Christian_CAO
Smash Apprentice
no attempts at a platform fighter (crossover or otherwise) has the level of polish that Smash brothers has
attempts so far:
Playstation Allstars= was bad but the "closest" smash like non smash experience during the time of its release. Animations were janky, the mechanics were different which made it its own thing which was nice but it felt like a rushed product because of how it played and looked. The content was "lack luster". These jokers were the only ones who were actually "trying" to be competition for smash.
Anyone remember Digimon Rumble Arena?
That game had obvious flaws and animations were indeed janky but it captured a more "smash like" experience than Playstation Allstars did
but it wasn't really on the same level as either Smash nor PS Allstars.
Other Platform "crossover" fighters to remember but not really worth mentioning for this conversation would be Medabots AX.
A game without much going for it due to platform limitations for the GBA but it still was a game of the genre so I'll mention it here.
I suppose the Ultimate Ninja series of Naruto Games also classify as a Platform Fighter as well... At least up until Ninja Storm when they make it an arena fighter.
Every Indie platform fighter= no where near on par with smash. Not to discredit indie devs, because Nintendo has a "professional" team with an actual expansive budget to make the best product possible, but their budgets are laughable in comparison and it shows in art direction (unfortunately indies love their pixel art so much that it became standard practice for some reason) and the amount of content. They can play well and be fun but there's something to be said about having the money to spend to make a good product great. There's no money quite like Nintendo money.
Keep in Mind that Indie platform fighters aren't trying to become "competition", no indie dev in anything is trying to become "competition" in any genre with the big developers. They create content in the vacuum of indie games. They're just creating experiences they wish to bring into the market that only they can bring. When you can't make it big right away you start small and work your way up. You never know where your efforts will take you or how big you'll get but you do know that the more of yourself you put into your work, the greater the return will be in the end.
Indie devs are entrepreneurs.
back to Smash though:
It's just the biggest crossover game there is, next to MvC which honestly is a different genre of fighter (actual fighting game) and really can't be compared.
Smash has no "competition" and most likely never will. Since it's a party game first and foremost. Indies that mirror that mindset are abundant. Games have to be fun, subjective as it may be, and have to look fun. Slap Cty is goofy fun that mirrors smashes. RoA is fun in the same way a "traditional" fighting game or Melee is fun. Though people can enjoy a game for different reasons, so it doesn't really matter if a game is fun for someone but not for someone else. Playstation Allstars is somewhere in-between that balance of party game fun and fighting game fun (but not really, because of the jank) but falls short of both concepts because it feels incomplete.
Like others said, Sony has the best shot if they revisit their Allstars formula and develop a proper game by actually give their team a bigger budget to work with. They need to ignore Smash mechanically and focus on fighting game mechanics instead. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a traditional fighting game with Platforming elements for the stages. They could be the ones to coin it but don't because they've got Smash on the brain despite being the number one holders for fighting games as a genre. Capcom Vs Capcom but with platforms on the battlefield with a focus on a combo system and super meters.
Smash can be defined by three points as a Platform Fighter:
The only thing any game needs to be truly successful is the Second point. Quality development and polish is what makes the game an initial hit. Hook them with a lustrous lure and reel them in with the content and combat. That's any fighting game. Hell, that's any game in general. People come for the IP's and graphics but they'll stay if the game is actually enjoyable.
I'm going to stop now... I forgot what this was even about....OH
TLDR:
Smash will never have competition so long as developers keep trying to "copy" smashes gameplay mechanics.
Again, Making the stage an actual element of combat is all a platform fighting game is. (having platforms also helps since 3D arena fighters like Tekken and SoulCalibur utilize stages as well but in a different light... the same can be said of anime fighter simulators)
attempts so far:
Playstation Allstars= was bad but the "closest" smash like non smash experience during the time of its release. Animations were janky, the mechanics were different which made it its own thing which was nice but it felt like a rushed product because of how it played and looked. The content was "lack luster". These jokers were the only ones who were actually "trying" to be competition for smash.
Anyone remember Digimon Rumble Arena?
That game had obvious flaws and animations were indeed janky but it captured a more "smash like" experience than Playstation Allstars did
but it wasn't really on the same level as either Smash nor PS Allstars.
Other Platform "crossover" fighters to remember but not really worth mentioning for this conversation would be Medabots AX.
A game without much going for it due to platform limitations for the GBA but it still was a game of the genre so I'll mention it here.
I suppose the Ultimate Ninja series of Naruto Games also classify as a Platform Fighter as well... At least up until Ninja Storm when they make it an arena fighter.
Every Indie platform fighter= no where near on par with smash. Not to discredit indie devs, because Nintendo has a "professional" team with an actual expansive budget to make the best product possible, but their budgets are laughable in comparison and it shows in art direction (unfortunately indies love their pixel art so much that it became standard practice for some reason) and the amount of content. They can play well and be fun but there's something to be said about having the money to spend to make a good product great. There's no money quite like Nintendo money.
Keep in Mind that Indie platform fighters aren't trying to become "competition", no indie dev in anything is trying to become "competition" in any genre with the big developers. They create content in the vacuum of indie games. They're just creating experiences they wish to bring into the market that only they can bring. When you can't make it big right away you start small and work your way up. You never know where your efforts will take you or how big you'll get but you do know that the more of yourself you put into your work, the greater the return will be in the end.
Indie devs are entrepreneurs.
back to Smash though:
It's just the biggest crossover game there is, next to MvC which honestly is a different genre of fighter (actual fighting game) and really can't be compared.
Smash has no "competition" and most likely never will. Since it's a party game first and foremost. Indies that mirror that mindset are abundant. Games have to be fun, subjective as it may be, and have to look fun. Slap Cty is goofy fun that mirrors smashes. RoA is fun in the same way a "traditional" fighting game or Melee is fun. Though people can enjoy a game for different reasons, so it doesn't really matter if a game is fun for someone but not for someone else. Playstation Allstars is somewhere in-between that balance of party game fun and fighting game fun (but not really, because of the jank) but falls short of both concepts because it feels incomplete.
Like others said, Sony has the best shot if they revisit their Allstars formula and develop a proper game by actually give their team a bigger budget to work with. They need to ignore Smash mechanically and focus on fighting game mechanics instead. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a traditional fighting game with Platforming elements for the stages. They could be the ones to coin it but don't because they've got Smash on the brain despite being the number one holders for fighting games as a genre. Capcom Vs Capcom but with platforms on the battlefield with a focus on a combo system and super meters.
Smash can be defined by three points as a Platform Fighter:
- How combat works is what makes Smash, Smash. It's Kirby Superstar but with nintendo and other game IP's along with ringouts being the main focus for combat.
- The extra bells and whistles along with the polished quality let you know it's a game made by Sakurai and his team.
- The Roster let's you know it's a Nintendo product.
The only thing any game needs to be truly successful is the Second point. Quality development and polish is what makes the game an initial hit. Hook them with a lustrous lure and reel them in with the content and combat. That's any fighting game. Hell, that's any game in general. People come for the IP's and graphics but they'll stay if the game is actually enjoyable.
I'm going to stop now... I forgot what this was even about....OH
TLDR:
Smash will never have competition so long as developers keep trying to "copy" smashes gameplay mechanics.
Again, Making the stage an actual element of combat is all a platform fighting game is. (having platforms also helps since 3D arena fighters like Tekken and SoulCalibur utilize stages as well but in a different light... the same can be said of anime fighter simulators)
