Must be quite the echo chamber wherever these same bits of misinformation keep coming from
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is Smash Bros a fighting game / why do some players insist on it not being one?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
Must be quite the echo chamber wherever these same bits of misinformation keep coming from
Again... you can tell who in this thread doesn't actually play and follow Smash in any meaningful way.
Developer states it's a fighting game.
Has player vs player combat, lots of system mechanics like other fighting games.
Also played at the biggest fighting game tournaments and is even headlining EVO Japan.
But people dislike playing it competitively or competitive play is not their personal cup of tea so therefore it's not a fighting game (????????)
Seriously.
Nobody has challenged my statement that the people saying it's not a fighting game are only really doing it to downplay or discredit other people having fun. It's sad.
Has player vs player combat, lots of system mechanics like other fighting games.
Also played at the biggest fighting game tournaments and is even headlining EVO Japan.
But people dislike playing it competitively or competitive play is not their personal cup of tea so therefore it's not a fighting game (????????)
Seriously.
Nobody has challenged my statement that the people saying it's not a fighting game are only really doing it to downplay or discredit other people having fun. It's sad.
Last edited:
While his thinking does indeed appear to have changed we can't deny that the first three games were not suppossed to be fighting games, and that's literal, its creators didn't intend for the games to be seen as fighting games. Which is too ironic considering Melee is thought to be the pinacle of the series and the genre (at least for a loooooooooooooooong time, I don't know about Ultimate honestly), so was it a happy accident? Can we consider a game to be a different genre than the creators intended? There's an elephant in the room here when talking about Smash being a fighting game and that's Sakurai himself over the years.
Now, I do consider the game to be a fighting game, I think it's quite obvious, but we can't deny that it's weird how it was never meant to be like this and it sort of evolved to become a successful fighting game, almost genre on its own. And some people get very defensive and don't want to talk about that.
Yeah, let's pretend this never happened
And that was not the first time either. I think the echo chamber is somewhere else...
Now, I do consider the game to be a fighting game, I think it's quite obvious, but we can't deny that it's weird how it was never meant to be like this and it sort of evolved to become a successful fighting game, almost genre on its own. And some people get very defensive and don't want to talk about that.
Yeah, let's pretend this never happened
And that was not the first time either. I think the echo chamber is somewhere else...
So basically you don't want to put the effort into reading the responses to this and post something from 2013, as opposed to the others given from 2015 and 2018 that refer to it as a fighting game?
re: Melee's accidental success. A lot of the depth wasn't intended, but it would be a type of fighting game regardless of how far people ended up taking it.
also this
The interview itself also says
"When I began working on the first Smash Bros., there was a great focus on [highly-technical] fighting games, and that's something we've seen branch off into sort of a niche direction. Now, those types of fighting games have a very high barrier to entry for new players, while Smash was always meant to appeal to lots of people from different gaming communities. "
"When planning the development of a new game, I always take a lot of care to discuss the concept and try to define it as best I can. For example, I like to think of Smash as a four-player battle royal action game. You'll notice that's a lot longer than saying it's a fighting game, because 'fighting game' is a completely different label. You can talk about a fighting game or an action game or a racing game, but as soon as you define your game specifically in those terms, you start limiting your creative range because you're thinking of the limitations of that genre. Perhaps the best thing we can do now is start with a concept rather than a genre. If we can do that, perhaps we can grow the whole idea a little bit."
It's basically saying during the creative process, he looks past genres so he can make something of his own. He's not saying it's not a fighting game at all.
"When I began working on the first Smash Bros., there was a great focus on [highly-technical] fighting games, and that's something we've seen branch off into sort of a niche direction. Now, those types of fighting games have a very high barrier to entry for new players, while Smash was always meant to appeal to lots of people from different gaming communities. "
"When planning the development of a new game, I always take a lot of care to discuss the concept and try to define it as best I can. For example, I like to think of Smash as a four-player battle royal action game. You'll notice that's a lot longer than saying it's a fighting game, because 'fighting game' is a completely different label. You can talk about a fighting game or an action game or a racing game, but as soon as you define your game specifically in those terms, you start limiting your creative range because you're thinking of the limitations of that genre. Perhaps the best thing we can do now is start with a concept rather than a genre. If we can do that, perhaps we can grow the whole idea a little bit."
