By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - What is the better fighter? Street Fight IV or Super Smash Bros. Brawl?

--OkeyDokey-- on 20 February 2009
Khuutra said:
The_vagabond7 said:

Then I'm just going to claim powerstone is the winner and walk away.

 

Knowledge of the system is paramount, but if there is a deeper system then there is more to know thusly creating a larger gap. That is why your statement  "The gap between great and good players will be roughly the same in both games." isn't really correct. Or on a technicality is correct. The gap may be the same, but the amount of knowledge, investment of time, and skill to create that gap will be drastically different.

If you want to claim Powerstone as the winner, you will ned to create a topic in which it is one of the games being discussed. This is not that topic.

Depth is not quality, but the argument can also be made that a knowledge of Brawl is just as hard to come by as one of Street Fighter, because thee are many more elements to it than the traditional ighter: each stage and its unique traits (layout, sometimes physics, interactive features), items and item physics and usage, priority of certain special moves over others, the way gravity affects each character differently, the inherently different scoring strategies for Stock matches versus Timed matches...

Even if you want to make the argument that depth is equivalent to quality, the answer to that question is not clear-cut, and the many, many, many different ways in which Brawl can be played only compounds that.

Fun is subjective, depth is not.

Street Fighter is deeper than Brawl, that's a fact. I agree that deeper doesn't necessarily mean better, but in this genre it's very important.



Around the Network
The_vagabond7 on 20 February 2009
Khuutra said:
The_vagabond7 said:

Then I'm just going to claim powerstone is the winner and walk away.

 

Knowledge of the system is paramount, but if there is a deeper system then there is more to know thusly creating a larger gap. That is why your statement  "The gap between great and good players will be roughly the same in both games." isn't really correct. Or on a technicality is correct. The gap may be the same, but the amount of knowledge, investment of time, and skill to create that gap will be drastically different.

If you want to claim Powerstone as the winner, you will ned to create a topic in which it is one of the games being discussed. This is not that topic.

Depth is not quality, but the argument can also be made that a knowledge of Brawl is just as hard to come by as one of Street Fighter, because thee are many more elements to it than the traditional ighter: each stage and its unique traits (layout, sometimes physics, interactive features), items and item physics and usage, priority of certain special moves over others, the way gravity affects each character differently, the inherently different scoring strategies for Stock matches versus Timed matches...

Even if you want to make the argument that depth is equivalent to quality, the answer to that question is not clear-cut, and the many, many, many different ways in which Brawl can be played only compounds that.

Different stages does not equate depth. That's why you don't see all of the tourney smash players debating over the best way to deal with the treadmills on the pokemon level.

 

In any game if you want to see it's level of depth, find it's tourney community and watch what they are discussing. The smash world forums isn't talking about gravity effects, or scoring differences in stock vs timed (nobody plays timed competitive matches because it's just a game of "get a point RUN RUN RUN win"), item usage and the like. Hell the competive community disables half of the things discussed for their inherent flaws, and how it reduces the skill necessary to win. That's why brawl is a great party game, but not a great fighting game.

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Khuutra on 20 February 2009
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Khuutra said:
The_vagabond7 said:

Then I'm just going to claim powerstone is the winner and walk away.

 

Knowledge of the system is paramount, but if there is a deeper system then there is more to know thusly creating a larger gap. That is why your statement  "The gap between great and good players will be roughly the same in both games." isn't really correct. Or on a technicality is correct. The gap may be the same, but the amount of knowledge, investment of time, and skill to create that gap will be drastically different.

If you want to claim Powerstone as the winner, you will ned to create a topic in which it is one of the games being discussed. This is not that topic.

Depth is not quality, but the argument can also be made that a knowledge of Brawl is just as hard to come by as one of Street Fighter, because thee are many more elements to it than the traditional ighter: each stage and its unique traits (layout, sometimes physics, interactive features), items and item physics and usage, priority of certain special moves over others, the way gravity affects each character differently, the inherently different scoring strategies for Stock matches versus Timed matches...

Even if you want to make the argument that depth is equivalent to quality, the answer to that question is not clear-cut, and the many, many, many different ways in which Brawl can be played only compounds that.

Fun is subjective, depth is not.

Street Fighter is deeper than Brawl, that's a fact. I agree that deeper doesn't necessarily mean better, but in this genre it's very important.

Depth is objective, but an oversimplification of one game obscures that. Brawl as a fighter is not especially deep, but it's also got a lot of depth for a plaformer - it's layered in many ways, and the absolute plumbs of its depth are murky and not well understood.



