I generally say SSB is not a traditional fighting game because death is not directly caused by the other opposing player, but rather the stage.
There are also random consumables strewn about levels. (This is admittedly often turned off by tournament players, though the fact that a fantastic array of options need to be set just so to make the game "tournament worthy" makes me judge the game as a whole differently)
Certainly it's not a traditional fighting game, but if not a fighting game, then what in the world is it?
I think you're confusing "depth" with "practice". Sharpening a pencil is not a deep activity, but if you do it enough times, you'll start to determine that there are quirks to the wood grain that, when exploited, can produce an ever so slightly sharper point, but that doesn't change the fact that you're sharpening a fucking pencil.
Pac-Man is not "deep". It's very shallow. It is because it is shallow and simple that it is such an accessible game, and has remained more or less popular for decades.
Pac-Man is not deep. Pac-Man: Championship Edition is.
If Pac-Man CE remains on Live Arcade only it will be a criminal act, and I will work to bring these evil men to justice. I downloaded the demo expecting disposable content, consistent with the necrophilia on display elsewhere in the classic coin-op section. After one round, this demo I grabbed explicitly to revile had become a sale, and a week later it is an obsession and perhaps even a lifestyle.
SSB, Power Stone and Naruto are not fighting games, and they don't even have difficult inputs or combos that keep you from just picking them up and playing them.
Please tell me how SSB is not a fighting game.
Urghhhhhhhhhhhhh.
This shit is debatable. And I don't want to debate it. It's a party fighting game that has been transformed into a fighting game by the implementation of a bunch of (somewhat arbitrary) rules. Whether you consider it a fighting game or not is up to you. I don't really care. I consider Power Stone 1 a fighting game, but not Power Stone 2 (in the same sense), and I love them both. It doesn't bother me that PS2 isn't a fighting game most of the time.
This shit is debatable. And I don't want to debate it. It's a party fighting game that has been transformed into a fighting game by the implementation of a bunch of (somewhat arbitrary) rules. Whether you consider it a fighting game or not is up to you. I don't really care. I consider Power Stone 1 a fighting game, but not Power Stone 2 (in the same sense), and I love them both. It doesn't bother me that PS2 isn't a fighting game most of the time.
The only "arbitrary" rule I can think of is turning of all the items.
That seems about as "arbitrary" as turning off handicaps in a street fighter game. :P
I generally say SSB is not a traditional fighting game because death is not directly caused by the other opposing player, but rather the stage.
There are also random consumables strewn about levels. (This is admittedly often turned off by tournament players, though the fact that a fantastic array of options need to be set just so to make the game "tournament worthy" makes me judge the game as a whole differently)
They give you the option of turning off items. When it's done there's a beautifully deep fighting game there (in Melee, at least). Don't judge a game based on its appearance. Give it a fair shot based on its depth.
I think you're confusing "depth" with "practice". Sharpening a pencil is not a deep activity, but if you do it enough times, you'll start to determine that there are quirks to the wood grain that, when exploited, can produce an ever so slightly sharper point, but that doesn't change the fact that you're sharpening a fucking pencil.
Pac-Man is not "deep". It's very shallow. It is because it is shallow and simple that it is such an accessible game, and has remained more or less popular for decades.
Pac-Man is not deep. Pac-Man: Championship Edition is.
If Pac-Man CE remains on Live Arcade only it will be a criminal act, and I will work to bring these evil men to justice. I downloaded the demo expecting disposable content, consistent with the necrophilia on display elsewhere in the classic coin-op section. After one round, this demo I grabbed explicitly to revile had become a sale, and a week later it is an obsession and perhaps even a lifestyle.
No one is saying why it's so deep. The mechanics seem the same: Avoid ghosts, eat pellets, power pills turn you into a hungry, if temporary, God. I'm not seeing the depth.
Houn on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
Any video game that is as difficult to learn (or even close enough to be comparable) as a martial art is doing something very, very wrong. If I'm expected to put that kind of effort into learning a game, I might as well be doing something constructive. Like learning an actual martial art, as one example. I play games to have fun--they're entertainment, and when I spend money and time on entertainment, I'd like to be entertained. Not work.
Mind you, I don't actually think the fighting games/martial arts comparison is a good one. I don't think they're anywhere near as difficult to learn--I just also happen to think they're not fun to play, for unrelated reasons.
Would it still be wrong if someone wanted to play it? Not at all, it would be not for you.
As much as anything can be wrong with a video game, yes. Why do people keep coming back to the subjectivity thing? It's the most fruitless line of argument I can imagine. Of course it's fucking subjective, but that doesn't make it banned from reasoned debate.
No, I'm just saying that if someone wants to play it, it cannot possibly be wrong. You can't just say that article A is not allowed to be a game because you don't want to play it. Whether or not you think it is a "good" game or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is indeed a game.
You seem to be implying that because you think it is wrong, it shout not be a game. . . I didn't know Hitler was still alive and lived in Texas. . .
I can't believe it took 7+ pages for this troll thread to get Godwin'd
Uh, when did I say it couldn't be a game? Apparently every professional game reviewer is a little Hitler, because they point out flaws in games every day. Are you seriously suggesting that you think pointing out that something is wrong with a game (or even genre) is a form of fascism? You honestly seem just to be trolling at this point.
going on the implication I read from your posts, I was sarcastically suggesting you were a fascist because what was read from the implication was that it couldn't be a game. It was then sarcastically implied on my part that if a game can't be a game because you say so, that would make you a fascist (Hitler).
