Christ Centered Gamer

Goroh was an assist trophy, but it'd be cool to play as him.

When I had it though, I rarely played as anyone besides Ike, Link, or Sonic.

I'd have to say that they're all good in their own way. The first was a masterpiece, a crazy simple yet complex fighter that could suck hours upon hours from your life. Not to mention it has some of the best stages in the series (Hyrule castle with the tornado! A WHOLE SHIP! AND A STAGE WITH WORKING POW BLOCKS AND WARP PIPES!?!?!?!) The second was the most balanced, there were some cheap things, but most everything still had something to counter it. And brawl, oooohhhh boy, brawl. This one would be my favorite ( I mean, third party characters, stages than ever, even more characters, the subspace emissary don't judge) But they really screwed up the flow ( I mean final smashes? TRIPPING?????)

So

Super Smash Bros.: simplest
Super Smash Bros. Melee: balanced
Super Smash Bros. Brawl: best single player

darthfett13 wrote:Personally I don't really consider it a "fighting game" any more (this is what street fighter does to you kids)

It's totally a fighting game, but not a traditional 2D fighter.

I think it's pretty amazing how they were able to create a fighter that pays homage to Street Fighter (eg. Mario's moves) but creates a unique gameplay system. There are sooo many SF clones - some try to add a gimmick (one hit kills in Samurai Showdown, 2 lines of battle foreground/ backgound in Fatal Fury, fatalities in MKs) but they all go back to the basic formula. SF came out in '91.

Virtua Fighter ('93) was the first real bold step away from cloning SF adding the 3rd dimension, ring outs and a different take on special moves (no projectiles, too). Of course, this was followed by a bunch of clones, as well (Tekken, Soul Edge/Calibur, Toshinden...). Heck, even Street Fighter EX copied the 3D look.

But in '99, Nintendo came along and made Smash Brothers, a fighter that did away with complicated controls for special moves, replaced life bars with damage percentages, added items and up to 4 people can fight! Aside from Powerstone, this was the most original fighting game in almost 7 years!

Imo, the first SSB was amazing, but with time the stages felt too small and it was too easy to throw the opponent. Melee added a ton of improvements, dodging being the most significant! Brawl took everything that was great about Melee, and went places no one expected. Sure, not everyone is a fan of all the additions, but with customization, Brawl can be exactly what you want it to be! .... well, except for tripping and removing some characters from Melee. If you took out the tripping, brought those characters back, and stabilized the online mulitplayer, it would be gaming perfection!

Wow, I really love Smash Brothers, eh?

bgpablo wrote: Wow, I really love Smash Brothers, eh?

Well hey, if you're going to love a fighting game, why not the most unique?

(and before people bash me over the head with that comment, SSB has the fewest clones, and was totally different from the other fighting games of the time.)

Nate DaZombie wrote:

bgpablo wrote: Wow, I really love Smash Brothers, eh?

Well hey, if you're going to love a fighting game, why not the most unique?

(and before people bash me over the head with that comment, SSB has the fewest clones, and was totally different from the other fighting games of the time.)

ಠ_ಠ

Umm yeah when it comes to fighting games being the most unique isn't always a good thing. Smash bros is a very simple game, too simple to be considered a serious fighting game in my opinion. It's just a 2D platformer in a four player arena. I also really don't think that not straying from the SF2 formula is a bad thing, because if you really know your fighting games you'll understand how different most of them are.

darthfett13 wrote:Umm yeah when it comes to fighting games being the most unique isn't always a good thing. Smash bros is a very simple game, too simple to be considered a serious fighting game in my opinion. It's just a 2D platformer in a four player arena. I also really don't think that not straying from the SF2 formula is a bad thing, because if you really know your fighting games you'll understand how different most of them are.

I understand it's not for everyone, but I can't show my younger relatives street fighter or MvC3 and expect a good fight out of them. Most fighting games can be very satisfying, but only once you know them. Smash bros. on the other hand, just about anyone can play. We don't all have time to memorize combos...

btw, did you know that the MLG (major league gaming) hosts Super Smash Bros. Tournaments?

darthfett13 wrote:Umm yeah when it comes to fighting games being the most unique isn't always a good thing. Smash bros is a very simple game, too simple to be considered a serious fighting game in my opinion. It's just a 2D platformer in a four player arena. I also really don't think that not straying from the SF2 formula is a bad thing, because if you really know your fighting games you'll understand how different most of them are.

