evidence due to the multiplayer-focus and singleplayer getting largely sidelined in quality compared to previous titles.

Regardless, they are competitive games.
---

Melee's numbers are consistently good per major and now that Smash 4 's balance patches have settled and things have had time, they're starting to go on the upswing in popularity. The increased viability of aggressive play helps viewership.

Certain SFV events will outpace Smash. ESPN broadcasts ensure this at least, sometimes Twitch viewership for SF majors will be really significant. However, between attendance and sheer breadth of major events (especially in Smash 4) Smash seems to retain a larger, more consistent viewing base even if it doesn't obtain the same, more inconsistent peaks.

as far as I'm aware no other fighter-oriented series approaches the popularity of Melee/Smash 4/SFV. Maybe MK through twitch streamers.
---

Mahvel
---

Pics_nao_plz posted...

Mahvel

baybee
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

half the cast in melee is viable and most of the cast in Smash 4

Half viable cast is not "balance", and Smash 4's balance is even worse

it has a significant amount of depth

if it didn't have depth then the mainstay games wouldn't have a consistent top echelon of players

There is no depth. Smash is so fucking BASIC. I don't understand how anyone could think it has any

The game doesn't even have real combos

I don't see how a "top echelon of players" is proof of depth

Smash 4 definitely was. Strong evidence due to the multiplayer-focus and singleplayer getting largely sidelined in quality compared to previous titles.

Regardless, they are competitive games.

They absolutely are not competitive games. Smash is meant to be chaotic fun, played with items and wacky stages. Taking out all that leaves you with nothing

Half viable cast is not "balance"

13/26? Balanced enough to keep character diversity high and keep things interesting. That being said, Melee has enough depth that character diversity isn't even paramount since matchups are always changing.

and Smash 4's balance is even worse

I do data work for Smash 4 and have for a year so I know this is objectively wrong. What balance issues does the game have that cause a severely unbalanced roster? Pretty much everything wrong with the game at its start was fixed by balance patches.

There is no depth. Smash is so fucking BASIC. I don't understand how anyone could think it has any

It depends on which game in particular, but:

-Option coverage
-Combo game
-Movement options
-Reading and downloading opponent's habits/behaviors

All are commonly important elements. Tech skill importance is less necessary in Smash 4 depending on the character you play.

The game doesn't even have real combos

I know there's discussion had over Smash having two combo definitions (true vs. untrue) but every Smash game has "real" combos. The "untrue" combos are still performed. One of the ways the games garner depth is partially due to combos not being guaranteed because this can lead to baits/mindgames depending on how committal you are.

They absolutely are not competitive games.

???? This is objectively wrong. Competitions are held and the games have elements that inherently make them competitive in a non-random matter.

Smash is meant to be chaotic fun, played with items and wacky stages. Taking out all that leaves you with nothing

Smash is meant to be whatever the players who play it want to be. If it wasn't meant to be competitive then the formula to create a competitive ruleset wouldn't be possible. But it is.
---

I don't see how a "top echelon of players" is proof of depth

Because a game lacking in depth wouldn't maintain the same 20-30 players at the top. If it lacked depth, anybody could get good at it - quickly and easily - and commonly beat top players if there wasn't much to learn or master. This does not generally happen outside of rare circumstances. This applies even to Brawl, a game notorious for awful balancing and incredibly campy gameplay.
---

bump
---

Smash bros is a party game
---

its the biggest party game

lul
---

Yes.
---

Opinion divided
---

Tekken 7 will save us all from the current mediocrity in the FGC

People just aren't as hyped as they want to be because they think it's gonna get delayed again
---