GothicSlenderman
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 308
The one thing that drives me crazy in the Smash Community is not the split between competitive or casual, not which game is better, not the clone controversy but the "Ripoff" label. You know the one.
Before anyone says anything I got into gaming due to Smash. Before I played Brawl (my first Smash game) I didnt even know who Link and Samus were, thought Marth was a girl, though Samus and ZSS were 2 different people and thiugh Mr. Game & Watch was just a guy that shot gadgets out of his watch. After that game I explored other Nintendo series because of it. Then in 2012, on E3 sony anounced Playstation Allstars Battle Royale. Instantly I saw similarities between that and Smash but I was cautious because I wasn't sure what it was even about. I bought the game day 1 due to the nostalgia I had with Ape Escape and my memories of playing LBP. Due to Allstars I started to discover new Playstation games like InFamous and Uncharted. But after the game was released I look online for other poeples thiughts and all I could see was "RIPOFF RIPOFF RIPOFF" I brushed it off knowing that the game at least tried something different with the gameplay, but then I saw that many other games were being caused "Ripoffs"
Tales of VS. "Ripoff"
Final Fantasy Dissidia "ripoff"
Ultimate Jump Stars "Ripoff"
All because they're crossover fighting games that don't use the traditional fighting game system, even when they did try something different.
But what gets me the most is that all if these games are reffered to as "Smash Games" when really they go into a different genre, 2 actually, Platform Fighters (fighting games with free movement and platforminf elements) and Party Fighters (fighting games that simplify the controls so you dont have to put a button command in to shoot a fireball) Why is it fair that we call these games "Smash" when they try something different? We dont call Tekken or Mortal Kombat "Street Fighter games" or Megaman and Sonic "Mario games"
The silliest thing though is the arguments.
1. Smash did it first
Believe it or not they really didn't the first Platform fighter is actually on the SNES under the name Outfoxies by Namco. They even used the OF gameplay in Tales of VS. Some have even theorized that Smash was inspired by Outfoxies, but then people start shouting "NO!! Smash is about knoxking your enemy off of the arena but increasing their damage" and that is true, but when someone goes into big detail as to why something like Playstation Allstars Battle Royale is different so same people are just like "Doesnt matter, its the same idea" so you can go into big detail as to why Smash is sifferent from the Outfoxies, but no one can do the same to other games and how they're different from Smash? There's a little thing called double standards.
Also, if that itself was a real argument it still would make no sense. Its like saying that Halo or Medal Honor are Wolfenstein 3D ripoffs because they're FPS games but Wolfenstein did it first. Or how Tekken and Mortal Kombat are Street Fighter Ripoffs cause they did the traditionalfighter first. Or Pokemon ripping off Final Fantasy because ff did the turn based RPG first. And following that logic would Mario himself be a ripoff? His game Super Mario Bros in 1985 wasn't even the first 2D Platformer, one of te first (but Im sure there are more before) 2D Platformer was Pac-land in 1984. Now you see how easy it is to flip that argument around.
2. Smash popularized it
Doing something similar and doing it better does not give you exclusive rights to the genre.
3. They're just trying to capitalize of Smash's popularity. Some yes, others no. But we cant say for sure just because they're in the same genre.
4. They're trying to compete with Smash, they'll never succeed.
And how do you know that they're trying to compete with a success 17 year old ip? I think the first thing the developers need to worry about before trying to "Compete" is to at least be successful on their own and become an established series.
Id go into more detail but I dont have a lot of time right now sense Ive gotta find a new place. Ill just leave this.
What is a true Smash Ripoff?
Well I follow 3 rules
1 - (this is more of a reminder than it is a rule) Just because it came after Smash does NOT mean theyre trying to be Smash
2 - Do they atleast try a new gameplay style?
Example: Playstation Allstars with the Allstar Meter
3 - If they use the same gameplay of knocking your enemy off of the stage do they at least add something new to drastically change the gameplay?
Example: Rivals of Aether by removing edge grabs, grabbing, shields and adding new techniques.
Following these rules the only 2 games that are true ripoffs are Cartoon Network Punch Time Explosion and Kung Fu Panda: Showdown of the Legendary Legenda.
