-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is Smash Bros a fighting game / why do some players insist on it not being one?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
i dont know which video did you watch but The Outfoxies doesnt work like a traditional fighting game at all.
Oh that kind of thing still happens for sure. Same exact thing happened when I was playing the original Counter Strike on competitive maps and rules instead of massive teams of people fighting it out on gimmick maps.
Most? Seriously? Most? Incredible generalisation there.
..The hell? What decade is this?
What? You don't shoot in so-called "Walking Simulators", so of course they aren't First Person Shooters.
But you fight, in a platform fighter. It's a fighting game.
Nobody cares about Divekick and Power Stone except the FGC, what are you even talking about.
Just a note for some:
Even with Smash being a fighting game.
Don't worry, it's ok. Your favourite fighting game will still be as popular as it always was.
Even with Smash being a fighting game.
Don't worry, it's ok. Your favourite fighting game will still be as popular as it always was.
A life gauge isn't a traditional fighting game element?
The Outfoxies is closer to an action game of the era (movement, item use) than Smash Bros.
That's like when some people say Splatoon ripped off this game and completely miss the point and the core features of each game:
This elitism talk is total nonsense. Tons of games are trashed by the FGC for whatever reason, but you will never see them saying Mortal Kombat, Pokken or even Arms is not a fighting game. Items are also not really an issue because tons of games in the past had stuff like this before, such as the original Samurai Shodown.
Smash Brothers' focus is on the opponent leaving the ring ala sumo wrestling. Ignoring the way inputs are handled, this is a completely different dynamic to everything from Tekken to Street Fighter to The King of Fighters and even stuff like Virtual-On and more. There are tons of traditional games where you can self destruct too, but it is clearly in a different context.
Another huge aspect here is you see tons of player crossover between arcade fighting games, but Smash Brothers players almost always stick to just that and do little to try and unify it with the more traditional games. They even refuse to use terms the FGC have agreed upon for years such as locals (friendlies) and mirror matches (dittos). The difficulty the communities have with one another is mostly coming from the Smash Brothers side, honestly.
It should be listed under a different genre entirely I think. Platform Fighter is a decent enough term but I think it needs more direct distinction. Beat em ups and wrestling games have their own titles, so why not this?
Smash Brothers' focus is on the opponent leaving the ring ala sumo wrestling. Ignoring the way inputs are handled, this is a completely different dynamic to everything from Tekken to Street Fighter to The King of Fighters and even stuff like Virtual-On and more. There are tons of traditional games where you can self destruct too, but it is clearly in a different context.
Another huge aspect here is you see tons of player crossover between arcade fighting games, but Smash Brothers players almost always stick to just that and do little to try and unify it with the more traditional games. They even refuse to use terms the FGC have agreed upon for years such as locals (friendlies) and mirror matches (dittos). The difficulty the communities have with one another is mostly coming from the Smash Brothers side, honestly.
It should be listed under a different genre entirely I think. Platform Fighter is a decent enough term but I think it needs more direct distinction. Beat em ups and wrestling games have their own titles, so why not this?
But Smash has more in common with that game (a game which you just said is more like an action game) than it does SFII
I agree, I have no qualms calling it a fighting game. But there's something about stripping out a lot of the defaults for it to be competitive will never NOT feel wrong to me.
No lvl 99 Pixel , you glorifying the intricacies EVERY. SINGLE. TIME and trying to compare it to other fighters it comes up won't convince me. It is NOT the same.
Megaman is a TPS
Pointing out synonymous fundamentals =/= glorifying intricacies.
I have seen people argue that it is a run n gun, so I mean, kinda!
I personally consider the classic Shinobi run n gun games, I am sure that is a more controversial opinion overall.
There are Smash clones that come with competitive one vs one settings out of the box. Are you going to argue that Rivals of Aether is a fighting game and Smash is not?