It's basically saying during the creative process, he looks past genres so he can make something of his own. He's not saying it's not a fighting game at all.
You tell me I don't want to put any effort and you haven't even read the first part of my post. That's impressive.
While the urban legend that combos in SF2 were a bug is not really true, it is true that they basically stumbled upon that depth by accident as well.
They just decided to leave it in in that case, while with stuff like wavedashing I wouldn't be surprised if they never even discovered it before release.
So that kind of stuff seems kinda par for course in the genre!
They knew wavedashing was in.
Nintendo Power: This is one that a lot of hardcore Smash Bros. fans have long wondered about. Was the ablility to "Wavedash" in Melee intentional or a glitch?
Sakurai: Of course, we noticed that you could do that during the development period. With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, "OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?"
We really just wanted this game, again, to appeal to and be played by gamers of all different levels. We felt that there was a growing gap between beginners and advanced players, and taking that out helps to level the playing field. It wasn't a big priority or anything, but when we were building the game around the idea of making it fair for everybody, it just made sense to take it out. And it also goes back to wanting to make something different from Melee and giving players the opportunity to find new things to enjoy.
Nintendo throwing their full force behind supporting Smash 4 in the tournament scene likely encouraged Sakurai to re-evaluate his stance. I'm sure he always considered it a fighting game but didn't really see it as a "competitive" game that could feature in tournaments like Street Fighter. That's definitely changed, Ultimate was 100% developed as a fighting game that could be played both casually and competitively, shields were nerfed, perfect shield/parries were introduced, game speed was increased from Smash 4, etc. These changes were not done to satisfy the people who play on 8 player on Hyrule Temple with items.
It's also ironically the most balanced Smash game despite the massive roster.
It's also ironically the most balanced Smash game despite the massive roster.
iirc the devs knew about wavedashing and didn't think it was a problem
edit: beaten...
They did try to appeal to the wii fit crowd for Brawl which is why it was slowed and simplified.
People insist on Smash not being a fighting game just because it became the most sucessfull one bringing its own mechanics to the table, different to the ones stablished for years and replicated to the exhaustion and that's a hard pill to shallow for some people. How dare that kiddy looking product with such a low barrier of entrance be more sucessfull and take EVO main stage when this niche/long standing traditional fighting game full of hard to execute combos that I spent my life learning exists?!?!
The fighting genre is much bigger and richer than what traditional fighthing games have been from the begining. Mario 64 is more different to Super Mario Bros than Smash Bros is to a traditional fighing game, and nobody is discussing if Mario 64 is a platformer. People can't see the forest behind the tree.
The fighting genre is much bigger and richer than what traditional fighthing games have been from the begining. Mario 64 is more different to Super Mario Bros than Smash Bros is to a traditional fighing game, and nobody is discussing if Mario 64 is a platformer. People can't see the forest behind the tree.
Also debatable if he was referring to wavedashing in particular here but:
And found this too:
And found this too:
Interesting. So it is actually a 1:1 comparison with the SF2 ability to cancel moves I guess.
Something they discovered during development/debug and decided to leave in anyways.
Kinda surprised Nintendo would go that route to be honest, as I figured their philosophy would be to squash anything like that which could be seen as a bug.
I'd imagine part of it was Melee's rushed development process on top of Sakurai being okay with that sort of stuff anyway. He even notes it can be used as a sort of backdash in the Reddit link I posted above.
It's a platform fighter, a branch of fighting games that the game itself created.
Why making a branch? Personally I think a new genre is needed when fans of a genre might not automatically be attracted or like the other one.
Someone that likes virtual fighter probably will also like street fighter 5 but I'm not sure about smash. Thus the differentiation.
Also, with fighting games come certain expectations about the target demographic, while smash basically try to target anyone with working thumbs
Why making a branch? Personally I think a new genre is needed when fans of a genre might not automatically be attracted or like the other one.
Someone that likes virtual fighter probably will also like street fighter 5 but I'm not sure about smash. Thus the differentiation.
Also, with fighting games come certain expectations about the target demographic, while smash basically try to target anyone with working thumbs
Melee was literally developed in 13 months. Amazing game, but held by duct tape, lol.
The specifics are useful ie. Arena fighters since they're significantly different too, more so than Smash vs Street Fighter to me. Or something like Pokken which alternates traditional 2d+ 3d arena with teams of 3 and I don't know how to define that one.
