Capcom admit SSBB is a 'real' fighting game

[Fire!]

I saw this article and found it kind of entertaining, so I thought I'd post it.

____

Is Super Smash Bros. Brawl a real fighting game? The fanboys that live and breath SSBB will probably have blacked out at the thought of someone questioning their leader; meanwhile, old school arcade fighting fans will be quick to jump on board the bashing brawl bandwagon (try saying that 3 times fast).

One would think Capcom should know a thing or two about the fighting genre with their Street Fighter and Marvel Vs Capcom franchises being some of the best in existence.

When asked by destructoid what he thought of brawl, including if it was a real fighting game, Capcom's Seth Killian said: "It’s a real fighting game. I didn’t always think that, but I changed my mind after spending more time playing both Melee and Brawl."

"We actually had Brawl on the main stage in 2008 (with items on!) and I thought it was one of the best tourneys that year [referring to the EVO event], with some spectacular finishes and outstanding play. Most of the competitive Smash community prefers to play with items off, which is their call to make, but we try to play a kind of “no holds barred” style at EVO, until something is proven to be undeniably messed up. I can’t imagine how crummy Marvel Vs Capcom 2 would be today if we had started banning things the first time we thought something was “overpowered” or “too random.”

Never mind Capcom, more importantly what do you think? Is Super Smash Bros. Brawl a real fighting game?

http://www.mywii.com.au/NewsDetail.aspx?id=4016&ref=goog

Thoughts?

 

[CRASHiC]

Yes. Of course it is. Its unconventional, but it is a fighting game.

As for items, I was reading a response to Sirlin's rant about SF4's inmpentrable wall of skill that some of the combos take. The article claimed that it was okay, because the user would have to figure in that factor of chance in deciding to go for the combo, and the defendant would have to be ready for the chance that the combo fails. Could we not say the same about items?

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

Considering that it's the same company that made the Power Stone series (which also has an emphasis on items and party-styled gameplay), it's not that surprising.

 

[Skler]

Seth Killian is a scrub or a fool. Items weren't banned without testing, we've been over this crap before.

He either thinks that the randomness of items is good or he didn't do his research (any) about the banning of items. This means he is either a scrub or a fool.

 

[The Real Gamer]

This means he is either a scrub or a fool.

I think scrub would be more appropriate.

 

[Anth0ny]

Fighting game? Of course.

Traditional fighting game? hell no. But that's not a bad thing.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

lol items.

 

[Spire]

I think Smash Bros. is definitely a legitimate fighter series. Yes, it's a bit unorthodox compared to the normal formula, but it does not branch so far that it would more naturally fit another genre than fighting. Visually it's a fighter, mechanically it's a fighter, and psychologically it's a fighter.

Look at traditional RPG's and say something a bit more abstract.. like Pokemon or the like. They alter many core aspects, while retaining the heart of an RPG. That's what Smash Bros. does with the fighter genetics.

Spoiler

bashing brawl bandwagon bashing brawl bandwagon bashing brawl bandwagon

 

[GreenKirby]

Meanwhile, Capcom admits the Earth is 'round.'

 

[lordvaati]

yep,I saw this topic today too, and I agree with his thoughts on smash as a fighter. I mean, not all fighting games have to be with health bars and parrying and whatnot, as Smash, Power Stone, Bushido Blade and Dissidia have proven.

 

[Mic_128]

Do not turn this into a bash evo thread. Only warning.

 

[Tom]

His opinion holds a lot of weight for a lot of good reasons, and I'm very happy that Seth Killian responded the way he did.

 

[lordvaati]

Do not turn this into a bash evo thread. Only warning.

it's actually pro- EVO, since hey see Smash as A-OK in their books as a fighter.

 

[J.Shadows]

Of course Capcom isn't gonna say that Brawl is an uncompetitive game! Capcom and Nintendo have been working together for years! If Capcom called Brawl a piece of s#!+ that doesn't deserve a competitive scene then . . . yeah!

-Atlus

 

[choknater]

Killian and the Wizard did express their feelings on Melee and Brawl being legit during the debates before Evo, right? The question was not whether Brawl was a legit fighting game to play (since the melee community had already proven that smash was good in general) but whether items were fair or not.

I personally thought the items matches at Evo were enjoyable, though gimmicky. We already know that items are unfair, but hey, they ARE fun to watch and Brawl was young.

