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?

mibuokami on 20 February 2009
Khuutra said:
mibuokami said:

 

 

I do not believe depth = quality as an argument but I certainly feel that SFIV is the more technical of the 2 fighters. Having been a fighter fanatic for a long time now, I will acknowledge that I am slightly biased against the untraditional brawl, but the concept behind Brawl and SFIV is completely different.

Even if you add every single factor brawl has in fighting style, physic, mastery of characters, stages and items; the amount of thing you need to memorize to completely master the game is not a tenth what is needed to master SFIV. Where as brawl may asked an elite player to memorize the priorities of all items, games like SFIV (and Tekken / SCIV etc) demands a tournament level player to remember the priorities of every move in a character’s arsenal when compare to their opponent, what can override another move, what can counter another move, the specific frame advantage some move have either before or after an attack, which character has an inherent advantage / disadvantage over you and much much more before you can contemplate making your way to the top.

Take Soul Calibur IV as an example. It is widely consider less technical than Namco’s other franchise Tekken and Capcom’s SFIV, yet fans of the series (myself included) will gather relevant data on frame rate for every character’s every move just to study frame advantage and that is only the FIRST thing you need to learn to be tournament worthy.

Brawl is no where near as technical as a traditional fighter, even the most un-technical of the crowd.

 

I have said previously that I do not think Brawl is as deep as SFIV (I haven't played the latter, and it almost certainly isn't anyway). I'm not making a comparison between them. I am saying that Brawl cannot be measured, in terms of depth, using the metric for traditional fighters like Street Fighter and Virtua Fighter.

 

We are debating their merit as fighters, not a platformer or adventure game. I do not need to measure depth by the metric of a traditional fighters, I merely need to consider every aspect of the game (even the platforming and adventure) and how long it would take to fully condition myself with every situational occurrence that CAN happen in game to the point that nothing onscreen that occur is the unexpected. I will bet my life saving that this happens in brawl well before SFIV.

Every single traditional fighting game at its route is a debate over precedent and mathematic. Adding random element to spice up the game is merely another factor to consider.

 




Around the Network
Khuutra on 20 February 2009
mibuokami said:

 

We are debating their merit as fighters, not a platformer or adventure game. I do not need to measure depth by the metric of a traditional fighters, I merely need to consider every aspect of the game (even the platforming and adventure) and how long it would take to fully condition myself with every situational occurrence that CAN happen in game to the point that nothing onscreen that occur is the unexpected. I will bet my life saving that this happens in brawl well before SFIV.

Every single traditional fighting game at its route is a debate over precedent and mathematic. Adding random element to spice up the game is merely another factor to consider.

 

I am not comparing Brawl to Street Fighter.

I am merely saying that the competitive scene for Brawl is not representative of the game's depth.

And the platforming in Brawl is very important.



Red4ADevil on 20 February 2009

Before SSB came i thought SF was the best, the way the characters had that handdrawn look and the graphics. Until now i think SSB is the best cause of the possibilities and the many options it gives you, to pummel the living crap out of your opponent.



mibuokami on 20 February 2009
Khuutra said:
mibuokami said:

 

We are debating their merit as fighters, not a platformer or adventure game. I do not need to measure depth by the metric of a traditional fighters, I merely need to consider every aspect of the game (even the platforming and adventure) and how long it would take to fully condition myself with every situational occurrence that CAN happen in game to the point that nothing onscreen that occur is the unexpected. I will bet my life saving that this happens in brawl well before SFIV.

Every single traditional fighting game at its route is a debate over precedent and mathematic. Adding random element to spice up the game is merely another factor to consider.

 

I am not comparing Brawl to Street Fighter.

I am merely saying that the competitive scene for Brawl is not representative of the game's depth.

And the platforming in Brawl is very important.

My main beef with you is that you stated Brawl's depth cannot be measured because it contains more element than an average 'traditional fighter'.

My counter argument is that even if you consider every single element within brawl (including platforming) the amount of time and effort it would take for a gamer to fully master the game's mechanic and understand the fundamental principal behind them is nowhere near the effort it would take to achieve mastery over a traditional fighter like SFIV / Tekken / DoA / SCIV.

The only other way I can think of in which your statement is true is if you measure depth by considering the overall game content only and not the mechanic behind them. Then yes; brawl has more depth than any other fighter because there is a whole lot more to brawl than just a beat'em up.

 




Khuutra on 20 February 2009
mibuokami said:

My main beef with you is that you stated Brawl's depth cannot be measured because it contains more element than an average 'traditional fighter'.

My counter argument is that even if you consider every single element within brawl (including platforming) the amount of time and effort it would take for a gamer to fully master the game's mechanic and understand the fundamental principal behind them is nowhere near the effort it would take to achieve mastery over a traditional fighter like SFIV / Tekken / DoA / SCIV.

The only other way I can think of in which your statement is true is if you measure depth by considering the overall game content only and not the mechanic behind them. Then yes; brawl has more depth than any other fighter because there is a whole lot more to brawl than just a beat'em up.

Close.

I said that it cannot be measured in the same way that one measures traditional fighting games (as in, how each character interacts with other characters). That is just one part of its depth. That it can be measured is reflexive, and I have never denied that. I just said that it is not readily apparent to people who exclusively consider character vs. character matchups, ala the smashworld forums.



