Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Part of the design of a fighting game like Street Fighter is to make it so it's not just about when to do what move and that the more damaging moves require skill to accomplish. In SSB it takes no really effort to pull of a special move.
There's a difference between "pulling off the move" and "using the right move at the right time to decimate your opponent". Any idiot can mash the B-button for Falcon punches, just as any fool can C-stick with Marth.
However, it's an entirely different player who can successfully manipulate not only the basic physics engine of the game but also the constantly changing physics of their opponents as they deal damage to them. 0% combos begin with an opponent who is essentially very heavy but gradually becomes lighter and lighter as you continue to damage them. The good player is the one who knows that he/she can grab their Fox-using opponent with Marth and slam them on the ground at 20% to reach the 30% mark which will cause them to bounce just far enough away for a follow-up smash attack to land with the tip of Marth's sword and thus do the most damage.
The physics engine of SSB is what makes the game so great, and it's something the SF series simply cannot touch. In SF, your opponent is either going to be directly in front of you, directly above you in some manner of jump or below you as you leap at them. That's it.
SSB takes into account not only the location of the opponent when compared to their attacker but also the angle, timing and position of the attack at the point of impact, not to mention many moves which have stronger and weaker contact points (ex: Zelda's midair toward+A, Marth's forward smash attack).
Yes, I'm aware SF has similar situations, but in SSB, staying alive is not dependent on not getting hit so much as not allowing your opponent to land a critical blow, nor allowing them to prevent you from getting back to the stage after being knocked off.
SF used the same basic premise of "hit them until they die" via a finite amount of "health" each player is given at the beginning of the game that games have been using for ages. In that sense, it's a resource-management fighter more than a true replication of a combat scenario, but realism isn't the goal here. The goal is
fun.
Is it FUN to memorize a series of commands which will cause a player unit to execute a specific maneuver within a mundane, closed arena? I don't think so. I didn't experience any
shred of enjoyment while sitting there memorizing useless knowledge for tests in grade school so I fail to see why I should suddenly get excited at the notion of memorizing a series of button presses to make one character attack the other. Mind you, I don't claim to be very good at either game, but I definitely have a great deal more fun with SSB than I ever did with SF.
I agree with Kairon: SF is a game which literally thrives on those who play it being proud of the amount of masochism involved in being good at the game. It's like emos being proud of their arm scars from self-inflicted wounds because there was pain involved. Last I checked, emos don't deserve praise for suffering through self-inflicted pain and neither do bratty SF players, quick to dismiss people who point out the faults of the game by saying things like, "You must suck at it. LOL!!!"
And for those who would argue that SF is better because it's the one of the first fighting games, ask yourself this: is DOS Microsoft's best operating system because it was the "first"? Are 200 baud modems the best methods to connect to the internet because they were the "first"? Is "Asteroids" the best 2D shooter because it was the "first"?
Of COURSE not, just as SF is FAR from the best fighting game because, long after its inception, other games have done it infinitely better than they have, hence why Capcom's relentless milking of the franchise is so deplorable.
Topic: Kojima Plays Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Read 12937 times)