Earlier when you went on the whole "Subjectivity is a stupid argument" tyrade, I had to discard my assumption that your opinion the game was bad, leaving the only alternative: that your opinion was fact. I don't like it when people hold opinions as fact, so in traditional internet manner I escalated past threat level: Car analogy directly to threat level: Godwin.
Obviously, I now have to discard the remaining assumption, leaving me rather red in the face. Dare I ask what exactly it is we're arguing if we're not actually arguing orver something?
acidlacedpenguin on
GT: Acidboogie PSNid: AcidLacedPenguiN
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Hmm...is evading in Melee like it is in Brawl...because I remember playing Brawl at a comic book shop once and the matches taking about 20 minutes because everyone just dodged everything.
Dragkonias on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
No one is saying why it's so deep. The mechanics seem the same: Avoid ghosts, eat pellets, power pills turn you into a hungry, if temporary, God. I'm not seeing the depth.
without explicitly asking for it, I was asking for Rainbow to tell me why Pac Man: CE has depth past what is described above. I thought Pac Man: CE was fundamentally the same game as Pac Man except having many different playmodes and such.
I think it is fair to assume that Pac Man: CE is fundamentally the same as Pac Man considering they share the same name.
In b4 anyone telling me ololol that's stupid, look at Pac Man Adventure or any of the other Pac Man-Branded abortions.
No one is saying why it's so deep. The mechanics seem the same: Avoid ghosts, eat pellets, power pills turn you into a hungry, if temporary, God. I'm not seeing the depth.
Pac-Man is a defensive game. The game ends when you run out of lives. Pac-Man: Championship Edition is an aggressive game. The game ends when you run out of time (I can't remember the last time I ran out of lives). The point of the game isn't staying alive, but rather trying to convert your time into points in as efficient a manner as possible. The whole dynamic of the game is reversed.
The scoring system is drastically more sophisticated in Pac-Man:CE. Combined with the time limit, this creates a lot of depth. A skilled Pac-Man:CE player might intentionally kill himself or intentionally avoid eating a ghost while under the influence of a power pellet because these unintuitive moves might actually increase their potential for high scores (an intentional suicide could set him up for a ghost killing combo by getting all the ghosts back in one place, avoiding eating a ghost might help him avoid being trapped later on).
The level is constantly changing thus making it impossible to simply memorize levels patterns like you could in the original Pac-Man. You can learn enemy AI (I know you were joking earlier on, but all 4 ghosts actually use different distinctive AI), but you have to figure out patterns on the fly.
I could go further and talk about how each of the different modes has various strategies associated with it, but I think that'll suffice.
Anyway, tying this digression back into the main thread, my point was that just because a game has simple controls doesn't mean that it has shallow gameplay, and just because a game has complicated controls doesn't mean that it has deep gameplay. Sometimes simpler is better (just look at Go).
EDIT: A few more depth filled things about Pac-Man:CE - the level evolves in halves and in certain situations it can be beneficial to make one side of the level evolve at a different rate than the other side. Also, the speed of the game changes depending on your actions so trying to speed up the game (difficulty increases, but potential for high scores also increases) is another aspect that a skilled player is going to always have in his mind while playing.
going on the implication I read from your posts, I was sarcastically suggesting you were a fascist because what was read from the implication was that it couldn't be a game. It was then sarcastically implied on my part that if a game can't be a game because you say so, that would make you a fascist (Hitler).
There was no such implication anywhere in my posts.
Earlier when you went on the whole "Subjectivity is a stupid argument" tyrade, I had to discard my assumption that your opinion the game was bad, leaving the only alternative: that your opinion was fact. I don't like it when people hold opinions as fact, so in traditional internet manner I escalated past threat level: Car analogy directly to threat level: Godwin.
I never stated or implied that my opinion was fact. I stated that attacking somebody's opinion as subjective is entirely fruitless, and the obvious reason for this is that it's not arguing, it's throwing the whole argument out the window. There is value in debating subjective issues, in discussing the reasoning behind opinions on games (and other things). The ever-prevalent and always-snide "it's not for you" is pretty much coming in and taking a dump on that discussion.
Obviously, I now have to discard the remaining assumption, leaving me rather red in the face. Dare I ask what exactly it is we're arguing if we're not actually arguing orver something?
Originally, I was dismissing the following idea: "Learning a fighting game is like learning a martial art, and therefore, complaints about the inaccessibility of fighting games are invalid". You got irritated at one out-of-context part of that dismissal and decided to invent a whole straw man argument for me, which you've been arguing against ever since.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
No one is saying why it's so deep. The mechanics seem the same: Avoid ghosts, eat pellets, power pills turn you into a hungry, if temporary, God. I'm not seeing the depth.
Pac-Man is a defensive game. The game ends when you run out of lives. Pac-Man: Championship Edition is an aggressive game. The game ends when you run out of time (I can't remember the last time I ran out of lives). The point of the game isn't staying alive, but rather trying to convert your time into points in as efficient a manner as possible. The whole dynamic of the game is reversed.
The scoring system is drastically more sophisticated in Pac-Man:CE. Combined with the time limit, this creates a lot of depth. A skilled Pac-Man:CE player might intentionally kill himself or intentionally avoid eating a ghost while under the influence of a power pellet because these unintuitive moves might actually increase their potential for high scores (an intentional suicide could set him up for a ghost killing combo by getting all the ghosts back in one place, avoiding eating a ghost might help him avoid being trapped later on).
The level is constantly changing thus making it impossible to simply memorize levels patterns like you could in the original Pac-Man. You can learn enemy AI (I know you were joking earlier on, but all 4 ghosts actually use different distinctive AI), but you have to figure out patterns on the fly.