Around the Network
blaydcor on 20 February 2009
mibuokami said:
Khuutra said:
mibuokami said:

 

We are debating their merit as fighters, not a platformer or adventure game. I do not need to measure depth by the metric of a traditional fighters, I merely need to consider every aspect of the game (even the platforming and adventure) and how long it would take to fully condition myself with every situational occurrence that CAN happen in game to the point that nothing onscreen that occur is the unexpected. I will bet my life saving that this happens in brawl well before SFIV.

Every single traditional fighting game at its route is a debate over precedent and mathematic. Adding random element to spice up the game is merely another factor to consider.

 

I am not comparing Brawl to Street Fighter.

I am merely saying that the competitive scene for Brawl is not representative of the game's depth.

And the platforming in Brawl is very important.

My main beef with you is that you stated Brawl's depth cannot be measured because it contains more element than an average 'traditional fighter'.

My counter argument is that even if you consider every single element within brawl (including platforming) the amount of time and effort it would take for a gamer to fully master the game's mechanic and understand the fundamental principal behind them is nowhere near the effort it would take to achieve mastery over a traditional fighter like SFIV / Tekken / DoA / SCIV.

The only other way I can think of in which your statement is true is if you measure depth by considering the overall game content only and not the mechanic behind them. Then yes; brawl has more depth than any other fighter because there is a whole lot more to brawl than just a beat'em up.

 

Thing is, all that SF IV's depth does is allow to incrementally become slightly better at draining your opponents health bar. Brawl's depth is much broader; while the ultimate goal of beating your opponent is the same, the methods and means of doing so are so drastically varied that it's dozen plus pockets of limited depth add up to something much more fulfilling then SF IV's one, single, gapingly deep hole.

 



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

mibuokami on 20 February 2009
Khuutra said:
mibuokami said:

My main beef with you is that you stated Brawl's depth cannot be measured because it contains more element than an average 'traditional fighter'.

My counter argument is that even if you consider every single element within brawl (including platforming) the amount of time and effort it would take for a gamer to fully master the game's mechanic and understand the fundamental principal behind them is nowhere near the effort it would take to achieve mastery over a traditional fighter like SFIV / Tekken / DoA / SCIV.

The only other way I can think of in which your statement is true is if you measure depth by considering the overall game content only and not the mechanic behind them. Then yes; brawl has more depth than any other fighter because there is a whole lot more to brawl than just a beat'em up.

Close.

I said that it cannot be measured in the same way that one measures traditional fighting games (as in, how each character interacts with other characters). That is just one part of its depth. That it can be measured is reflexive, and I have never denied that. I just said that it is not readily apparent to people who exclusively consider character vs. character matchups, ala the smashworld forums.

Ahh in that we can agree, the element that competitive play likes to strip the most in any game is chance because the best player should not be the best player because of chance but rather skill; and chance plays a large part of brawl when played as it was meant to be played.

 




mibuokami on 20 February 2009
blaydcor said:
mibuokami said:
Khuutra said:
mibuokami said:

 

We are debating their merit as fighters, not a platformer or adventure game. I do not need to measure depth by the metric of a traditional fighters, I merely need to consider every aspect of the game (even the platforming and adventure) and how long it would take to fully condition myself with every situational occurrence that CAN happen in game to the point that nothing onscreen that occur is the unexpected. I will bet my life saving that this happens in brawl well before SFIV.

Every single traditional fighting game at its route is a debate over precedent and mathematic. Adding random element to spice up the game is merely another factor to consider.

 

I am not comparing Brawl to Street Fighter.

I am merely saying that the competitive scene for Brawl is not representative of the game's depth.

And the platforming in Brawl is very important.

My main beef with you is that you stated Brawl's depth cannot be measured because it contains more element than an average 'traditional fighter'.

My counter argument is that even if you consider every single element within brawl (including platforming) the amount of time and effort it would take for a gamer to fully master the game's mechanic and understand the fundamental principal behind them is nowhere near the effort it would take to achieve mastery over a traditional fighter like SFIV / Tekken / DoA / SCIV.

The only other way I can think of in which your statement is true is if you measure depth by considering the overall game content only and not the mechanic behind them. Then yes; brawl has more depth than any other fighter because there is a whole lot more to brawl than just a beat'em up.

 

Thing is, all that SF IV's depth does is allow to incrementally become slightly better at draining your opponents health bar. Brawl's depth is much broader; while the ultimate goal of beating your opponent is the same, the methods and means of doing so are so drastically varied that it's dozen plus pockets of limited depth add up to something much more fulfilling then SF IV's one, single, gapingly deep hole.

 

I make no argument over which game is more satisfying or more fulfiling: I think that is up to the individual to decide, and as I have stated in my post, if your measurement of depth is by content only then Brawl wins... which is exactly what you did there.




CAL4M1TY on 20 February 2009

Definitely go with SF4 as the better fighter. Most important thing about a fighting game is balance, a game is no fun if you can't pick your favourite character and be competitive, that's where alot of games fail because there's always 1 or 2 characters that are uber powerful.

Brawl doesn't have that balance, the original had a much more balanced cast, but I guess it comes with the territory (more characters = harder to balance). It's not exactly fun getting pummeled by a person who's spamming a single attack (or two attacks).

Which one is more fun though? That's the hard question.



NFGBlinkAC on 20 February 2009

SFIV is way better than Brawl

Brawl is just a simplistic fighter that takes no skill compared to others like GG, SF, Tekken, SC, etc