The_vagabond7 on 20 February 2009
Khuutra said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Khuutra said:
The_vagabond7 said:

Then I'm just going to claim powerstone is the winner and walk away.

 

Knowledge of the system is paramount, but if there is a deeper system then there is more to know thusly creating a larger gap. That is why your statement  "The gap between great and good players will be roughly the same in both games." isn't really correct. Or on a technicality is correct. The gap may be the same, but the amount of knowledge, investment of time, and skill to create that gap will be drastically different.

If you want to claim Powerstone as the winner, you will ned to create a topic in which it is one of the games being discussed. This is not that topic.

Depth is not quality, but the argument can also be made that a knowledge of Brawl is just as hard to come by as one of Street Fighter, because thee are many more elements to it than the traditional ighter: each stage and its unique traits (layout, sometimes physics, interactive features), items and item physics and usage, priority of certain special moves over others, the way gravity affects each character differently, the inherently different scoring strategies for Stock matches versus Timed matches...

Even if you want to make the argument that depth is equivalent to quality, the answer to that question is not clear-cut, and the many, many, many different ways in which Brawl can be played only compounds that.

Fun is subjective, depth is not.

Street Fighter is deeper than Brawl, that's a fact. I agree that deeper doesn't necessarily mean better, but in this genre it's very important.

Depth is objective, but an oversimplification of one game obscures that. Brawl as a fighter is not especially deep, but it's also got a lot of depth for a plaformer - it's layered in many ways, and the absolute plumbs of its depth are murky and not well understood.

If you believe that then I think that shows this discussion is over.

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

blaydcor on 20 February 2009

As far as depth goes, I have been playing Smash Bros since 1999, and I still have yet to feel like I've truly 'mastered' the game. SF IV is arguably deeper, but by the same argument is more limited: all of its various intricacies contribute directly to only one aspect of gameplay: kicking your opponents ass.

Brawl has some depth in that area but, as Khuutra pointed out, broader depth overall simply because of the very wide scope of its many ways of being played. SF IV (admittedly I have only played it somewhat; my brother owns in not me) bores me like 95% of fighters: it starts to feel like you're just memorizing combos after a while. You spend 100 hours mastering the game, then get your ass kicked by some button mashing noobie 3 out of every 20 times; that or you fight somebody who's sunk even MORE of their free time into the game, then they just wipe the floor with you....



Crusty VGchartz old timer who sporadically returns & posts. Let's debate nebulous shit and expand our perpectives. Or whatever.

Around the Network
Khuutra on 20 February 2009
The_vagabond7 said:

Different stages does not equate depth. That's why you don't see all of the tourney smash players debating over the best way to deal with the treadmills on the pokemon level.

 

In any game if you want to see it's level of depth, find it's tourney community and watch what they are discussing. The smash world forums isn't talking about gravity effects, or scoring differences in stock vs timed (nobody plays timed competitive matches because it's just a game of "get a point RUN RUN RUN win"), item usage and the like. Hell the competive community disables half of the things discussed for their inherent flaws, and how it reduces the skill necessary to win. That's why brawl is a great party game, but not a great fighting game.

What the smashworld forums talk about doesn't mean depth, because they do not exemplify all the depth of the game (nor did they of Melee). They play in such a way as to reduce Smash Bros. to a traditional fighter, whereby the effects of the stages and differing physics and items are removed. They actively cull away the depth of the game in several respects so that focus on one form of it is possible.

Generally, yes, the tournament fighters are where you go to look for depth in the system, but Smash Bros. is different in that the metagame actively ignores several mechanics of the Smash Bros. system.

The fact that the competitive players simplify things does notm ean that the depth isn't there. They just ignore it.



AE86 on 20 February 2009

Brawl is a hell of a lot of fun, but seriously people...

Brawl is a bath tub, SF4 is the pacific ocean.



sly777 on 20 February 2009

2 differents styles. It's easier to compare SF with Mortal kombat or something in the same genre. But if I got one to pick it will be SF4. But my best combat games are wrestling games...



Khuutra on 20 February 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
Khuutra said:

Depth is objective, but an oversimplification of one game obscures that. Brawl as a fighter is not especially deep, but it's also got a lot of depth for a plaformer - it's layered in many ways, and the absolute plumbs of its depth are murky and not well understood.

If you believe that then I think that shows this discussion is over.

 

Even assuming that Brawl is that simple (and it isn't, because it is not limited to the interaction between characters with other characters), it is only a discussion ender if depth is equivalent to quality.

And it isn't.



--OkeyDokey-- on 20 February 2009

Khuutra, maybe you should wait until you've played both games before you get into this argument...