Hey, that duct tape let me do this a few hours ago playing online. Jank into Ken Masters back throw :P
Fights being so filthy and varied is what makes that game and the team of a mere 8 beta testers iirc are part of that :)
Hey, I love Melee lol, it still has the best "game feel" of all the Smashes for me, it's still incredibly fun to pick up and play almost 20 years later. Early Smash games still kind of have that "budget" feel that gives them a lot of charm, even Brawl to an extent had that with some weird jank here and there. Ultimate barely edges it out, but I am always down for some Melee.
I read through the entire damn thread, thank you very much. Even the person's post you quoted. Most of the thread is just dick-measuring and claiming that the distinction is about elitism, while I wanted to come at it from a different angle. Even if I were to back off due to not wanting to belabor anything, posting something inflammatory like "Anybody that holds X opinion is dumb" while at the same time not addressing the meat of what they're saying doesn't fly...anywhere. People here have been modded for that type of stuff, even.
Are we trying to cut down on elitism or no? lol
I would argue that in SF and Tekken, the ends are the same. And that the means are only slightly different. However with Smash, the means would be very similar, but the ends are different. And the fact that the ends are different immediately makes it suspect in comparison. Maybe in the end, people give it the approval. But, I think it's suspect enough to be worthy of a discussion in how we classify things generally.
The original Street Fighter just sliding underneath the grate on that one. lol
I think that multiplayer is important. But, I'm not sure if it's essential given AI has always been there. I don't think we'd stop calling these games fighting games if the only difference was you can only face the computer. And if that's the case, all it would take for DMC to become a (non-traditional) fighting game would be the ability to also play as enemies in a free battle mode (though if that were to actually happen, they should just enable 2-player).
Yes. Pass the Claritin.
I'm joking. I know people call it a platform fighter. I'm mainly trying to test the line where a subgenre just becomes its own genre. Like with beat-em-ups and fighting games.
Hey, now. Millions of people can be wrong. lol *insert political joke here*
Last edited:
When both devs and gamers commonly accept a game as being part of a genre then arguing against that seems like you're just playing devils advocate. There is no purpose to being an entirely different and new genre just because someone doesn't see sumo wrestling on crack as a fight.
I think that the irony here is that I'm not sure people would classify an actual sumo wrestling game as a fighting game. Something just being "a fight" was never in the criteria.
What? You're just throwing words out. The end is "beating the opponent". I'm not sure how much you know about Tekken and Street Fighter, but the means to get there are pretty different.
I've been addressing many people's points. I have yet to see many people do the same to mine.
It's true though. And yes, I'd call it dumb to call something not a fighting game when you have all the above arguing that it is.
Let me ask you this, why does it matter if it's called a fighting game?
If everyone agreed to call it a JRPG, does it really matter? People are still going to enjoy it competitively as much as (arguably more then due to entrant numbers) Street Fighter, Tekken, etc.
People really just don't want to call it a fighting game and argue pointless semantics because they're allergic to people enjoying it competitively.
I'd call that dumb as well. People need to let people enjoy what they like.
If it had neutral play, footsies, etc, I think we would.
Maybe it wouldn't be an enjoyable fighting game, but my personal enjoyment doesn't dictate a genre.
Last edited:
It's extra amusing since Smash is one of the hardest games to learn at high level.
I honestly don't think it is a fighting game. It's fun, and major tournament rules set it up to play similarly to fighting games, but it isn't one itself. This doesn't come from FGC elitism, it's just that the game is fundamentally different than fighting games.
At the end of the day I don't mind it being included at fighting game tournaments. Hell, throw in Mario Tennis at a fighting game tournament and I think it'd fit right in.
At the end of the day I don't mind it being included at fighting game tournaments. Hell, throw in Mario Tennis at a fighting game tournament and I think it'd fit right in.
How is it fundamentally different from fighting games though? Major tournament rules doesn't suddenly make the game have emphasis on combos, frame data, footsies, etc. Even in FFA with items, these all still exist.
Mario Tennis Aces has a lot of cool elements that make it more similar to a fighting game. Too bad nobody really plays the game anymore.
Welcome to...every game. That's way too broad.
The point in Smash is to knock and keep people off of the platform. That's the only way you win. If they're at 2% or 200%. You still gotta knock them off. If time runs out, the calculator is how many times you knocked them off. You can employ things like footsies, zoning, etc. to get there.
