Ok, how about this.
They make a game called 'Barrel Making'. In this game you, well, make barrels. But it's not that simple: it's actually incredibly deep: you can choose from over 100 types of wood. Dozens of nails. Scores of saws. There are endless ways to craft your barrels, all of them having subtle impacts on the overall quality of the final product. The game, while it is limited to making barrels, is SO DEEP that it takes up almost a whole Blu-Ray disc.
So, what's a better barrel game--that or Donkey Kong? Depth does not improve a game whatsoever unless you enjoy it's basic gameplay. Brawl's basic style of gameplay is more enjoyable to me and many others; we'd say Brawl is better. For many others, that is not the case: hence to them SF IV is the superior game.
When you're comparing games that are as fundamentally disparate as Brawl and SF IV, you can not argue for one using the usual variables: i.e., depth, replayability, etc...because they are all such COMPLETELY different games, everything becomes not an objective comparison but completely reliant on each players own subjective experience with each game.
Neither can truly be a 'better' fighting game, as they are not the same type of game. One *could* be labelled the better game overall--but then the only fair criteria (assuming both games have AAA production values, are bug free, and so on...which they are) is which is more fun.
We're back to being subjective. This thread is never going to arrive upon anything close to a consensus; it's impossible.
Crusty VGchartz old timer who sporadically returns & posts. Let's debate nebulous shit and expand our perpectives. Or whatever.
