fatslob-:O said:
Machiavellian said:
fatslob-:O said:
Machiavellian said:
fatslob-:O said:
Machiavellian said:
fatslob-:O said:
Oh well then I guess smash bros will still be my go to fighter game for this generation and it's sad how no fighters are as ambitious compared to it. Fighters CAN appeal to anyone and nintendo proved it with smash bros. Being niche sounds like an excuse for not expanding and yeah it does look like any other fighter.
|
I love Smash Bros but to say its the only ambitious game is streatching it. The reason smash bros work is the game mechanic is very simple to pick up. Nothing wrong with that but most competitive fighting game players like for a deeper gameplay mechanic. Selling the most does not mean the game is better, its just that the game has a mass player appeal which usually mean complexity is taken out to allow more casuals fun playing the game. Smash Bros has it place but it really would suck if Street Fighter, Tekken, Virtual Fighter and a number of other games I play went that route.
|
@Bold LOL it doesn't matter what those competitive fighting game players say when their kind clearly has a much more louder voice for their size.
So wait a minute you think casual = simple and hardcore = complex ? (I Think were done here.)
|
Nope, I am saying that Smash Bros appeal to a larger base because the gameplay is simple to pick up and play. The complexity of moves and strategies are very easy to learn. Also another reason why Smash Bros has a bigger appeal because its a party type of game. 4 player action where anyone can pick up the joystick and tool around appeal to a larger base.
As for Casual = Simple and Hardcore = Complex
Yes, that break down actually is correct. A casual player is not going to practice to learn every tech move, defensive and offensive ability of the character they play. They are not going to look at frame advantage, combo videos or practice for hours to nail that one killer combo. Casuals play the story mode, are fine with a few moves and are happy if they can get a few combos off. I define a casual like my Son. He loves to buy fighting games but really takes no time to learn any character. He wonders why he gets killed by his dad all the time and why I beat him so easily.
So I can agree we are done if you believe that any casual player takes the time to really learn a character.
|
So wait a minute, you think those older 2D marios are easy ? (Hahahaha, you're serious though ?)
How could those "casual" gamers even get past through the first level of mario then ?
|
I am getting confused. Why are you bringing 2D marios into a fighting game analysis. I am talking about fighting games and you are all over the place. Mario has nothing to do with what I just stated above, it's totally irrelevant.
Also notice I breakdown what I consider is a casual.
|
Like you said, if a game has mass market appeal then it must be easy right ?
Well look how wrong you are to generalize.
|
Ahh I see where this is going. You are right lets just leave it since this discussion is going to go nowhere. You are on a totally different tangent. Are you saying the player base during those 2D Marios are the same as today. We can argue that point all day as to what is a casual and what is hardcore but at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with this thread.