 

[~Radiance~]

beacuse its to powerful, no holds bar, thats items eh? Well if we say no itmes, its the same as saying no Akuma. Of course Brawl is a legitamte fighter. Its 2d like all the others, and takes a tremendous amount of skill, just as much if not more then any MvC or SF. Plus weegee has Shoryuken so yes, its a legitimate fighter.

 

[kr3wman]

Killian and the Wizard did express their feelings on Melee and Brawl being legit during the debates before Evo, right? The question was not whether Brawl was a legit fighting game to play (since the melee community had already proven that smash was good in general) but whether items were fair or not.

I personally thought the items matches at Evo were enjoyable, though gimmicky. We already know that items are unfair, but hey, they ARE fun to watch and Brawl was young.

Watching Ken play was pretty cool, but CPU completely ruined it. Not by beating Ken, but by taking the tournament seriously LOL.

 

[CRASHiC]

Seth Killian is a scrub or a fool. Items weren't banned without testing, we've been over this crap before.

He either thinks that the randomness of items is good or he didn't do his research (any) about the banning of items. This means he is either a scrub or a fool.

He doesn't mean that we haven't tested it. He means that Evo doesn't like to bans things till THEY know its a problem.

 

[Jonas]

It's got characters fighting in it. How is it NOT a fighting game?
Of course, some games that are clearly not fighting games have characters fighting, but these games do not center completely around the fight between two or four characters.

 

[Lore]

I like his response, but I just don't like how he doesn't think that random things should be banned.

-shrug- To each his own, I guess.

 

[Skler]

He doesn't mean that we haven't tested it. He means that Evo doesn't like to bans things till THEY know its a problem.

THEY should have listened to the people who ACTUALLY PLAY SMASH. It isn't hard to listen to a more experienced community (as far as smash is concerned). We tested it and decided to ban items. He ran a major tourny without testing it and then insults smashboards.

 

[★Malik★™]

*gasp* that means...

capcom might want to put "certain" characters in the next installment?

*gasp*

O_o maybe.

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

*gasp* that means...

capcom might want to put "certain" characters in the next installment?

*gasp*

O_o maybe.

That'd be swell if it's the case.

Of course, Killian isn't exactly an emissary for Keiji Inafune here, so let's not jump the gun too quickly.

 

[Moogled]

what's a fighting game

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 1 seconds.

 

[StinkomanFan]

what's a fighting game

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 1 seconds.

Play Smash Brothers, it's a fighter

This is a pointless post (up 1 post)

 

[metaXzero]

THEY should have listened to the people who ACTUALLY PLAY SMASH. It isn't hard to listen to a more experienced community (as far as smash is concerned). We tested it and decided to ban items. He ran a major tourny without testing it and then insults smashboards.

The "tests" weren't tourneys. SRK wanted tourney results and vids, not "we got together and played around in some friendlies and decided they should be banned lol". At the time prior to EVO, no one wanted to seriously test items despite the fact that the one thing thing that TRULY made them bannable (The capsules/eggs/barrels that would explode on contact with attacks and couldn't be turned off without turning all items off) was gone. SRK's expectation was that the Brawl community would test all the items and ban the items that weren't fit for competitive play over time. Instead they just said "lol they spawn randomly. we ban all" which is isn't a good reason (taking away the "act on contact" ones, item play can be done competitively with the better player winning. Heck, just look at the ISP project). The Smash community just doesn't like items and SRK disagrees with that reasoning for banning.

However, SRK and EVO's reasoning is based on looking at items like a character. For them, they would only agree with banning items if they messed with consistency in a strong enough amount (64 and Melee's item issue) or reduced the viable cast to one character. They just don't look at how items-off and items-on are 2 different games requiring different skillsets.

 

[choknater]

*gasp* that means...

capcom might want to put "certain" characters in the next installment?

*gasp*

O_o maybe.

Lmao why do people come to crazy conclusions like this?

Wishful thinking I guess

 

[Skler]

The "tests" weren't tourneys. SRK wanted tourney results and vids, not "we got together and played around in some friendlies and decided they should be banned lol".

As soon as people knew items spawned in random locations they needed to be banned. Random advantage for being lucky = bad idea. The explosive barrels and crap made it worse (in Melee and 64), but randomly spawning items are always going to be bad for competitive play. You want to eliminate the randomness. It's ok for Peach to pull random garbage because she has to take a risk to do it. It isn't ok for a fan to spawn in front of Peach because there is no risk involved in picking up that fan and having a free advantage.

