Oh, Riot's getting Smash Brothers?

Finally, the time of his assimilation is at hand.

If I saw him IRL, I'd break his PS3 and PSP, just to watch him cry, as I brandished a firearm for protection.

Oh, comeone nub, you can't compare two games from different sub-genres, and say one is better. If the next SF is a rehash of the last one, it'll be worse than Brawl. If you wanna talk best game in the series vs best game in the series, then SF2 vs Brawl would go down as a epic review off.

If instead your talking deep tourney play and influence, then yes, SF has had more of an impact, but don't come up with nubtard crap like "Brawl can't compare to KoF. KoF is mediocre, son. It's barely even famous outside of hardcore circles. Nobody in their right mind would play that crap over Brawl, get with the times. 

Eh, I can understand using a different subset for fighting games Zenfolder:

Technical Fighter and Brawler. There are certainly enough games in each to each earn their own classes. Allow me to expand...

Technical Fighters:

A Technical Fighter relies heavily on button sequence memorization. It's a slower style of game that's usually more about blocking and special move comboing. There is certainly skill involved, but it's a slower style of game. There are usually many basic attack buttons, often upwards of 6.  This forces players to memorize complex attack rules, rather than complex physics, world, or movement rules. 

Games included in this genre are King of Fighters, Street Fighter, SNK vs. Capcom, Virtua Fighter, Tekken, and other 2D fighters of similar style. It's worth noting that this is a dying genre. Sales decrease year over year and there simply isn't room for the amount of games that are trying to exist in it. This is shown very clearly in the poor sales of even the highly reviewed ones such as Virua Fighter.


Brawlers:

Brawlers usually have a far simpler set of buttons than Technical Fighters, but operate under a more complex set of rules. They have combos as well, but these games are much more fast paced and combos are based on using the already existing attacks effectively rather than using button sequences to activate special moves. These games are heavily Dependant on your ability to shield and dodge very quickly.

By a more complex set of rules I mean these games often add in a lot of variables like the design of the level, the use of items and other outside sources, wider range of motion on the battlefield, and the use of more advanced techniques based on the complex physics of the game.

Games in this genre include the Smash franchise, Jump Ultimate Stars, and games like DBZ: Tenkaichi. This genre is neither dying nor expanding (with the exception of Smash), but it's also not over-saturated like Technical Fighters are.


Both fighting game subgenres require skill... just different skills. Technical Fighters force you to memorize more combos and button sequences, while Brawlers are much faster and force you to have better reaction time. Past that it's personal preferences as to which you would rather play, but Smash is the undeniable king of Fighting Game sales now, as it's the only game in the genre that's expanding rather than dying.

 erm..... yes there is SF has always been more fun, it has a much more arcade feel to it.

There ya go. I just couldn't come up with the right words to use as classification.

Either way, saying Brawl isn't a fighting game is just snoody, lol. Nice post btw.

I'm not sure if Boxing and Wrestling games wouldn't also have their own subset. They certainly are by definition fighting games, but they are also completely different from Brawlers and Technical Fighters.

I would probably be more inclinded to classify them under the sports genre, and give them their own subgenre there, football, baseball, wrestling, boxing. Each sports subgenre, then as a subgenre all its own, usually arcade vs sim, so maybe each sports type deserves to be a genre on its own, but I digress from this tangent.

Anyway, I love technical fighters and brawlers, love of them is not mutually exclusive. As far as what is the best game, well, there has never been a technical fighter with nearly as much time and effort put into it as Brawl has, and mostly we only get very limited move changes and a new character or 2 for each new itteration, so I gotta give "best game" to Smash Brothers series, so far, even though it has stiff competition coming up. 

Yeah, I'm getting it, and it better good.

You're talking out of your ass, my friend. King of Fighters is not mediocre, it's one of the most popular and highly perceived 2D fighting series in existence. King of Fighter plays every bit as good as Street fighters, and in some cases, even better! You must have never played a good King of Fighters game extensively if you think it's mediocre. King of Fighters has some of the most iconic fighters in gaming history—Terry Bogard and Mai Shiranui come to mind—and that should not go unnoticed. The games are directly responsible for the popular term "SNK Boss Syndrom," too! A mediocre game does not bring so many popular things to the genre like King of Fighters does.

Furthermore, Street Fighters II is not the best of it's series. It's more than likely just the only Street Fighters game you have ever played. Most believe that Street Fighters peaked with Street Fighters Alpha 3. And if you count Capcom's crossover games, Capcom vs Marvel 2 and Capcom vs SNK 2 both beat out Street Fighters II. Street fighters II is actually one of the more primitive games of the series. Most of the games are now far and beyond it, really. 

Also, the last Street Fighters game was a part of the Street Fighters III games; thus, Street Fighters IV will not be a rehash of it, as Ono has stated the game does not take place after SFIII. All you have to do is look at the traillers to see that the game is not a rehash. The game is bring new characters, new art-direction, an probably online play. The game is no more of a rehash than Smash Brothers is of it's predecessor. 

Giving SNK credit for Terry and Mai is like giving Smash Brother credit for Mario and Samus.

They're both from Team Fatal Fury... because they're originally from the game... Fatal Fury. 

Riot isn't suggesting otherwise; please reread his post.

What sets KoF apart from other fighting games may I ask?

@Riot

You give me too little credit my friend.

SF3A is a fine game, however, its derivitive. All games after SF2 were based on SF 2.

Now, I wonder how many KoF characters people on this forum can name, without looking them up. Now I wonder how many people on the street can name one KoF character, compared to SF2.

KoF just didn't have the popularity to be a driving force within the gaming industry, besides from a development perspective.

I'm sure KoF is touted very highly amongst hardcore fighting circles, however, there is little diversity between titles I'm sure, if its anything like Streetfighter, and new itterations, until I play them, will feel like the true nostalga cashins that Wii-haters wish Nintendo were.

The difference?

When Nintendo releases a "cashin" it's Super Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess.

When Capcom releases a cashin it's Streetfighter 2- 2b, and its a reskin.

As for SNK, haven't known it well enough to comment, but if its compariable to streetfighter, its born from lazy development and reskins, and it can't lick Brawl's boot when it comes to consistantly creating quality games for its franchise without relying on age old content.

The SF2-SF3 upgrade is an exception of course, and is a great fighting game, and a great evolution in the series, I give you that.