But, in other fighting games, the goal is simply to reduce the opponent's life. Unless you're Soulcalibur where you can also have ring outs. But, not all stages allow for that. So, you're mostly stuck with whittling down the opponent's life. You can also employ footsies, etc., to get there. The means work slightly differently between SF and Tekken. But, they work differently in every game. Especially depending on your character.
I am well versed in SF and Tekken. Own the vast majority of them. 2D vs. 3D. Tekken has more emphasis on juggles and corner carry, SF on zoning perhaps. Oversimplification, obviously. Feel free to get into the weeds on how differently you see the two games and I can respond from there.
See, if we could just not do this, that'd be great. lol
Smash has zoning. Footsies. Juggles. Corner carry. Combos. Movement options. It's not broad if it has all these and the goal of beating the opponent.
So is it just not a fighting game because instead of taking down a life bar, it's knocking someone out of arena?
Okay, fine sure, let's go with that.
So back to my earlier point, why does it matter?
Would you argue Rivals of Aether isn't a fighting game either? It's definitely not a party game or whatever other label people want to give Smash Bros.
Last edited:
Smash is a fighting game, Divekick is a fighting game, For Honor is a fighting game. Certainly not traditional, but it shows how wide the fighting game spectrum can be. Also, people just like to make fun of Smash (including me lol). It has been a running joke since... forever?
Most people have answered it already, elitism, not liking its more popular then others, trolling, doesn't play like a traditional fighter, semantics etc.
The thing is though, I'd say most fighters are good party games, Tekken I know is great at parties, especially those doing lan parties and tournaments same with Doom which I'd also say is a good party game along with Mario Party etc.
The thing is though, I'd say most fighters are good party games, Tekken I know is great at parties, especially those doing lan parties and tournaments same with Doom which I'd also say is a good party game along with Mario Party etc.
Plus them not being traditional is a good thing in my eyes, strict "This genre can only be and do X" is never good for the longevity and creativity of said genre and can kill a genre if new ideas, elements, crossovers with other genres etc don't happen or explored.
Yeah, this is more or less what Sakurai said too, but people seem to want to somehow interpret it as "lol he said Smash isn't a fighting game"
That's...not how Smash works at all. Games are played on stocks and timeout on equal stocks means either sudden death or in tournament it means the player with lower damage wins. Like its pretty clear you haven't even played the game yet want to have an opinion on whether or not it qualifies. This is painful to read at this point.
Well, I think that when people say the term "fighting game", an idea comes to mind for most people. A rule set, perhaps. And that's probably not Smash. All these terms, insofar as everyone can agree that terms matter, are only useful as long as that they point you in the right direction. People felt that Smash didn't fit. So, from there, people came up with "platform fighter" and said that it's under the fighting game umbrella which kind of works.
But, I had the thought of how many degrees of separation are there before it's just not under the umbrella anymore, hence the comparisons that I brought up to other games that we don't consider under the umbrella, but have just as many similarities. Not quite "devil's advocate." But, just trying to analyze why we keep having to have this damn discussion once a month. And it just keeps happening. So, there must be some fundamental disconnect going on. And the distinction between knocking someone off a platform and just beating them until they stop moving was the best I can come up with.
And if it's always going to cause this much nonsense, why does it even have to be a "fighting game"? Just have it be something else. It's not gonna affect the sales or anything. And it's still probably going to be at EVO. lol
For what it's worth, "party game" is a terrible descriptor. And it does sound like people are trying to dismiss the game with it.
Not that familiar with it. But, at a glance, it just looks like Smash. So, it'd be whatever Smash is.
There is a really great article that is a discussion between Neil Gaiman and Kazuo Ishiguro that heavily discusses the idea of genre and genre boundaries that about novels, feel like it very much applies to the discussion of video game genres as well: https://www.newstatesman.com/2015/0...re-genre-machines-can-toil-they-can-t-imagine
The disconnect isn't coming from people who actually play the games. Every person I've met in person at a fighting game tournament haven't bashed Smash as not being a fighting game outside obvious trolling.
The only people who are disconnected are the ones not paying attention, not playing, etc.