The complexity is hidden within the beautiful simplicity. Honestly, when I watch someone who has mastered Street Fighter or MvsC, the special moves are like second nature, just in the same way someone can pick up SSB and perform the moves. Nintendo has managed to remove an unnecessary barrier for those who don't have time to commit to button sequence memorization - they can focus on learning the timing of each move and their effectiveness. And it's not JUST a 2D platformer in a four player arena, it's all that and a respectable fighting game!
I have played many fighting games, and, yes, they all have slightly different aspects. Slightly. I don't hold anything against anyone who loves any game from Darksiders to Fatal Fury to Dead or Alive to Tekken. I just love it when someone brings a fresh idea, changes things up and succeeds. Smash Bros simple design is genius.

btw, before SSB, the Tekken series and the SF series were my favourite fighters. Marvel vs. Capcoms are too frantic for my liking. Dead or Alives and Soul Caliburs are too girl-parts focused (all fighters are guilty of this...well, except one ). I'm not a big fan of way Fatal Fury plays, although I love the some of the animation (classic hand drawn is awesome). Samurai Showdown's character design is fairly creative, but it just missed that umph of SF. I've heard good things of Blaze Blue but haven't tried it yet. The Virtua Fighers are very good and almost as good as Tekken (I'll admit, once you finally master a combo and land it, it is satisfying). Killer Instincts are outstanding (Combo!), except I don't play fighters that include fatalities anymore - same deal with MKs. World Heroes was a laughable attempt at SF goodness.
I like fighting games, but I'd rather play SSB (especially Brawl) than all of these combined.

bgpablo wrote: Imo, the first SSB was amazing, but with time the stages felt too small and it was too easy to throw the opponent. Melee added a ton of improvements, dodging being the most significant! Brawl took everything that was great about Melee, and went places no one expected. Sure, not everyone is a fan of all the additions, but with customization, Brawl can be exactly what you want it to be! .... well, except for tripping and removing some characters from Melee. If you took out the tripping, brought those characters back, and stabilized the online mulitplayer, it would be gaming perfection!

Wow, I really love Smash Brothers, eh?

I really like Brawl, but every character feels so slow compared to in Melee o_o

True, Yoshi got a bit slower in Brawl,
Speed is the only thing Brawl lacked.

JOJ650s wrote:True, Yoshi got a bit slower in Brawl,
Speed is the only thing Brawl lacked.

- when I played Melee or even the original SSB, some of my friends would say, "okay, what is going on?", especially when 3 or 4 players are going all over the place.
I think the slight reduction of speed allows for all the players to keep up with all of the onscreen insanity.
I can't think of a time when a Brawl player didn't know what was going on.

BG

This thread is ridiculously anti-fighter.

In the sense that, you all look at the aspects that hardcore fighter game players would look at as a positive and label them negative, and vice versa.

Speed and difficulty? These, on top of precision, are perhaps the largest reasons for the greatness of the genre. I look at Smash Bros, as awesome as they are, as taking something intense that actually takes an insane amount of skill, and making it a family-friendly platformer.

In other words, Smash Bros. is the equivalent to modern four-chord music; absolutely no skill involved, but it appeals to the masses who don't want to learn the difference.

This man speaks words of wisdom^

jester747 wrote:This thread is ridiculously anti-fighter.

In the sense that, you all look at the aspects that hardcore fighter game players would look at as a positive and label them negative, and vice versa.

Speed and difficulty? These, on top of precision, are perhaps the largest reasons for the greatness of the genre. I look at Smash Bros, as awesome as they are, as taking something intense that actually takes an insane amount of skill, and making it a family-friendly platformer.

In other words, Smash Bros. is the equivalent to modern four-chord music; absolutely no skill involved, but it appeals to the masses who don't want to learn the difference.

I supposed I am rather anti-fighter. I understand why people like the genre, but I dislike how elitist the fighting genre feels. If you don't know how to do a hadouken, you're just a noob. I'll admit that feels awesome when you do learn all the moves, but you may still not stand a chance against that one friend. I feel that Smash Bros. levels the playing field by keeping the same controls, and plenty of options to keep it fair. But then again it could be that I dislike fighters because I'm not very competitive. To each his own.