I could go further and talk about how each of the different modes has various strategies associated with it, but I think that'll suffice.
Anyway, tying this digression back into the main thread, my point was that just because a game has simple controls doesn't mean that it has shallow gameplay, and just because a game has complicated controls doesn't mean that it has deep gameplay. Sometimes simpler is better (just look at Go).
Fair enough, but honestly, that doesn't strike me as "deep". A touch deeper than the original, sure, but not "deep" in comparison to, say, a proper fighting game. Don't get me wrong, Pac-Man is fun and all, but even with the described changes, it's still Pac-Man. Games like, say, SF4, strike me as "deep" due to the large number of options, and sub-options, and the interplay between these mechanics, that can occur at any moment. This is where all the "yomi" arguments come in; you learn what an opponent CAN do, predict which of his tools he'll use (say, paper), then decide which of your various scissors to use in response, and which paper to flip to if it happened to be rock. Unfortunately, providing a depth of options in a fighting game means a large number of moves, which means you have to have ways to specify what move (inputs), then rules for how they interact (chains, links, priority, recovery). The system is necessarily more complex than your average 80s coin-op.
No one is saying why it's so deep. The mechanics seem the same: Avoid ghosts, eat pellets, power pills turn you into a hungry, if temporary, God. I'm not seeing the depth.
Pac-Man is a defensive game. The game ends when you run out of lives. Pac-Man: Championship Edition is an aggressive game. The game ends when you run out of time (I can't remember the last time I ran out of lives). The point of the game isn't staying alive, but rather trying to convert your time into points in as efficient a manner as possible. The whole dynamic of the game is reversed.
The scoring system is drastically more sophisticated in Pac-Man:CE. Combined with the time limit, this creates a lot of depth. A skilled Pac-Man:CE player might intentionally kill himself or intentionally avoid eating a ghost while under the influence of a power pellet because these unintuitive moves might actually increase their potential for high scores (an intentional suicide could set him up for a ghost killing combo by getting all the ghosts back in one place, avoiding eating a ghost might help him avoid being trapped later on).
The level is constantly changing thus making it impossible to simply memorize levels patterns like you could in the original Pac-Man. You can learn enemy AI (I know you were joking earlier on, but all 4 ghosts actually use different distinctive AI), but you have to figure out patterns on the fly.
I could go further and talk about how each of the different modes has various strategies associated with it, but I think that'll suffice.
Anyway, tying this digression back into the main thread, my point was that just because a game has simple controls doesn't mean that it has shallow gameplay, and just because a game has complicated controls doesn't mean that it has deep gameplay. Sometimes simpler is better (just look at Go).
Fair enough, but honestly, that doesn't strike me as "deep". A touch deeper than the original, sure, but not "deep" in comparison to, say, a proper fighting game. Don't get me wrong, Pac-Man is fun and all, but even with the described changes, it's still Pac-Man. Games like, say, SF4, strike me as "deep" due to the large number of options, and sub-options, and the interplay between these mechanics, that can occur at any moment. This is where all the "yomi" arguments come in; you learn what an opponent CAN do, predict which of his tools he'll use (say, paper), then decide which of your various scissors to use in response, and which paper to flip to if it happened to be rock. Unfortunately, providing a depth of options in a fighting game means a large number of moves, which means you have to have ways to specify what move (inputs), then rules for how they interact (chains, links, priority, recovery). The system is necessarily more complex than your average 80s coin-op.
Just because your game of rock-paper-scissors has 20 elements in the chain instead of 3 doesn't mean it's deeper. Having more buttons doesn't mean it's deeper, just more complex, and some games have too much useless shit for their own good (SFIV doesn't). The fact remains that Pac-Man CE is deep enough that an extremely skilled player's score will blow some beginner's score out of the water.
The definition of 'deep' used in fighting games means that the game remains interesting at a competitive level even as different mechanics of the game get mastered.
That definition does not translate well to single player games. In a multiplayer game, if someone discovers a strategy that beats every other strategy, the game is not deep, because then every other player is forced to master that one strategy to win.
In a single player, thats not so much of an issue, because then it becomes who can master that one strategy the best.
In Pac-man, there is very clearly a single 'best' strategy, so it isn't deep by that standard.
shadydentist on
Steam & GT
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
going on the implicationI read from your posts, I was sarcastically suggesting you were a fascist because what was read from the implication was that it couldn't be a game. It was then sarcastically implied on my part that if a game can't be a game because you say so, that would make you a fascist (Hitler).
There was no such implication anywhere in my posts.
Earlier when you went on the whole "Subjectivity is a stupid argument" tyrade, I had to discard my assumption that your opinion the game was bad, leaving the only alternative: that your opinion was fact. I don't like it when people hold opinions as fact, so in traditional internet manner I escalated past threat level: Car analogy directly to threat level: Godwin.
I never stated or implied that my opinion was fact. I stated that attacking somebody's opinion as subjective is entirely fruitless, and the obvious reason for this is that it's not arguing, it's throwing the whole argument out the window. There is value in debating subjective issues, in discussing the reasoning behind opinions on games (and other things). The ever-prevalent and always-snide "it's not for you" is pretty much coming in and taking a dump on that discussion.
Obviously, I now have to discard the remaining assumption, leaving me rather red in the face. Dare I ask what exactly it is we're arguing if we're not actually arguing orver something?
Originally, I was dismissing the following idea: "Learning a fighting game is like learning a martial art, and therefore, complaints about the inaccessibility of fighting games are invalid". You got irritated at one out-of-context part of that dismissal and decided to invent a whole straw man argument for me, which you've been arguing against ever since.
There was no text in any of my replies.
did I miss any of the ways to possibly highlight something?
I'll give you a hint: Everything I said was in response to what I inferred from your post. It is not constructing a straw-man when you honestly believe the opposition actually believes the arguments...
Also, in case you didn't notice, my last post was OVERstating the fact that I was wrong. Way to keep punching after the bell rings. . .
In Pac-man, there is very clearly a single 'best' strategy, so it isn't deep by that standard.
Except there isn't clearly a single best strategy in Pac-Man:CE. If you look at replays of top scorers, you'll notice that strategies tend to fall under 3 major categories.
1 - The player who focuses on ghost combos for score.
2 - The player who focuses on stage clearing for score.
3 - The player who falls between the two strategies.
And those are just the overall strategies: specific strategies for how to best do individual parts vary from person to person and situation to situation.
I think good fighting games have a ton of depth. But I don't think they have a monopoly on depth nor do I think that they have more depth than the best games in other genres.
Just because your game of rock-paper-scissors has 20 elements in the chain instead of 3 doesn't mean it's deeper. Having more buttons doesn't mean it's deeper, just more complex, and some games have too much useless shit for their own good (SFIV doesn't). The fact remains that Pac-Man CE is deep enough that an extremely skilled player's score will blow some beginner's score out of the water.
Perhaps we need to define "deep". To me, it's the array of possibilities, and the play between them, that creates depth.
This shit is debatable. And I don't want to debate it. It's a party fighting game that has been transformed into a fighting game by the implementation of a bunch of (somewhat arbitrary) rules. Whether you consider it a fighting game or not is up to you. I don't really care. I consider Power Stone 1 a fighting game, but not Power Stone 2 (in the same sense), and I love them both. It doesn't bother me that PS2 isn't a fighting game most of the time.
The only "arbitrary" rule I can think of is turning of all the items.
That seems about as "arbitrary" as turning off handicaps in a street fighter game. :P
Turning off the items is arbitrary. Anyone can use them, I don't see the point. They're also part of the game -- it's designed around them.
Look, I disagree with what Evo did, if only because it showed disrespect to the Smash community. I don't, however, think they were wrong, or that CPU won without skill, but just by abusing items and smash balls. I wish the Smash community could be a little more open, but whatever.
...what did evo do? I never gave SSBB much attention, mostly because after I figured out everything I could in single player that was pretty much it. The online was unplayable.
Just because your game of rock-paper-scissors has 20 elements in the chain instead of 3 doesn't mean it's deeper. Having more buttons doesn't mean it's deeper, just more complex, and some games have too much useless shit for their own good (SFIV doesn't). The fact remains that Pac-Man CE is deep enough that an extremely skilled player's score will blow some beginner's score out of the water.
Perhaps we need to define "deep". To me, it's the array of possibilities, and the play between them, that creates depth.
It does create depth to an extent, I'll give you that, but it is not the only way to judge a game's depth in my opinion. As I said, the fact that a skilled player will beat a beginner at Pac-Man CE gives the game a form of depth too. The game's not scripted like Mario or Megaman, it is an arcade game with mechanics you must master to obtain a high score. That alone is proof of some depth to me.
Djiem on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
I remember I tried to play ken in sf4 for fun as a noobie and I couldn't do a fireball. I would always do a shoryuken. I played a character in another fighting game that had a shoryuken style input to the point where the motion was almost instinctive, and it was so hard to drill out because that same character didn't have a quarter circle forward.
I ended up just running in and shoryukenning all the time.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Sheesh... 9 pages in a short period of time... I'll try to address what the OP was frustrated with.
I think I saw it said earlier, but most fighting games (2D especially) really aren't designed to be single-player experiences. Most (all?) 2D fighters started as arcade games, which fostered face-to-face competition, which, in the case where people weren't dicks, fostered learning about the games' mechanics/nuances. Removing that element from the genre removes a crucial learning step.
For a couple months prior to my Xbox 360 shitting the bed and the release of Street Fighter 4, a bunch of us PAers would get together on XBL mostly every night just playing each other in friendly matches of SSF2T HD Remix. It's the most fun I've had with video games in years, and I learned a ton about the game as well, in a remarkably short period. None of us would really play with our best characters (unless we were trying to test something out), we would always answer a question when it was asked, and everybody knew we were just playing for the fun of it. We had our tournaments for playing serious business games, but other than that, nobody got shit on for not knowing x combo or how to do y move properly. You asked, you got an answer, and you kept practicing if you wanted to learn it, or you gave up if you didn't care enough. It worked.
I think there's a bit of an attitude with competitive fighting games when played really competitively; this can make people frustrated if they're just looking to have a good time. If you want to play competitively, you need to practice, end of story. If you just want to dick around and have fun with the game, find a group of people (everyone from the old HDR thread) and have fun with them (us).
I like the Street Fighter series in particular because you get out of it what you put into it. The game is a reflection of your attitude towards it. If you enjoy playing at a high level, practice for like, fucking forever and you'll get there. If you don't, I'll always be here to have fun.
...what did evo do? I never gave SSBB much attention, mostly because after I figured out everything I could in single player that was pretty much it. The online was unplayable.
Evo brought Smash in, but allowed items. Evo makes their own rules for games they allow, and traditionally they're very against banning things. I mean, Capcom makes some broke ass fighters, and they still don't ban shit, so it should be obvious how they're going to approach other games.
I think it's gross how knowledge of spacing, approaching, DI, recovery, etc is inconsequential compared to the ability to get the smashball.
Did anyone notice how Ken annihilated CPU at the beginning of each match before the items appeared?
I did >_>
Evo Announcer:
"CPU is pretty patient."
