At least you're not making everything you say as a fact with that last sentence.
Don't you mean I'm not "stating." If I was making facts, everything I said would be facts and you'd have to believe it or be illogical.
I won't say that it's all related to difficulty. How many people that any of us know got into Super Smash Bros. because of the Nintendo characters, and how many got into the game because of the two button (actually four at minimum, eight if you count D-Pad) setup?
A lot of people. I here quite often that they like Smash Brothers because they don't have complex button combination or weird movements. Most of the stuff in traditional fighting games is outdated. You may deny it, but that is a fact.
As for the communities, let me ask you something: Why do you suppose Capcom decided to be mindful of the competitive community and Nintendo doesn't seem to show much support for it? Canceling in Street Fighter II, as I've mentioned in the past, was actually a glitch but Capcom made it an official technique from then on. Compare that to wavedashing, another exploit/glitch, that was tossed aside in Brawl.
My logic was that one is the loser and the other is the winner. Capcom is the loser. Their "great success," is a game that only broke 2million on two systems, where Nintendo breaks 9 million on one. You never understood this but
one is doing well while the other is not. Thus, one is doing something right where the other is doing something wrong. This is simple logic. Since success and failure are polar opposites, what the two games are doing right/wrong must also be opposites. It's possible that one factor exist in one that helps/hurts that doesn't in the other, but it reasonable to assume that the success/fail are opposites, as most about these games are opposite.
The problem is this: What is wrong and right? It is very hard to tell, but the best option would be to not just guess. This is your problem. You guess. "Well, Street Fighter isn't doing well, but it can't be because of X. I will use X." The problem is you are trying to look for good in bad. You are trying to find a bunny rabbit in a crocodile swamp. You may find the little bunny rabbit, but you may find a crocodile and ruin everything. It would be better to find bunnies in the nice forest where you could find a badger, but it would not be as likely.
Lets take this to the real world. There was a product that failed called "Acid+All." It was trying to be a trendy antacid. That's nice and all, but antacids are not fashionable items. But, you're Kuma and you want to make an antacid. "Oh," you say "Acid+All failed, but it must have had some good points. Let me use X." Acid+All failed, why would you copy them. You are stealing the playbook of the losing team. Notice how Brawl is the best selling fighting game. The only game that is close to them are older versions of fighting games such as SF and Tekken.
SSB(at least for Brawl) is considered a joke, to me at least, because the game is so poorly unbalanced and suffers from major design flaws that can easily be remedied but weren't so we could have a half-***, confusing story mode for single player.
The market disagrees. The market is never wrong.
Way to contradict yourself buddy. The reasons you present typically stem from the mid-90's decline, not killing the self-esteem of players who think they're the **** until they go online, saying the game was designed specifically for a mode some people don't like, and your opposition to anything remotely complex whatsoever. Of course you're going to be given Hell.
The problem is that you didn't answer the question. You simply leave it open to a "welll, why X." Let me show you.
Your answer
Why is Street Fighter games not doing as well as they use to be
Kuma: "Oh, that's easy. It's because fighting games declined into the mid and late 90s."
Well, why did they decline in the 90s?
Kuma.........................
See how the question is still not resolved. We don't live in fantasy land I'm afriad. There is a reason why things happen. So, you can't say "There was a decline." You have to say why the decline happened in the first place. Becuase I could ask
Why did Tekken come out and sell a lot?
Why is Smash Brothers doing so well?
People still buy WWE games. Why?
You have to create three different answer, meaning you have just as much of a chance to be wrong. Or, use me answer.
There is still demand for fighting games. It's just that games like Street Fighter were not fulfilling the needs of the consumers.
I'd love to see how this new series would carry the values of Street Fighter II. And you know what? Why don't you tell me these "values."
Street Fighter was an arcade game. Arcades had lots of competition from other games, so they had to impress and get in to them quickly. It was also a new form of entertainment, so if it didn't impress, customers could just as easily go see a movie or go out to eat. So, they had to have three things to survive.
1)The had to be easy to play. Since the player could leave to another machine in a minute or two, they had to be playable quickly.
2)They had to be addictive. They had to hook the play in a few minutes or they would leave. It couldn't get fun in the future because there was no hour or two from now. Less the 5 minutes is all you got.
3)The game had to be challenging. If the game was too easy, then the player could beat it quickly. Not only would they go somewhere else, but they would not put in as much money as they should of.
Now look at Street Fighter 4.
1)Fails. Arcade games didn't have training mode, and Street Fighter 4 requires it. There is also too much to learn in less then 5 minutes. There is simply too much in SF4 and the controls are too complicated (more on that in a minute).
2)Street Fighter 4 may be fun, but since it requires sop much to learn that the player can get emerged in a few minutes. Fails.
3)This one it probably passed.
Now you may say "But SF2 had all these hard motions. What about it?" Special moves were just that, they were special. They were also hard to pull off and did quite a bit of damage, but that was the point. You did not need them to play. You just punch and kick and try to win. If you could do the special moves, you had one more weapon in your arsenal. It was special for a reason. There was no super move (until later in the series), no focus attack, no ultra, no EX moves, no parries. The special in the special moves have been diminished. They are second to much stronger techniques that are also harder. So it loses what SF2 had.
Arcade style games of today are console games, save for they stretch 3 a little. New Super Mario Bros Wii fulfills all three of the requirements.
No, the Super Smash Bros. series has its own basic design formula. Again, this is a series. It's not a standalone fighting game. The formula has already been applied three times. If it were to add lifebars and such, it would simply become something else.
Every other fighting game has lifebars. If Smash has lifebars, that it would be like every other fighting game. Thus, it is formulaic.
Tekken is just as Technical as Street Fighter (I'm assuming, I have yet to play IV, but other than buffering, ranged attacks, and ultras (to which Tekken has walls, 3d, and chain/juggle comboes), they seems to be equally as technical.