Sure, you could know how to deal with the lucky fan, but it gives me an advantage. It gives me an advantage I didn't earn. If enough items randomly spawn on a worse player they will be able to beat better players. One item can be enough to tip the balance of a close game between two well matched players. If the worse player gets the item they could win, if the better player gets the item they'll win even though they would have won anyways. How is that fair? More importantly, how is that a test of skill?

I know items aren't mindless win buttons, but they are a free advantage. If you say they aren't a free advantage then why should you even put them in if they aren't useful?

It takes skill to use an item correctly, but it takes more skill to win without a crutch. You can argue it takes more skill to win AGAINST the person who gets more/better items, but that's a random disadvantage for one player. Items are dumb in real matches.

 

[victra♥]

Is that items debate still going on? Sheesh. I don't even know why we have to waste our breath with the srk & evo community.

 

[kr3wman]

random stuff

Yeeeeaaaaah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqoyy_zLVfE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Khbn0WNgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8PuYBlbNVw
All of CPU's matches at EVO just side-stepping, mashing the cstick down and doing a laser to break the smashball.

And I can't find the one with the MK being edgeguarded, tornadoing back into the stage and a bob-omb spawning inside him, making him explode and lose. Does anyone remember that one?

 

[metaXzero]

As soon as people knew items spawned in random locations they needed to be banned. Random advantage for being lucky = bad idea. The explosive barrels and crap made it worse (in Melee and 64), but randomly spawning items are always going to be bad for competitive play. You want to eliminate the randomness. It's ok for Peach to pull random garbage because she has to take a risk to do it. It isn't ok for a fan to spawn in front of Peach because there is no risk involved in picking up that fan and having a free advantage.

Sure, you could know how to deal with the lucky fan, but it gives me an advantage. It gives me an advantage I didn't earn. If enough items randomly spawn on a worse player they will be able to beat better players. One item can be enough to tip the balance of a close game between two well matched players. If the worse player gets the item they could win, if the better player gets the item they'll win even though they would have won anyways. How is that fair? More importantly, how is that a test of skill?

I know items aren't mindless win buttons, but they are a free advantage. If you say they aren't a free advantage then why should you even put them in if they aren't useful?

It takes skill to use an item correctly, but it takes more skill to win without a crutch. You can argue it takes more skill to win AGAINST the person who gets more/better items, but that's a random disadvantage for one player. Items are dumb in real matches.

So Poker and Blackjack are game that shouldn't be played seriously? Or any other games with random variables?

The point they make is do items make the better player unable to win? Do they lead to noobs ****** tournies because the random-number god is on their side? Do they reduce the viable cast to one character? If Mew2King spent months training under the ISP's rules and went to a tourney, would he get ***** by some 6 year old who just picked up a controller 2 days prior. The answer to all of this is.......no. No matter how much you and I hate items, they don't make the better players lose.

Yes, their are some items that give too much of an advantage and are just mindless. That's what testing and banning is for. The unfit and stupid ones are banned leaving only the those that require proper utilization. If all of them turned out to be Bomb-ombs and fans, yes banning them all would be justified in their eyes. But obviously that isn't the case. The case is just that most of the Smash community hate how items effect the way the match plays out. We want emphasize on character mastery. An ideal item ruleset (like the ISP) emphasizes on item utilization with some character mastery. We like one way, but they prefer the other way because it fits into their overall idealogy on competitive fighting games more (play the game as it is out of the box and ban whatever limits the cast to one character and/or makes player consistency irrelevent).

Items-on and items-off (when done right) are 2 different, yet competitively viable games. Whether you acknowledge it is irrelevant. Item tourneys can be done and the better player will win (when done right like the ISP).

@kr3wman

Yes EVO 2k8 Brawl wasn't really run that well (Skyworld as a CP lol), but the better player did win. CPU played the game that was being hosted at EVO while Ken......didn't. While yes it's agreed that without items, CPU probably would've lost, that's not the game they were playing was it? If they were playing Melee, Ken probably would've won too....

 

[Remzi]

Snip

This post doesn't make any sense. Nobody is saying that M2K vs 6 year old is 50-50 is even because of items.

We are saying that the kind of randomness that items bring into the game, makes luck a large factor in a setting where it doesn't belong, competitive play. Hell, I might be able to beat M2K with items on if the RNG favors me enough. What if he picked up a rubber golden hammer and I killed him for it, am I now the better player? Honestly, it's ridiculous.