IT'S CALLED CAMPING.
These matches were disgusting. ROB won simply because of items. Every single time there were no items on the stage, he was getting rocked. Items have no place in competitive play, especially when some stupid 14 year old child with no grasp on spacing can use items and win.
And this is from the first page of a ~18 page thread, which is just the tip of their item-hating iceberg.
SRK and Evo maintain that they looked into it, and after careful deliberation decided that items and smashballs were not gamebreaking, that every player has access to them, that they're part of the game, and that they make competition more exciting.
Now who's right is up for debate. I think SRK and Evo have a shown that they have no problem disrespecting other FG communities, while Smashboards has shown that they are closed minded and a little childish. I think Evo did the right thing, but could have done it better -- not that the Smash community would ever have accepted it, but still.
SRK and Evo maintain that they looked into it, and after careful deliberation decided that items and smashballs were not gamebreaking, that every player has access to them, that they're part of the game, and that they make competition more exciting.
I'll have to agree, these are the only SSB(M/B) competitive videos I've ever found remotely interesting to watch in all I've seen on Youtube.
The thing I don't like about most fighting games is that when it gets competitive, and I mean seriously competitive, people break off character animations and it just becomes weird to look at. I personally prefer to watch people who are very good (but not the top of the world) fight, because the game's animations still look like what they should, and there are nice tricks being pulled.
The best time I've had with SFIV was just today at an Arcade. I start it up, play a bit with a CPU, and suddenly I get a "Challenged" message. Some guy sat at the cabinet in front of me (linked to mine) and started playing me. We played a few matches and I won about a little less than half of them. I was lucky enough to land on someone of my skills. Real competitors would have looked at us and shrugged because we were nothing special, but the matches were fun to watch if you're just playing it for fun.
Also it was fun playing with an arcade stick and buttons layout rather than my PS3 controller.
I would love a mode of Brawl where you gained final smashes by getting the shit kicked out of you.
Though I do love the mechanic of beating the ball out of someone.
Funny thing is, I'm a huge proponent of turning items on in Melee and fairly mixed about Brawl. I think Brawl has too many items that are just a bit too powerful like the soccer ball and bumper.
...what did evo do? I never gave SSBB much attention, mostly because after I figured out everything I could in single player that was pretty much it. The online was unplayable.
Evo brought Smash in, but allowed items. Evo makes their own rules for games they allow, and traditionally they're very against banning things. I mean, Capcom makes some broke ass fighters, and they still don't ban shit, so it should be obvious how they're going to approach other games.
I think it's gross how knowledge of spacing, approaching, DI, recovery, etc is inconsequential compared to the ability to get the smashball.
Did anyone notice how Ken annihilated CPU at the beginning of each match before the items appeared?
I did >_>
Evo Announcer:
"CPU is pretty patient."
IT'S CALLED CAMPING.
These matches were disgusting. ROB won simply because of items. Every single time there were no items on the stage, he was getting rocked. Items have no place in competitive play, especially when some stupid 14 year old child with no grasp on spacing can use items and win.
And this is from the first page of a ~18 page thread, which is just the tip of their item-hating iceberg.
SRK and Evo maintain that they looked into it, and after careful deliberation decided that items and smashballs were not gamebreaking, that every player has access to them, that they're part of the game, and that they make competition more exciting.
Now who's right is up for debate. I think SRK and Evo have a shown that they have no problem disrespecting other FG communities, while Smashboards has shown that they are closed minded and a little childish. I think Evo did the right thing, but could have done it better -- not that the Smash community would ever have accepted it, but still.
I'm far from being a smash expert but it looked to me in those videos that CPU won because he made much better use of the items, both offensively and defensively. I didn't see any "camping" being done, hell Ken missed some opportunities to get the smash ball and CPU did an awesome evade when he got it the second time. It just seemed like Ken had been practicing that whole time without items while CPU had learned them well, a smart move if you're playing in a tournament with items.
I doubt CPU got that far in the tourney on items alone, it was just such a big advantage for him in this match because Ken wasn't nearly as good with them as CPU. It would be like me making it to the final round of a SF4 tourney without ever learning how to set up my ultra or stop someone from getting theirs on me then getting crushed by Daigo's Ryu and complaining that "he only won because of that ultra bullshit"
O. Sagat is soft banned in Japan, but totally allowed in America. A soft ban basically means that he's technically allowed, but picking him is considered bad form.
O. Sagat is soft banned in Japan, but totally allowed in America. A soft ban basically means that he's technically allowed, but picking him is considered bad form.
Soft ban means that if you pick him in a tourney Daigo is going to come and fuck your shit up.
I'm far from being a smash expert but it looked to me in those videos that CPU won because he made much better use of the items, both offensively and defensively. I didn't see any "camping" being done, hell Ken missed some opportunities to get the smash ball and CPU did an awesome evade when he got it the second time. It just seemed like Ken had been practicing that whole time without items while CPU had learned them well, a smart move if you're playing in a tournament with items.
I doubt CPU got that far in the tourney on items alone, it was just such a big advantage for him in this match because Ken wasn't nearly as good with them as CPU. It would be like me making it to the final round of a SF4 tourney without ever learning how to set up my ultra or stop someone from getting theirs on me then getting crushed by Daigo's Ryu and complaining that "he only won because of that ultra bullshit"
Thats not exactly a fair comparison. The smash community have not always banned items. In early tournaments, items were allowed. However, over time it became apparent that with items on, being able to camp the item spawn points became by far the most important skill in the game, which led to the decision to turn them off. Its also the same reason why some stages are banned, because in some stages, you spend more time fighting the stage than your opponent.
tl:dr, the smash community tried items, and rejected them. In order to put this into perspective: Akuma has been banned in the Super Turbo community for years. How would that community react if Smashboards held a Super Turbo competition, and decided to allow Akuma?