There's a reason why I stated I could easily beat anybody (and with confidence) saying that. Because people who actually play aren't dismissing Smash because people who have tried to learn Smash know it's -hard-. To get anywhere in Smash competitively you have to apply many fighting game concepts to get to the point of even half-way decent. And this would still apply even if most Smash tourneys were ran to be more liberal with sudden death on, items, etc.
So...another chance to knock them off the platform where it's a hell of a lot easier to do so. And if you start taking too long, bob-ombs start dropping everywhere to blow someone off the stage.
An external rule imposed upon it? Not standard gameplay.
Sure, buddy.
Tons of games focus on frame data. Look at any speedrun of anything, ever. The best players know the frame data.
Combos are in plenty of games. I just did a combo in Code Vein 30 minutes ago.
Smash doesn't have footsies. Footsies is position based poking strategy that is rooted in the fact that you cannot block while moving forward. You can't have actual footsies in Smash because of the movement, oh god the movement. It's so completely different than any fighting game. Even a 3D fighter has very similar movement to a 2D fighter.
Smash doesn't have cross ups and high/lows. You don't even face your opponent at all times. No life bar. Combos are vastly different. Blocking is vastly different. Jumping is vastly different. Even in a fighting game that has ring outs like Soul Calibur, the way you achieve a ring out is vastly different.
Tekken 3 has the ability to play something that very closely resembles volleyball. Tekken 3's volleyball could be featured at a sports game tournament. Tekken 3 is not a sports game.
Okay, this is the weirdest thing I've read in this thread all day.
This is extremely not true.
Also a lot of the movement is also in King of Fighters btw.
You can't instantly shield while dashing in Smash. Footsies exist. Just look at any Marth player in any of the Smash games using dtilt and jab.
Yes it does.
Ryu/Ken, and there's a lot of movement options to force you to change direction anyway.
A cross up is an attack from a jumping opponent on a blocking opponent that makes the blocker hold the wrong blocking direction and therefore get hit, since when you "cross up" over an opponent the character will change direction to always be facing them and your direction for block, being backwards, is now the opposite direction.
Smash does not have this.
Smash does not have this.
Shield pokes, and bad punishes due to crossing up on shield is a thing.
Also thanks for explaining to me what a crossup is, never heard of it before!
It's so funny reading opinions from people that think fighting games just have to include some arbitrary techniques that previous "chosen" games featured... I mean, since you can't double jump in Super Mario games, those must not be a platformer!!
Amazed at the hill some people want to die...
Amazed at the hill some people want to die...
I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just pointing out the difference. Shield pokes and bad punishes are shield pokes and bad punishes. They aren't cross ups.
I'm not saying there isn't depth to Smash, or that it doesn't tale skill to be a top Smash player. I'm just saying Smash is so different that I personally don't consider it a fighting game. High skill cap? Yes. Competitive? Yes. Similar skillset to fighting games? Yes. Fun to watch? Yes. Fun to play? Yes. A great series? Yes!
It does, they work slightly differently. Since you can grab out of block in Smash you want to move over or through players to you end up behind the grab range or their other options that they can use while facing you. Again, not all fighting games use hold away for block or auto facing opponents, and crossing someone up doesn't necessarily refer to that.
That said, im not sure how that's a prerequisite in any sense.
"smash doesn't have footsies" lmfao... its exactly the fucking same concept. There's even a tutorial in Rivals of Aether explaining this concept.
Smash has dashing and wavedashing, Tekken has the players moving like crackheads with sidesteps and kbd, street fighter has the characters constantly shuffling backwards and forwards and ducking and every single version looks weird because its how these games look when played optimally. You sound like you're just new.
Last edited:
I was pointing out blocking is vastly different in smash than any fighter. Look at Soul Calibur, it has a block button but it has high/lows. The blocking isn't that different from another 3D fighter if you look at it as a whole. Or at least when you compare them to Smash.
Also, at the end of the day we're arguing the definition of something that isn't defined. We all have our opinions and no one has the actual definition of a fighting game. If you think Smash is a fighting game, that's fine. I like fighting games and I like Smash.
You can and will block high and low and diagonally in smash because you angle your shield as it gets smaller to avoid hits getting through (or in melee you have light shields which are larger with more pushback). Once again that's not something that defines the genre. Would you call Pokken not a fighter because it has shields similar to smash that ignore high/low and break after enough hits? What about ARMS or Naruto Ninja Storm? Such a useless qualifier.
Last edited: