Why is Smash not taken as seriously?

[majora_787]

I played SF BEFORE I played Smash, and didn't like it. <_< To be fair, at the time, I was too young to be going into it actively and competitively, but still. r_r

And it's hard for me to bias Smash right now, simply because it hasn't held my central interest lately, BlazBlue has. It's sort of a... well, yeah.

But as I said before, I think Smash and SF both operate on different parts of what adds depth to a fighter, and sort of ignore what the other is working on. Then people in the community get biased, and get the mindset that only what their game focused on is important and what the other game focused on is 100% unnecessary.

When it's all necessary. r_r" All of it. I just don't think I've seen yet a fighting game anywhere that actually tries to go for as much of it as it can. Not Smash, not Street Fighter, not BlazBlue, not DoL, not Tekken, not MK, not that stupid N64 fighter, none of them.

So really, communities shouldn't be hating on each other over it, especially to the extent that the SF does (to us). We should be using each other as a resource to try to culminate the best fighting games possible. It's called harmony and synch. Absolutely uncomplicated.

Anyway, I'll get off the subject for now. Later.

EDIT: The BlazBlue community helps out. They just... get distracted. Really easily. REALLY REALLY EASILY.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I've played a lot of fighting games and have yet to find one more difficult than Melee.

 

[-Ran]

Ignorance really. The traditional fighter community in New Orleans used to scoff at Smash behind our backs, until we sat down with them and exchanged notes on the games we played. This was a few years ago, and now it isn't uncommon for when someone new to be corrected after making random comment about 'Smash sucks' by one of the regular traditionalists.

You aren't going to change someone's opinion online. All you can do is chat with people in person, and offer to trade wisdom with each other. The games aren't really all that different. They have corners; we have edges. They have prediction after knock downs; we have tech chases. They give familiar looks with varying spacing to mix up; we do the same. They camp; we camp. The main difference is, we have DI and that is the confusing part to them. ;d

 

[UberMario]

It's mostly due to the cartoony physics that are used in Smash (i.e. kicking upwards to send someone flying off the top of the screen) and the oddball lineup of characters (though that didn't stop MvC2).

However, I think that it is also because it is so unique in the fighting genre. Most fighters, like first person shooters, tend to have very close [sometimes bordering on copy-and-paste] gameplay (Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, BlazBlue, Art of Fighting, etc.) while Smash is very different. Instead of relying on stamina-based matches like most fighters, the SSB series tends to revolve around stage design and ringouts.

(Though it is curious that Stamina mode was never taken seriously by the Smash community, considering that it's sole purpose was to make Smash Bros. feel more like a standard fighter)

 

[Big-Cat]

You aren't going to change someone's opinion online. All you can do is chat with people in person, and offer to trade wisdom with each other. The games aren't really all that different. They have corners; we have edges. They have prediction after knock downs; we have tech chases. They give familiar looks with varying spacing to mix up; we do the same. They camp; we camp. The main difference is, we have DI and that is the confusing part to them. ;d

I don't know about you, but okizeme and tech chases have always been the same thing to me. DI, as I've said before, seemed nothing more than another tech chase, to me at least. Of course, we can discuss this later and maybe at the next Dibbz fight night.

 

[-Ran]

Most games are driven by terminology, and by and large we have different ones than the traditionalists. This sometimes is just the root of the problem. The other issue is, people online make gross caricatures of themselves in futile attempts to drive home a point.


Ps: I don't know you by your Smashboards name. D:

 

[Jonas]

However, I think that it is also because it is so unique in the fighting genre. Most fighters, like first person shooters, tend to have very close [sometimes bordering on copy-and-paste] gameplay (Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, BlazBlue, Art of Fighting, etc.) while Smash is very different. Instead of relying on stamina-based matches like most fighters, the SSB series tends to revolve around stage design and ringouts.

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that makes SRK hate us lol.

 

[Big-Cat]

Most games are driven by terminology, and by and large we have different ones than the traditionalists. This sometimes is just the root of the problem. The other issue is, people online make gross caricatures of themselves in futile attempts to drive home a point.


Ps: I don't know you by your Smashboards name. D:

Yeah, terminology is quite the problem. To be fair though, while I understand making terminology names up for concepts exclusive to Smash such as DI, I think the Smash community should just use the old terms like the Smash community uses teching (Street Fighter) and wavedashing (Tekken). I remember this one time here where I saw that one person wanted to call these jab option selects something else for no reason other than "it's a stupid name, I like this one more".

I believe I've met you a few times, such as the Chinese Inn tournament back in January since I was curious about LA's Smash scene and a couple of other times at Gameware. Any way, if I get a day shift for work on Monday, I should be there and we can have ourselves a nice conversation/debate.

 

[UberMario]

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that makes SRK hate us lol.

How is it nonsense? lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl3XzZ81AUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4gXrTJc1S4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keQrv_ptXL0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIu66B6Mhnc

The only real differences are the character movesets, core physics, and graphics (and, if they're 3D, they might involve rotating and falling outside of the ring), and that's not even including the fact that some of those, such as Street Fighter II, suffer from extreme sequalitis. The only "true" fighter that I've seen that truly tries to be creative is the vs. Capcom series. Heck, they're so similar that most of the 2D characters mesh together disturbingly well in MUGEN for crying out loud. Not to mention that it isn't really a surprise why most video game crossovers involve two fighting series.

 

[Big-Cat]

OMG, fighting games are so similar to each other, they're not original! Oh wait, that's why we have genres. Like any other genre, there are fundamental concepts that manage to stay in each game. While I can't comment on the Art of Fighting (though it's how we got SF's Dan Hibiki), Street Fighter, BlazBlue, and Guilty Gear play nothing alike.

Street Fighter is a very much fundamentals based game, whereas the other two have a more aerial and combo emphasis. Then there are the differences between BB and GG. Aside from a number of different mechanics, the Drive system distinguishes BlazBlue from Guilty Gear as the Drive button's behavior varies from character and defines a major aspect of each character.

This is the kind of attitude I can't stand to see in the Smash community. To think I was like this at one point yet now I'm defending traditional fighters right here and now.

 

[Steam]

there's a big difference most 2D fighters... pretty much as different as melee and brawl and 64 more or less.

 

[-Ran]

The only real difference is.... everything that makes a game, a game. Lol.

 

[UberMario]

there's a big difference most 2D fighters... pretty much as different as melee and brawl and 64 more or less.

But would you say that every one of those is closer to the others than they are to Smash? That's my point.

I know that they do have their different mechanics (as I mentioned, core physics elements are some of the main differences), but most fighters on the basic level can be melted down to 2/4/6 [almost always human] characters that always face each other, battle on a completely flat playing field, and have a health bar and/or an attack bar. Smash does not fit that description.

 

[Rappster]

did anyone read the smash thread on the front of SRK a few weeks back?
plenty of flaming on both sides.

long story short: people want to feel superior to others. it makes them feel special and unique. Thats why people disrespect other's games without playing them.

you can't argue about what game takes more skill.

skill should only be measured by the time invested in something.

For example, melee takes more techskill than brawl, but serious brawl players spend the time they would use practicing l-cancels, wavedash, etc., and put it into perfecting spacing.

you can't say one takes more skill than the other.

Same goes for smash and street fighter.

 

[lordvaati]

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that makes SRK hate us lol.

does that mean FPS fans hate Portal and Mirror's edge?

 

[Jonas]

No, but it makes fighting game fans view Smash fans as ignorant and pretentious. I don't know where you get that FPS thing from.

 

[lordvaati]

No, but it makes fighting game fans view Smash fans as ignorant and pretentious. I don't know where you get that FPS thing from.

in that quote, it said most traditional fighters are like FPSes, in that they play the same. But with Portal, it focuses on solving puzzles instead of Killing, and mirror''s edge is a Platformer instead of a shooter. so these 2 are also games that deviate from the norm of the genre. does that mean they get hated as much as smash?

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Edit: Wrong place

 

[Jonas]

in that quote, it said most traditional fighters are like FPSes, in that they play the same. But with Portal, it focuses on solving puzzles instead of Killing, and mirror''s edge is a Platformer instead of a shooter. so these 2 are also games that deviate from the norm of the genre. does that mean they get hated as much as smash?

I don't think SRK users hate Smash. In fact, many of them seem to enjoy it casually. It's the community they can't stand because sometimes a random SWF member can't resist but log on to SRK and beg to be accepted as a member of a "real" fighting game community.

Not to say the SRK community is without fault though. They have their fair share of idiots and trolls, but don't all internet communities?

 

[Anth0ny]

Mostly stereotypes. Smash is a "kiddy game".

The main reason is because it wasn't designed to be a competitive fighter... so therefore if you are playing a party game "the wrong way" you're "going it wrong". AND THAT'S BAD.

 

[Big-Cat]

in that quote, it said most traditional fighters are like FPSes, in that they play the same. But with Portal, it focuses on solving puzzles instead of Killing, and mirror''s edge is a Platformer instead of a shooter. so these 2 are also games that deviate from the norm of the genre. does that mean they get hated as much as smash?