Ah ok, I was not aware of that... I didn't even know they had set spawns, it seems kinda silly.
I don't think anyone would go to a super turbo competition hosted by smashboards and if they did I hope they practiced playing with akuma first :P
Anyway, it still looked like Ken was not totally comfortable with using the items...
The smash community also rejected items because explosive pills would materialize as someone was say, doing a smash attack, resulting in an instant k.o. based on pure luck.
Yes, I do hate fighting games. I hate how they're generally in a 2D plane, with characters moving back and forth across the screen. I hate how they do really weird moves like throwing fireballs at each other with kung fu. And I find it incredibly unrealistic how you can juggle opponents in the air with a flurry of attacks, somehow defying the laws of gravity. Seriously, how does kicking a guy a lot allow him to float in the air like that? It doesn't make any sense.
I disagree. First, Akuma is an objectively broken character. He beats everyone else, hands down. ST is hard enough on low tiers already, if Akuma was allowed then there would be no reason to use any other character, ever.
Items are something everyone can use. Yes, you have to camp the item spawns, but if you do that then you're kind of obvious with your movements. And at the same time, the other guy can do the same thing. "All you have to do is camp the items," doesn't seem that far off from "All you have to do is get the better position and knock the other player off the map."
Not quite the same, but in Quake you have to control items over the whole map, timing armours and powerups while doing your best to deny your opponent the best weapons. You can't be everywhere at once, so part of the skill is being able to be in the right places at the right times, while still being able to get to the armours when they spawn. On the other hand, powerups and armours are in very vulnerable positions, so if you go in for the Red Armour and your opponent knows it, then you're probably trapped or at least in a bad position. Brawl has a map editor, so I don't see why someone couldn't design maps around items.
The smash community also rejected items because explosive pills would materialize as someone was say, doing a smash attack, resulting in an instant k.o. based on pure luck.
You can enable and disable specific items, too. You can adjust the spawn rates, as well, and most every item has a disadvantage.
Besides, Brawl already has the random tripping, which may just be a giant _|_ from Nintendo to the tourney players they don't seem interested in supporting.
Yes, I do hate fighting games. I hate how they're generally in a 2D plane, with characters moving back and forth across the screen. I hate how they do really weird moves like throwing fireballs at each other with kung fu. And I find it incredibly unrealistic how you can juggle opponents in the air with a flurry of attacks, somehow defying the laws of gravity. Seriously, how does kicking a guy a lot allow him to float in the air like that? It doesn't make any sense.
So you hate every game ever except maybe Flight Simulator X?
We're talking about fighting games here, not fighting simulators... They're not supposed to be realistic.'
Posts
Certainly it's not a traditional fighting game, but if not a fighting game, then what in the world is it?
Pac-Man is not deep. Pac-Man: Championship Edition is.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Urghhhhhhhhhhhhh.
This shit is debatable. And I don't want to debate it. It's a party fighting game that has been transformed into a fighting game by the implementation of a bunch of (somewhat arbitrary) rules. Whether you consider it a fighting game or not is up to you. I don't really care. I consider Power Stone 1 a fighting game, but not Power Stone 2 (in the same sense), and I love them both. It doesn't bother me that PS2 isn't a fighting game most of the time.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
The only "arbitrary" rule I can think of is turning of all the items.
That seems about as "arbitrary" as turning off handicaps in a street fighter game. :P
No one is saying why it's so deep. The mechanics seem the same: Avoid ghosts, eat pellets, power pills turn you into a hungry, if temporary, God. I'm not seeing the depth.
going on the implication I read from your posts, I was sarcastically suggesting you were a fascist because what was read from the implication was that it couldn't be a game. It was then sarcastically implied on my part that if a game can't be a game because you say so, that would make you a fascist (Hitler).
Earlier when you went on the whole "Subjectivity is a stupid argument" tyrade, I had to discard my assumption that your opinion the game was bad, leaving the only alternative: that your opinion was fact. I don't like it when people hold opinions as fact, so in traditional internet manner I escalated past threat level: Car analogy directly to threat level: Godwin.
Obviously, I now have to discard the remaining assumption, leaving me rather red in the face. Dare I ask what exactly it is we're arguing if we're not actually arguing orver something?
without explicitly asking for it, I was asking for Rainbow to tell me why Pac Man: CE has depth past what is described above. I thought Pac Man: CE was fundamentally the same game as Pac Man except having many different playmodes and such.
I think it is fair to assume that Pac Man: CE is fundamentally the same as Pac Man considering they share the same name.
In b4 anyone telling me ololol that's stupid, look at Pac Man Adventure or any of the other Pac Man-Branded abortions.
Also, you can't indefinitely grab the edge forever and be invincible.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Pac-Man is a defensive game. The game ends when you run out of lives. Pac-Man: Championship Edition is an aggressive game. The game ends when you run out of time (I can't remember the last time I ran out of lives). The point of the game isn't staying alive, but rather trying to convert your time into points in as efficient a manner as possible. The whole dynamic of the game is reversed.
The scoring system is drastically more sophisticated in Pac-Man:CE. Combined with the time limit, this creates a lot of depth. A skilled Pac-Man:CE player might intentionally kill himself or intentionally avoid eating a ghost while under the influence of a power pellet because these unintuitive moves might actually increase their potential for high scores (an intentional suicide could set him up for a ghost killing combo by getting all the ghosts back in one place, avoiding eating a ghost might help him avoid being trapped later on).
The level is constantly changing thus making it impossible to simply memorize levels patterns like you could in the original Pac-Man. You can learn enemy AI (I know you were joking earlier on, but all 4 ghosts actually use different distinctive AI), but you have to figure out patterns on the fly.
I could go further and talk about how each of the different modes has various strategies associated with it, but I think that'll suffice.
Anyway, tying this digression back into the main thread, my point was that just because a game has simple controls doesn't mean that it has shallow gameplay, and just because a game has complicated controls doesn't mean that it has deep gameplay. Sometimes simpler is better (just look at Go).
EDIT: A few more depth filled things about Pac-Man:CE - the level evolves in halves and in certain situations it can be beneficial to make one side of the level evolve at a different rate than the other side. Also, the speed of the game changes depending on your actions so trying to speed up the game (difficulty increases, but potential for high scores also increases) is another aspect that a skilled player is going to always have in his mind while playing.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
There was no such implication anywhere in my posts.
I never stated or implied that my opinion was fact. I stated that attacking somebody's opinion as subjective is entirely fruitless, and the obvious reason for this is that it's not arguing, it's throwing the whole argument out the window. There is value in debating subjective issues, in discussing the reasoning behind opinions on games (and other things). The ever-prevalent and always-snide "it's not for you" is pretty much coming in and taking a dump on that discussion.
Originally, I was dismissing the following idea: "Learning a fighting game is like learning a martial art, and therefore, complaints about the inaccessibility of fighting games are invalid". You got irritated at one out-of-context part of that dismissal and decided to invent a whole straw man argument for me, which you've been arguing against ever since.
Fair enough, but honestly, that doesn't strike me as "deep". A touch deeper than the original, sure, but not "deep" in comparison to, say, a proper fighting game. Don't get me wrong, Pac-Man is fun and all, but even with the described changes, it's still Pac-Man. Games like, say, SF4, strike me as "deep" due to the large number of options, and sub-options, and the interplay between these mechanics, that can occur at any moment. This is where all the "yomi" arguments come in; you learn what an opponent CAN do, predict which of his tools he'll use (say, paper), then decide which of your various scissors to use in response, and which paper to flip to if it happened to be rock. Unfortunately, providing a depth of options in a fighting game means a large number of moves, which means you have to have ways to specify what move (inputs), then rules for how they interact (chains, links, priority, recovery). The system is necessarily more complex than your average 80s coin-op.
Just because your game of rock-paper-scissors has 20 elements in the chain instead of 3 doesn't mean it's deeper. Having more buttons doesn't mean it's deeper, just more complex, and some games have too much useless shit for their own good (SFIV doesn't). The fact remains that Pac-Man CE is deep enough that an extremely skilled player's score will blow some beginner's score out of the water.
That definition does not translate well to single player games. In a multiplayer game, if someone discovers a strategy that beats every other strategy, the game is not deep, because then every other player is forced to master that one strategy to win.
In a single player, thats not so much of an issue, because then it becomes who can master that one strategy the best.
In Pac-man, there is very clearly a single 'best' strategy, so it isn't deep by that standard.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
There was no text in any of my replies.
I'll give you a hint: Everything I said was in response to what I inferred from your post. It is not constructing a straw-man when you honestly believe the opposition actually believes the arguments...
Also, in case you didn't notice, my last post was OVERstating the fact that I was wrong. Way to keep punching after the bell rings. . .
Except there isn't clearly a single best strategy in Pac-Man:CE. If you look at replays of top scorers, you'll notice that strategies tend to fall under 3 major categories.
1 - The player who focuses on ghost combos for score.
2 - The player who focuses on stage clearing for score.
3 - The player who falls between the two strategies.
And those are just the overall strategies: specific strategies for how to best do individual parts vary from person to person and situation to situation.
I think good fighting games have a ton of depth. But I don't think they have a monopoly on depth nor do I think that they have more depth than the best games in other genres.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Perhaps we need to define "deep". To me, it's the array of possibilities, and the play between them, that creates depth.
Turning off the items is arbitrary. Anyone can use them, I don't see the point. They're also part of the game -- it's designed around them.
Look, I disagree with what Evo did, if only because it showed disrespect to the Smash community. I don't, however, think they were wrong, or that CPU won without skill, but just by abusing items and smash balls. I wish the Smash community could be a little more open, but whatever.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
It does create depth to an extent, I'll give you that, but it is not the only way to judge a game's depth in my opinion. As I said, the fact that a skilled player will beat a beginner at Pac-Man CE gives the game a form of depth too. The game's not scripted like Mario or Megaman, it is an arcade game with mechanics you must master to obtain a high score. That alone is proof of some depth to me.
I ended up just running in and shoryukenning all the time.
I think I saw it said earlier, but most fighting games (2D especially) really aren't designed to be single-player experiences. Most (all?) 2D fighters started as arcade games, which fostered face-to-face competition, which, in the case where people weren't dicks, fostered learning about the games' mechanics/nuances. Removing that element from the genre removes a crucial learning step.
For a couple months prior to my Xbox 360 shitting the bed and the release of Street Fighter 4, a bunch of us PAers would get together on XBL mostly every night just playing each other in friendly matches of SSF2T HD Remix. It's the most fun I've had with video games in years, and I learned a ton about the game as well, in a remarkably short period. None of us would really play with our best characters (unless we were trying to test something out), we would always answer a question when it was asked, and everybody knew we were just playing for the fun of it. We had our tournaments for playing serious business games, but other than that, nobody got shit on for not knowing x combo or how to do y move properly. You asked, you got an answer, and you kept practicing if you wanted to learn it, or you gave up if you didn't care enough. It worked.