 

[metaXzero]

This post doesn't make any sense. Nobody is saying that M2K vs 6 year old is 50-50 is even because of items.

We are saying that the kind of randomness that items bring into the game, makes luck a large factor in a setting where it doesn't belong, competitive play. Hell, I might be able to beat M2K with items on if the RNG favors me enough. What if he picked up a rubber golden hammer and I killed him for it, am I now the better player? Honestly, it's ridiculous.

Care to explain WHY said post makes no sense?

And why are you using such a horrible example? You might as well said "what if a Bomb-omb spawned in M2K's attack". Golden Hammer's banned in the ISP for Pete's sake.

As I've already said, some items aren't fit for competitive play. Some are obvious while some have to undergo testing. It's a simple concept.

 

[Skler]

In a game with little to no randomness why would you add in more? That's all that matters, and adding randomness will always detract from competition. There you go.

 

[Thino]

do we really care if Smash is considered a fighting game or not? Its just an awesome and competitive game that is all

 

[metaXzero]

In a game with little to no randomness why would you add in more? That's all that matters, and adding randomness will always detract from competition. There you go.

Except said randomness is on by default. That's what SRK and Seth sees.

Their is no objective agreement on what makes a game more or less competitive since it's all opinion. After all, games like Blackjack and Poker have large followings and consistent winners. In SRK's eyes, if the default settings don't yield a broken, inconsistent, and single character game, their is no reason to change them besides scrubbiness. That's just their idealogy and if they don't want to change it, we can't do anything about that.

 

[SinkingHigher]

It's obviously a fighting game, you can't question that, but it has a specific target audience. You can't deny that either.

 

[Big-Cat]

Yes. Of course it is. Its unconventional, but it is a fighting game.

As for items, I was reading a response to Sirlin's rant about SF4's inmpentrable wall of skill that some of the combos take. The article claimed that it was okay, because the user would have to figure in that factor of chance in deciding to go for the combo, and the defendant would have to be ready for the chance that the combo fails. Could we not say the same about items?

Not really. This is more along the lines of mind games. For example, you can't tell immediately whether or not C. Viper is going to do her Thunder Knuckle as she can cancel the attack. As for the combo failing, this is just punishing the opponent.

Items have more of a random factor than what I mentioned. They can spawn anywhere at any time, and it can change the tide of battle due to uncontrollable luck.

Do you have a link to the response and the article itself?

 

[Skler]

The game is also set on time by default, multiple characters are locked by default, items are set on medium with all of them on by default.

Default is a bad argument.

Yes, you can be objective when thinking about what makes things more competitive. Randomness is inherently bad for competition. Poker is a different story because the game is one of calculated risks and bluffing. Poker and smash are far too different to be compared.

Using SRK's ideology we should be playing timed matches (2 minute time limit, though any time limit is sticking closer to the defaults and should be done). We have yet to prove that will yield a broken, inconsistent and single character game. I'm not trying to change their minds, I'm just saying they're wrong and should stop talking about things they don't understand.

 

[metaXzero]

The game is also set on time by default, multiple characters are locked by default, items are set on medium with all of them on by default.

Default is a bad argument.

Yes, you can be objective when thinking about what makes things more competitive. Randomness is inherently bad for competition. Poker is a different story because the game is one of calculated risks and bluffing. Poker and smash are far too different to be compared.

Using SRK's ideology we should be playing timed matches (2 minute time limit, though any time limit is sticking closer to the defaults and should be done). We have yet to prove that will yield a broken, inconsistent and single character game. I'm not trying to change their minds, I'm just saying they're wrong and should stop talking about things they don't understand.

Unlockable and secret characters usually fall in the "if they aren't broken, their is no reason to ban" thought. IIRC they agree with stock just because the objective of beating your opponent is closer to other fighters through stock then on time.

No you actually CAN'T be objective on what makes something more competitive because what makes something competitive in general tends to be subjectice (all that's usually agreed is the game in question has a legit community and consistent players). You can make a beautifully written essay on why items have no place in competitive Smash and they can write a equally great essay saying the opposite. In the end, the result will boil down to
"I disagree with your thinking"
"I disagree with YOUR thinking"
*insert long flame war that solves nothing*

It's 2 different idealogies and neither side is going to back down and agree with the other. Our wrong is their right and vice versa. We can say they don't understand how to play Smash (really just Brawl since IIRC, we came to an agreement with Melee), but they'll say we don't understand. That's just the facts.