By that logic, FPS fans were hating on Metroid Prime.

It has nothing to do with deviation, the main problem with Smash is that the other communities simply do not think it's worth going in depth with considering Sakurai didn't intend it to be as such (which is quite ironic actually).

 

[Crispy4001]

The whole point of a combo is that it is a guaranteed sequence of attacks assuming the player doesn't screw up. With Smash, however, combos don't exist for the most part because DI makes true combos impossible. It's no different than me getting someone on their wakeup constantly with El Fuerte or Zangief in SF4.

Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can hinder the pace of the game. If a character has to put in a lot of effort to keep someone out or get in, they have to constantly guess right, and if they guess right, the reward isn't large enough. That's one of the important aspects of a combo. Yeah, I know it's annoying to be stuck in a long and/or punishing combo (Wolverine in MvC3 comes to mind), but because of your mistake, you got in it, but the same can happen to your opponent.

Sorry for replying to a first page quote, but I'm just catching up to this thread.

I think Melee proved that a fighting game doesn't need "true combos" (well, at least not as the norm) for there to be high-reward punishment. What makes Smash different is the context of that punishment. Things revolve around the KO much more than they do the damage meter. The goal is ultimately to shortcut the health bar with as few hits as possible.

That comes from using edge guarding manuvers [most effective] or landing moves with high knockback. For either to be successful kills at low-ish %'s, you have to consider positioning relative to the stage (which in itself may require some set-up). It's a different context, sure, but it's Smash's equivalent to long punishing combos in other fighters. Claiming that one is more satisfying than the other ultimately boils down to how you get your jostles. Not how effective and rewarding they are. [very]


As for "guessing" and how it relates to Smash's pacing, I believe you're looking at it too black & white. A better term might be estimation. Once a hit connects there's a lot of different things than can happen next, but there's also an implication of what's realistic to happen next. Player influence is a notable factor, but there's still only so much that can be controlled. That's key. Much can be gleamed from what they're hit with, how they're hit, and what % they were hit at.

This is the sort of thing which kept Melee from devolving into a game of chance. It's not black and white at all. There's shades of gray abound, and you can come at a broad range of them all at once. So can your opponent. The learning curve comes from realizing how to best utilize that palette in account for player influence, positioning, the stage, %'s, etc. The same logic applies to other aspects of the gameplay as well.


Ultimately, Smash isn't a better approach to the fighting game than Street Fighter II's rubric. Just a distinctly different one. What kills me is when people choose not to believe that distinctly different can lead to a good compeditive game.

The Smash community (with the exception of occasional loonies like Steam) generally doesn't dismiss games that other compeditive fighting communities hold dear to their heart as shallow and mindless. Most of us have been convinced by them at some point, and many of us grew up playing SF2 too. Many of us continue to play them.

Sometimes I wonder if things would've worked out differently if Smash as we know it got its start on the SNES.

 

[Ripple]

anyone else like the fact that smash is actually a king of the hill game?

 

[Jonas]

I've always seen it as a fighting game (mostly because I don't consider "party" or "king of the hill" to be actual genres - Mario Party, Smash and Mario Kart can all be said to be party games, but they have none of the game concepts in common), but that doesn't mean it's the same type of game as Street Fighter, GG, Tekken etc.

 

[Big-Cat]

I think Melee proved that a fighting game doesn't need "true combos" (well, at least not as the norm) for there to be high-reward punishment. What makes Smash different is the context of that punishment. Things revolve around the KO much more than they do the damage meter. The goal is ultimately to shortcut the health bar with as few hits as possible.

I will admit. I definitely like this concept.

That comes from using edge guarding manuvers [most effective] or landing moves with high knockback. For either to be successful kills at low-ish %'s, you have to consider positioning relative to the stage (which in itself may require some set-up). It's a different context, sure, but it's Smash's equivalent to long punishing combos in other fighters. Claiming that one is more satisfying than the other ultimately boils down to how you get your jostles. Not how effective and rewarding they are. [very]

Just to be clear, I, myself, am not a fan of super long combos. I'm fine with something like five attack combos.

As for "guessing" and how it relates to Smash's pacing, I believe you're looking at it too black & white. A better term might be estimation. Once a hit connects there's a lot of different things than can happen next, but there's also an implication of what's realistic to happen next. Player influence is a notable factor, but there's still only so much that can be controlled. That's key. Much can be gleamed from what they're hit with, how they're hit, and what % they were hit at.

You don't have to explain this to me. I've played El Fuerte for two years now and despite what people may accuse me of, my guesses are educated guesses or, as you call them, estimations. You make your estimations based on matchup experience and, as you have mentioned, the player himself. Of course, with Smash, your big differences are the % levels and the stage positioning (at more so than in SF4).

Ultimately, Smash isn't a better approach to the fighting game than Street Fighter II's rubric. Just a distinctly different one. What kills me is when people choose not to believe that distinctly different can lead to a good compeditive game.

URGH! ME HATE DIFFERENT! The problem for some people, I'm guessing, is that they may not like how it's implemented. Personally, I'd like to see Guilty Gear like combos in Smash, but after X amount of hits, your opponent has the chance to escape with DI. I believe this is something that everyone wins with if implemented right.

Sometimes I wonder if things would've worked out differently if Smash as we know it got its start on the SNES.

Excellent question, but I think that depends on the attitudes of the developers then and now.

 

[Zebia]

The real reasons SRK doesn't like Smash and the community (from quotes I've read):
1. You make up techniques out of "stupid" things that shouldn't even be in the game (DI)
2. You dare to say that Melee is more technical than SF (especially ST)
3. The game is too random to allow for the more skilled player win every time (which is the whole point of a game being a tournament game)
4. You have too many rules limiting what the game is, no matter the reason for having said rules. Basically they will say that you should have items on, which leads back to #3.
5. Sakurai condemned the game by saying it was a party game. For that reason alone they will never, ever consider it to be a fighting game.
6. The colluding incidents. You know what I mean.
7. Brawl being the newest game, it is the one that is focused on now as opposed to Melee, and that game reflects negatively on the series and the community.
8. The community itself is too childish.
9. A whole bunch of problems with the mechanics of the game.
10. Metaknight. Yes, seriously. Even they believe that he should be banned and say that it was voted that he be banned by the community but the backroom veto'd it because most of them are Metaknight users. (I don't know about this one)

 

[ZMan]

this post summarizes why srk heads don't like the smash community.

 

[Steam]

The Smash community (with the exception of occasional loonies like Steam) generally doesn't dismiss games that other compeditive fighting communities hold dear to their heart as shallow and mindless. Most of us have been convinced by them at some point, and many of us grew up playing SF2 too. Many of us continue to play them.

try reading my posts. I've never once said brawl was any more competetive than SF or anything else. All I was doing is pointing out how they have many of the same elements of depth. Besides, I play melee and Marvel and would be playing blazblue still if the entire blazblue community didn't quit it for marvel.

 

[SmashChu]

I'm not comparing Smash to Street Fighter right now. I'm trying to understand the thing with Street Fighter, because frankly, their community tends to be the worst and most brutal offenders of mutual respect between fighting game communities. No offense intended.

Okay. So Street Fighter is essentially about frame-by-frame precision in reflexes, technical skill, and the whatnot. But I'll be honest, I think that sort of thing, while requiring a brand of skill, isn't all there is to a deep fighting game.

I'm NOT saying Brawl has everything to make that deep experience, but I'd say it, and even Blazblue and DoL, have got a few things that Street Fighter is missing. So to be blunt, I don't see why they need to act... Oh, what's the word... Superior? To everything else?

And yes, I *have* played competitive Street Fighter. Whether or not it was "tournament level" is completely relative, but I didn't enjoy it very much, because I think Street Fighter is missing some important parts to a good fighting game experience. It's almost like they put so much effort into making it require precision dexterity and skill that they forgot almost everything else that goes into depth. Not to say skill isn't important.

God, it's like I went into the twilight zone.

The faster a game is, the more tech skill is involved and the less strategy. Street Fighter is a lot of strategy. There is little tech skill besides the fact that the motions are archaic. Smash has a lot less strategy and more tech skill. The fact that people got so bent out of shape over the lack of Wave dashing and L canceling shows this. Street Fighter is about guessing the next move. It happens in Smash Brothers, but it's a lot more about execution and always has been.

Also, first bold is dead wrong. The SF community is more the fighting game community. EVO is a Street Fighter tournament that host almost every fighting game under the sun and has hosted Smash Brothers at one time. I doubt the look down or hate the other communities if they do something like that. They hate Smash because how they act. Case in point....

You know part of the problem people have with the Smash community? That the Smash community treat their games as the holy grail of fighting games and are biased against anything else (though I hear Dustloop can be this bad). Of course, not everyone is like this, but it's a really bad stigma.

Melee is definitely a harder game that street fighter. there is no question about that.

How is that so Mr. person who can not use capitalization?