I think there's a bit of an attitude with competitive fighting games when played really competitively; this can make people frustrated if they're just looking to have a good time. If you want to play competitively, you need to practice, end of story. If you just want to dick around and have fun with the game, find a group of people (everyone from the old HDR thread) and have fun with them (us).
I like the Street Fighter series in particular because you get out of it what you put into it. The game is a reflection of your attitude towards it. If you enjoy playing at a high level, practice for like, fucking forever and you'll get there. If you don't, I'll always be here to have fun.
This thread basically sums it up.
Evo brought Smash in, but allowed items. Evo makes their own rules for games they allow, and traditionally they're very against banning things. I mean, Capcom makes some broke ass fighters, and they still don't ban shit, so it should be obvious how they're going to approach other games.
The Smash community, however, hated it.
Here are the vids of Evo2k8's Smash Grand Finals
Part 2
Part 3
Here are some choice quotes:
And this is from the first page of a ~18 page thread, which is just the tip of their item-hating iceberg.
SRK and Evo maintain that they looked into it, and after careful deliberation decided that items and smashballs were not gamebreaking, that every player has access to them, that they're part of the game, and that they make competition more exciting.
Now who's right is up for debate. I think SRK and Evo have a shown that they have no problem disrespecting other FG communities, while Smashboards has shown that they are closed minded and a little childish. I think Evo did the right thing, but could have done it better -- not that the Smash community would ever have accepted it, but still.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I'll have to agree, these are the only SSB(M/B) competitive videos I've ever found remotely interesting to watch in all I've seen on Youtube.
The thing I don't like about most fighting games is that when it gets competitive, and I mean seriously competitive, people break off character animations and it just becomes weird to look at. I personally prefer to watch people who are very good (but not the top of the world) fight, because the game's animations still look like what they should, and there are nice tricks being pulled.
The best time I've had with SFIV was just today at an Arcade. I start it up, play a bit with a CPU, and suddenly I get a "Challenged" message. Some guy sat at the cabinet in front of me (linked to mine) and started playing me. We played a few matches and I won about a little less than half of them. I was lucky enough to land on someone of my skills. Real competitors would have looked at us and shrugged because we were nothing special, but the matches were fun to watch if you're just playing it for fun.
Also it was fun playing with an arcade stick and buttons layout rather than my PS3 controller.
Though I do love the mechanic of beating the ball out of someone.
Funny thing is, I'm a huge proponent of turning items on in Melee and fairly mixed about Brawl. I think Brawl has too many items that are just a bit too powerful like the soccer ball and bumper.
I would agree if hitting an opponent with a charged soccer ball wasn't this incredibly satisfying. It just has that OOMPH that I love.
I'm far from being a smash expert but it looked to me in those videos that CPU won because he made much better use of the items, both offensively and defensively. I didn't see any "camping" being done, hell Ken missed some opportunities to get the smash ball and CPU did an awesome evade when he got it the second time. It just seemed like Ken had been practicing that whole time without items while CPU had learned them well, a smart move if you're playing in a tournament with items.
I doubt CPU got that far in the tourney on items alone, it was just such a big advantage for him in this match because Ken wasn't nearly as good with them as CPU. It would be like me making it to the final round of a SF4 tourney without ever learning how to set up my ultra or stop someone from getting theirs on me then getting crushed by Daigo's Ryu and complaining that "he only won because of that ultra bullshit"
O. Sagat is soft banned in Japan, but totally allowed in America. A soft ban basically means that he's technically allowed, but picking him is considered bad form.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Soft ban means that if you pick him in a tourney Daigo is going to come and fuck your shit up.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I remember these vids of a guy who entered a three man tourney on his own using st akuma and took it home.
Thats not exactly a fair comparison. The smash community have not always banned items. In early tournaments, items were allowed. However, over time it became apparent that with items on, being able to camp the item spawn points became by far the most important skill in the game, which led to the decision to turn them off. Its also the same reason why some stages are banned, because in some stages, you spend more time fighting the stage than your opponent.
tl:dr, the smash community tried items, and rejected them. In order to put this into perspective: Akuma has been banned in the Super Turbo community for years. How would that community react if Smashboards held a Super Turbo competition, and decided to allow Akuma?
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
I don't think anyone would go to a super turbo competition hosted by smashboards and if they did I hope they practiced playing with akuma first :P
Anyway, it still looked like Ken was not totally comfortable with using the items...
Items are something everyone can use. Yes, you have to camp the item spawns, but if you do that then you're kind of obvious with your movements. And at the same time, the other guy can do the same thing. "All you have to do is camp the items," doesn't seem that far off from "All you have to do is get the better position and knock the other player off the map."
Not quite the same, but in Quake you have to control items over the whole map, timing armours and powerups while doing your best to deny your opponent the best weapons. You can't be everywhere at once, so part of the skill is being able to be in the right places at the right times, while still being able to get to the armours when they spawn. On the other hand, powerups and armours are in very vulnerable positions, so if you go in for the Red Armour and your opponent knows it, then you're probably trapped or at least in a bad position. Brawl has a map editor, so I don't see why someone couldn't design maps around items.
You can enable and disable specific items, too. You can adjust the spawn rates, as well, and most every item has a disadvantage.
Besides, Brawl already has the random tripping, which may just be a giant _|_ from Nintendo to the tourney players they don't seem interested in supporting.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
So you hate every game ever except maybe Flight Simulator X?
We're talking about fighting games here, not fighting simulators... They're not supposed to be realistic.'
e: ninja edit!