Imagine minds will be blown at the realization that games can be more than one genre at the same time
Some fighting game elitists try to insist Smash isn't a fighting game because it being one (and it is) encroaches on their hardcore identity or whatever, but it's all just semantic nonsense. Smash is a fighting game. It's also a party game. It's also both. Play it however you like. Anyone who tries to convince you Smash isn't a "real" fighting game/only a party game/has a lower skill ceiling than "real" fighting games is not worth wasting your time listening to or arguing with. Most people know better, I think.
Last edited:
So what you're saying is that a game that uses an element of one of the oldest combat sports around... makes it not a fighting game.
It is a fighting game and the elitsts who insist it isn't are the problem.
It's a multiplayer focused game with a roster of unique characters who fight each other in competitive matches rather than cooperative play against NPCs.
It's a fighting game.
Default settings doesn't amounts to much to dismiss it as a non fighting game. You have to turn off a lot of things on Halo for the competitive ruleset and it's hardly the most played one or the default. Speaking of Halo a popular ruleset is energy sword only and it's so transformative at that point that you could call it a First Person Slasher game.
Why? It's a multiplayer game where the goal is to defeat the opponent in combat, whether it's AI or another human. It has a roster of selectable characters to play as and fight against, it has a training mode, it has inputs and combos, it has a competitive scene and a meta. Platformer fighter is a perfectly valid description.
You're focusing on where the games are different and ignoring the ways they are similar.
The entire point is to create such a narrow definition of "fighting game" that the game they don't like doesn't count as one.
The genre is decades old at this point. We don't need to have every game be the same as SF2.
The biggest e-sports started as custom mods where people played the games completely differently to how the developer could have possibly predicted. The attempt to disregard games because of their origins just makes people sound deranged.
CS and Quake had minimal overlap and they're still FPS (if you want to differentiate by calling Quake an Arena shooter that's the same type of sub-genre quantification as " Platform Fighter"). There are countless examples of games in the same genre that attract different audiences. Trying to control what is or isn't real FGC is so fucking juvenile and cringe.
Last edited:
If Smash is not a fighting game because the goal is to ring out the opponent, not drain a health meter, is Yoshi's Island not a platformer because its form of "health" is based around an escort mission rather than the standard take hit > lose power-up > take hit > die formula?
I thought you were gonna talk about how RING OUT is a viable method of winning in games like Soulcalibur
How's it a problem, Who's it a problem to?
Oh no, I'm an eliteist because I draw a line between two different things. Whatever man.
It's definitely some form of fighting game, I just personally get frustrated with the label when people use "it's a fighting game" to argue about how it needs to be like x/y/z other fighting game
It's a problem because fighting game elitists use the "Smash isn't a fighting game" lie to gate-keep people out of the entire community. And you're spreading this lie. They're "different things" in the sense that they're different fighting games.
There isn't a good faith argument for me that's says smash isn't a fighting game it's all gatekeeping. Either thinking Smash is sucking up attention other 'traditional' fighting games would get or because Smash players aren't traditional fighting game players.
Either way the argument is paper thin.
How is it a bad idea? Smash over the last few years has secured itself in a tier above Tekken or Street Fighter in popularity in the fighting game scene.
To be fair, looking at the stats, the Smash community doesn't appear interested in being part of the wider FGC. They tend to play Smash and only Smash.
You're just throwing out buzzwords it's not a problem at all.
No one is kept out of any community you're talking shite.
so by this definition... shooters are fighting games. and so is DOTA and league.
Lol yes they are. Do you know how much the Smash community had to work and struggle to get into major tournament like EVO and how massive the backlash was once it finally happened? It was massive among the "traditional" fighting game fans.
Ah yes I forgot you can only be included in a wide genre defining tag if your community overlaps. Thank god that's been cleared up
...You know what? I think I agree.
- Fighting Game
- Traditional Fighter
- Arena Fighter
- Platform Fighter
- Puzzle Fighter
- Sport Simulator
Smash at Evo is terrible and shouldn't be there.
And Evo isn't the Fighting Game community it's a tournament.
Are you going to campaign for traditional fighting games at Smash majors?
This is incredible.
Smash is a fighting game, so it should be an option at a tournament comprised of the biggest fighting games.
Street Fighter is not a Smash game, so it should not be expected at a Smash tournament comprised of Smash games.