|
|
Post by thxcmo on Jul 5, 2007 18:48:37 GMT -5
I read the part on Karate Champ, and here's a bit of info on the bull-fighting part. That part of the game is based on the actual karate demonstrations of Mas Oyama, founder of the Kyokushinkai style of karate. Oyama would often fight and kill bulls with his bare hands to show the power of his style. Hope that helps in figuring out the reason behind that challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 6, 2007 13:55:39 GMT -5
Try posting the first few paragraphs on the Fighting Games board at GameFAQs to see how many people you piss off. Those people hate SSBM. Personally, I can see where they're coming from, but what you've said is also sort of true, despite the fact that SSBM, by NCL's definition, is an 'action' game. Try posting this whole thing at ANY fighting game message board at it would be immediately dismissed and endlessly mocked. Those places (Neo-Geo.com, Shoryuken.com, GameFAQs Fighting Games board, etc.) are cesspools, so who cares? Remember the veritable uproar at Neo-Geo.com that this site's write up on King of Fighters caused? Yeah, I've already gotten at least one rant so far. Myself, I rather loathe SSB Melee and despise the simplistic type of fighting game, but ZZZ's argument still has a lot of truth in it. Some people can't look at things in a broader perspective though, which I guess what makes them annoyed. |
|
|
|
Post by vysethebold on Jul 6, 2007 14:00:10 GMT -5
Eh, I wouldn't worry about those guys. This site's all about looking at things without the rose-colored glasses that fanboys wear. You're allowed to have your own opinions, especially if they are backed up with logical arguments and not stupid nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganelon on Jul 6, 2007 15:28:20 GMT -5
I agree with the concept of simplciity but SSBM is a poor example. Rather than strategy and timing, it requires quite a bit of know-how about glitches/techniques such as wavedashing, L-canceling, courching, character specific tricks (wobbling, shining), etc.
Honestly, many OG Street Fighter players would probably prefer more of an emphasis on exact spacing skill, priority knowledge, and advantageous risk taking. But I doubt it would do much for the casual crowd. They would still be upset that people who knew everything and had perfected reflexes would kill them.
Just take a look at shooters. They're offered in both manic and non-manic varieties today yet even so, new western gamers generally avoid them to no end.
|
|
|
|
Post by ninjarygar on Jul 6, 2007 22:02:19 GMT -5
Smash Brothers is a perfect example actually.
There are no complex move commands... every character controls the same way (meaning F+Attack is a Forward Smash.... no matter who you pick...) and there are only 2 buttons for attacking and one for defending. That's the point he was trying to make.... if you drew up a moveslist for the game.... every character would have the same notations for thier moves.
Obviously advanced play means players use whatever advantages they can find. That's true for any game... not just smash.
Off topic... but Wavedashing and L-canceling are not glitches (And if you are a smash brothers fan... I'm sure you're sick of this arguement.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Haz on Jul 6, 2007 22:04:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I read the past posts in that old thread. it's like I'm on some bizarro internet where people HATE Smash. I seriously feel like I'm on another planet here.
And no, it's not because of the weed.
|
|
|
|
Post by vysethebold on Jul 7, 2007 0:06:38 GMT -5
I like it but I can see why people don't. I won't think less of you either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganelon on Jul 7, 2007 0:15:37 GMT -5
According to paragraph 7 of the article, the techniques in SSBM (I call them glitches in reference to the article, where zzz calls SFII canceling a glitch rather than an unintended feature of the control mechanics) would fall under advanced techniques. They're entirely unlisted yet entirely necessary (either to perform or avoid) for even mid-level play. There are also many basic situations such as ledge recovery, aerial movement, ground recovery, and stage obstacles that will give new players a lot of trouble against any experienced player.
Yes, the general controls are the same and that makes it "friendly" for someone to memorize the moves themselves and get in basic play. But how much does that account for? A new player in Smash would get crushed the same as any other fighter.
A few fighters like Hokutonoken show a good part of the movelist on-screen or feature movelist papers in the kit to be displayed in the arcade; someone can easily figure out the basic moves but obviously, combos are still necessary. In the SFII series, you don't even need a single combo or any more complicated special moves to dominate with certain characters (Honda, Dhalsim, boxer, claw, Sagat).