All I'm asking is, can we as a community stop the ripoff label? And let other Platform Fighters/Party Fighters have their own identity?
Before anyone says anything I got into gaming due to Smash. Before I played Brawl (my first Smash game) I didnt even know who Link and Samus were, thought Marth was a girl, though Samus and ZSS were 2 different people and thiugh Mr. Game & Watch was just a guy that shot gadgets out of his watch. After that game I explored other Nintendo series because of it. Then in 2012, on E3 sony anounced Playstation Allstars Battle Royale. Instantly I saw similarities between that and Smash but I was cautious because I wasn't sure what it was even about. I bought the game day 1 due to the nostalgia I had with Ape Escape and my memories of playing LBP. Due to Allstars I started to discover new Playstation games like InFamous and Uncharted. But after the game was released I look online for other poeples thiughts and all I could see was "RIPOFF RIPOFF RIPOFF" I brushed it off knowing that the game at least tried something different with the gameplay, but then I saw that many other games were being caused "Ripoffs"
Tales of VS. "Ripoff"
Final Fantasy Dissidia "ripoff"
Ultimate Jump Stars "Ripoff"
All because they're crossover fighting games that don't use the traditional fighting game system, even when they did try something different.
But what gets me the most is that all if these games are reffered to as "Smash Games" when really they go into a different genre, 2 actually, Platform Fighters (fighting games with free movement and platforminf elements) and Party Fighters (fighting games that simplify the controls so you dont have to put a button command in to shoot a fireball) Why is it fair that we call these games "Smash" when they try something different? We dont call Tekken or Mortal Kombat "Street Fighter games" or Megaman and Sonic "Mario games"
The silliest thing though is the arguments.
1. Smash did it first
Believe it or not they really didn't the first Platform fighter is actually on the SNES under the name Outfoxies by Namco. They even used the OF gameplay in Tales of VS. Some have even theorized that Smash was inspired by Outfoxies, but then people start shouting "NO!! Smash is about knoxking your enemy off of the arena but increasing their damage" and that is true, but when someone goes into big detail as to why something like Playstation Allstars Battle Royale is different so same people are just like "Doesnt matter, its the same idea" so you can go into big detail as to why Smash is sifferent from the Outfoxies, but no one can do the same to other games and how they're different from Smash? There's a little thing called double standards.
Also, if that itself was a real argument it still would make no sense. Its like saying that Halo or Medal Honor are Wolfenstein 3D ripoffs because they're FPS games but Wolfenstein did it first. Or how Tekken and Mortal Kombat are Street Fighter Ripoffs cause they did the traditionalfighter first. Or Pokemon ripping off Final Fantasy because ff did the turn based RPG first. And following that logic would Mario himself be a ripoff? His game Super Mario Bros in 1985 wasn't even the first 2D Platformer, one of te first (but Im sure there are more before) 2D Platformer was Pac-land in 1984. Now you see how easy it is to flip that argument around.
2. Smash popularized it
Doing something similar and doing it better does not give you exclusive rights to the genre.
3. They're just trying to capitalize of Smash's popularity. Some yes, others no. But we cant say for sure just because they're in the same genre.
4. They're trying to compete with Smash, they'll never succeed.
And how do you know that they're trying to compete with a success 17 year old ip? I think the first thing the developers need to worry about before trying to "Compete" is to at least be successful on their own and become an established series.
Id go into more detail but I dont have a lot of time right now sense Ive gotta find a new place. Ill just leave this.
What is a true Smash Ripoff?
Well I follow 3 rules
1 - (this is more of a reminder than it is a rule) Just because it came after Smash does NOT mean theyre trying to be Smash
2 - Do they atleast try a new gameplay style?
Example: Playstation Allstars with the Allstar Meter
3 - If they use the same gameplay of knocking your enemy off of the stage do they at least add something new to drastically change the gameplay?
Example: Rivals of Aether by removing edge grabs, grabbing, shields and adding new techniques.
Following these rules the only 2 games that are true ripoffs are Cartoon Network Punch Time Explosion and Kung Fu Panda: Showdown of the Legendary Legenda.
All I'm asking is, can we as a community stop the ripoff label? And let other Platform Fighters/Party Fighters have their own identity?