 

[Big-Cat]

The faster a game is, the more tech skill is involved and the less strategy. Street Fighter is a lot of strategy. There is little tech skill besides the fact that the motions are archaic. Smash has a lot less strategy and more tech skill. The fact that people got so bent out of shape over the lack of Wave dashing and L canceling shows this. Street Fighter is about guessing the next move. It happens in Smash Brothers, but it's a lot more about execution and always has been.

Not necessarily. Guilty Gear is regarded as being one of the most technical and deepest fighters out there, assuming it's not holding that distinctive title already.

There is no inherent correlation between the prominence of tech skill and strategy. One does not nullify the other. What happens is that the players, not the game itself, will emphasize one area over another. Street Fighter has plenty of tech skill thanks to links and the motions that you've mentioned, but I'll go further later in this post. And people will tell you that Smash has plenty of strategy.

With the case of L-Canceling and Wavedashing, people were not solely upset that tech skill was taken away. Rather, they were upset that options were just flat out removed that allows players to have a refined strategy. L-Canceling dramatically increases the pace, but that could've been just done by making it automatic, but I'll stop on that since I don't want to open that can of worms here. Wavedashing provides mobility options for getting in, out, and feinting.

All in all, tech skill AND strategy are needed. The two actually go in hand. The better your execution, the more options are available to you. Likewise, you can't win with the proper tech skill if you can't apply it by using your options properly.

 

[Impmacaque]

try reading my posts. I've never once said brawl was any more competetive than SF or anything else. All I was doing is pointing out how they have many of the same elements of depth. Besides, I play melee and Marvel and would be playing blazblue still if the entire blazblue community didn't quit it for marvel.

and if anyone's claiming another game is shallow and mindless, it's Impmacaque... jussayin.

Excuse me? Watch what you say if you don't want to be automatically dismissed as trolling. Not once did I call a game "mindless", in fact, if you bothered to read the entirety of my posts, you'd see that I recognized that Brawl does require skill (much less compared to top-level SF play, but it's obviously not a game you master in a week).

this post summarizes why srk heads don't like the smash community.

Also... yikes. This makes me cringe to read.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread. This is a debate which has been repeated ad nauseum over the years, and I'm really sick of it.

 

[Crispy4001]

Personally, I'd like to see Guilty Gear like combos in Smash, but after X amount of hits, your opponent has the chance to escape with DI. I believe this is something that everyone wins with if implemented right.

Sounds almost like what they're doing with Lucario in Project M.

 

[Big-Cat]

Sounds almost like what they're doing with Lucario in Project M.

You got a link to that? I'm intrigued.

 

[JOE!]

I thought what they were doing was changing Down B to Swords dance, and it activates his aura after doing a combo?

 

[Crispy4001]

You got a link to that? I'm intrigued.

Unfortuently not. There's only some saved videos of streams you'd have to dig through. You could ask in the Project M thread if someone would know where in particular he's showcased.

Basically, they're reworking him so that some attacks can cancel into other attacks. ie: Jab-A to foward-tilt to foward-Smash to B-special. Or something like that. And knockback on some of those moved has changed so they're easier to string together.

They changed his neutral-air to something Hurricane Kick esque too.

 

[BlueSuperSonic1]

His Down B is the same, but they made it so his moves become cancellable on hit. He also gains aura during a combo.

 

[Big-Cat]

Unfortuently not. There's only some saved videos of streams you'd have to dig through. You could ask in the Project M thread where you might be able to find some examples with him.

Basically, they're reworking him so that some attacks can cancel into other attacks. ie: Jab-A to foward-tilt to foward-Smash to B-special. Or something like that. And knockback on some of those moved has changed so they're easier to string together.

They changed his neutral-air to something Hurricane Kick esque too.

Wow. It'd be really neat if they could apply that to more characters.

 

[Crispy4001]

I thought what they were doing was changing Down B to Swords dance, and it activates his aura after doing a combo?

Not sure. When was the last time you heard about him? What I'm referring to is fairly recent. Like in the past few weeks.

Wow. It'd be really neat if they could apply that to more characters.

They could, but Lucario in particular got those changes because he was kind of a dead end road otherwise for what PM is shooting for. Visually, it's a nice fit for him too. They're giving buffs just as unique to some of the other characters.

 

[JOE!]

thatd be the problem, havent been in touch with PM in a while

 

[Steam]

Excuse me? Watch what you say if you don't want to be automatically dismissed as trolling. Not once did I call a game "mindless", in fact, if you bothered to read the entirety of my posts, you'd see that I recognized that Brawl does require skill (much less compared to top-level SF play, but it's obviously not a game you master in a week).

still moreso than just showing how two games are similar. lol

@smashchu- It would be pretty hard to argue that street fighter is a harder game than melee. melee's definitely more technical throughout