Papapaint
Just your average kind of Luigi.
I spend a fair bit of time on these forums from time to time, searching out new information, watching cool combo videos, and keeping up on Brawl news and theories. For the most part, many posts are well-informed or well-meant, unless they're made by a newer member, who is often then directed to the right location.
However, from time to time, posters of various postcounts will make the following statements:
"Smash Brothers is such a revolutionary 2-D fighter. It's changed the market."
"Smash Brothers is just like every other 2-D fighter. It has not impacted game creation."
"Infinites are not meant to be in the game--the game is intended to be balanced."
"Infinites are as much a part of Smash Brothers as they are of Marvel vs. Capcom 2."
And many others along those same lines.
How has smash affected the gaming world? It hasn't revolutionized the market, that's for sure. There aren't smash brothers clones swamping the market the way punch-em-up games did for NES and Sega. Other fighting games haven't lost popularity because of it. Smash is not the most popular game ever. The gaming engine isn't being copied the way Street Fighter's was for years. But it's still a stretch to say that it's the same as other 2-d fighters. It's simply not true.
Smash is different. Not revolutionary, different. What makes it so? Look at the reasons the game was made.
1. For parties. The game was intended for people to sit down on a big couch and WAIL on one another for hours on end, switching off form time to time with pizza and hot pockets.
2. For nostalgia. People loved the idea of using Pikachu to knock the bujeezus out of Mario or DK.
3. For fun, randomness, and wackiness. This is evident in the items, odd techs, and various other weird gameplay qualities we see in smash.
We've established that this game is not the same as the typical fighter game. This is a bit more fast-paced, live, and focuses on the party aspect. While nintendo did not ignore the aspect of 1v1 playing, they didn't put a lot of focus on it--which is why many of the infinites exist. Here, we come to the second argument.
Yes, infinites exist in fighting games. Yes, they're cheap and aggravating. Yes, they may take skill to set up.
But it's absolutely true that they should not exist in smash. Not because they're unfair in the tournament scene, but simply because they're generally only fun for the person using them. This is not a quality of a good party game. It may be all well and good for some of the other fighting games, but it will not do for smash.
The separation of smash to other games has been put down to various things... "mindgames", "wavedashing", "advanced physics", "Different health system', etc. But quite simply, these, themselves, do not make smash that special. It's the reasoning behind the game, and it's primary use.
The idealizing of the game by all sides needs to stop. It removes from well-intended discussions, and shows a lack of interest in the game's primary purpose: fun.
However, from time to time, posters of various postcounts will make the following statements:
"Smash Brothers is such a revolutionary 2-D fighter. It's changed the market."
"Smash Brothers is just like every other 2-D fighter. It has not impacted game creation."
"Infinites are not meant to be in the game--the game is intended to be balanced."
"Infinites are as much a part of Smash Brothers as they are of Marvel vs. Capcom 2."
And many others along those same lines.
How has smash affected the gaming world? It hasn't revolutionized the market, that's for sure. There aren't smash brothers clones swamping the market the way punch-em-up games did for NES and Sega. Other fighting games haven't lost popularity because of it. Smash is not the most popular game ever. The gaming engine isn't being copied the way Street Fighter's was for years. But it's still a stretch to say that it's the same as other 2-d fighters. It's simply not true.
Smash is different. Not revolutionary, different. What makes it so? Look at the reasons the game was made.
1. For parties. The game was intended for people to sit down on a big couch and WAIL on one another for hours on end, switching off form time to time with pizza and hot pockets.
2. For nostalgia. People loved the idea of using Pikachu to knock the bujeezus out of Mario or DK.
3. For fun, randomness, and wackiness. This is evident in the items, odd techs, and various other weird gameplay qualities we see in smash.
We've established that this game is not the same as the typical fighter game. This is a bit more fast-paced, live, and focuses on the party aspect. While nintendo did not ignore the aspect of 1v1 playing, they didn't put a lot of focus on it--which is why many of the infinites exist. Here, we come to the second argument.
Yes, infinites exist in fighting games. Yes, they're cheap and aggravating. Yes, they may take skill to set up.
But it's absolutely true that they should not exist in smash. Not because they're unfair in the tournament scene, but simply because they're generally only fun for the person using them. This is not a quality of a good party game. It may be all well and good for some of the other fighting games, but it will not do for smash.
The separation of smash to other games has been put down to various things... "mindgames", "wavedashing", "advanced physics", "Different health system', etc. But quite simply, these, themselves, do not make smash that special. It's the reasoning behind the game, and it's primary use.
The idealizing of the game by all sides needs to stop. It removes from well-intended discussions, and shows a lack of interest in the game's primary purpose: fun.