That's why I don't think SSBM was a good example. After all, there were other everybody-has-the-same-moves fighters like Evil Zone/Eretzvaju and Gundam Seed that got nowhere. I definitely agree that Smash cleverly reinvented the genre for itself but then again, Outfoxies tried a similar reinvention and did terrible.
I also agree strongly with the premise of the article (that complicated movements should be dealt away with) out of personal preference. But to assume that would make it easier for a new player to get into the game would still be a huge and almost assuredly incorrect assumption. Anyway, I apologize if this has been brought up numerous times here in the past or if I diverted the thread; been visiting the site since the reviews days but never felt like posting here until a couple days ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by ninjarygar on Jul 7, 2007 0:48:15 GMT -5
According to paragraph 7 of the article, the techniques in SSBM (I call them glitches in reference to the article, where zzz calls SFII canceling a glitch rather than an unintended feature of the control mechanics) would fall under advanced techniques. They're entirely unlisted yet entirely necessary (either to perform or avoid) for even mid-level play. There are also many basic situations such as ledge recovery, aerial movement, ground recovery, and stage obstacles that will give new players a lot of trouble against any experienced player. Yes, the general controls are the same and that makes it "friendly" for someone to memorize the moves themselves and get in basic play. But how much does that account for? A new player in Smash would get crushed the same as any other fighter. Another reason why it's a perfect example. How much does that account for? It accounts for the exact reason why it was brought up. The new player can't win against a pro not because he can't do the moves or doesn't know them, but because he's just not as good as the pro. Obviously if anybody could win tournaments their first time playing.... then it would not still be played competitvely to this day. Yes advanced techniques are important to high level play in smash, but those techniques are more than memorization of commands.... those techniques are more like knowledge of the game and how others play. But you just said it yourself.... Gundam Seed and Evil Zone are NOT played to this day in tournaments. There aren't enormous communities and forums dedicated to Evil Zone. Melee came out over 6 years ago... and it's still played. That's.... again... that was his point. |
|
|
|
Post by Ganelon on Jul 7, 2007 12:43:42 GMT -5
But then, for you, what's the difference between "memorization of commands" and memorization of a sequence of commands (a combo)? When it comes down to learning about the game, the execution to get Fox's shining down is more difficult than getting Genei Jin juggles down in 3S. If a new player knew the basic wobbling setup with Ice Climbers, they would be capable of taking at least 1 stock down from even decent players. The game is not like Karate Champ, where the moves are set in stone, there are no hidden control-based techniques to remember, and execution/positioning is key.
As for why I mentioned the other games, note that he said SSBM succeeded due to its focus on simplicity in an ocean of like fighters. I just pointed out that statement had no merit since other audaciously original and simplistic fighters after SFII's advent were completely ignored. I would argue that the concept of brawling Nintendo's characters had far more to do with Smash's popularity rather than the simplistic controls and lack of combos. I don't see how this comment supported any point in the article.
And on a core originality level, I've already said that I agree Smash is different. If that was the main point at hand, fine. But then the article veers towards avoidance of advanced techniques, which does not describe Smash at all and which I find contradictory as an example.
|
|
|
|
Post by morzas on Jul 8, 2007 16:01:08 GMT -5
Try posting this whole thing at ANY fighting game message board at it would be immediately dismissed and endlessly mocked. Those places (Neo-Geo.com, Shoryuken.com, GameFAQs Fighting Games board, etc.) are cesspools, so who cares? Remember the veritable uproar at Neo-Geo.com that this site's write up on King of Fighters caused? Yeah, I've already gotten at least one rant so far. Myself, I rather loathe SSB Melee and despise the simplistic type of fighting game, but ZZZ's argument still has a lot of truth in it. Some people can't look at things in a broader perspective though, which I guess what makes them annoyed. Time to write a cranky gamers about SSBM! |
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 8, 2007 21:26:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo Rasa on Jul 8, 2007 21:48:35 GMT -5
If people stop thinking about NeoGAF's message board maybe it will go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 8, 2007 21:52:56 GMT -5
It's a pretty reasonable thread actually. Most people seem to have interpreted the intro the way it was meant to be.
It also reminded me that Bushido Blade exists. Gotta get back on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haz on Jul 8, 2007 22:09:39 GMT -5
Yes, good thread, but we do need to find the genetic disorder that makes people like Pit Fighter.  |
|
