When Title Fight fails it will prove how overrated Super Smash Bros is as a game

I never knew that part.

super600

He in a number of non metal gear titles.

I know of at least two other fighters. Here is one of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamMix_TV_World_Fighters

For the record it was a SSB like game.

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

I love Nintendo's systems but Super Smash Bros main appeal is as a party game with all the characters together. The gameplay is not fun or fair and the balance is laughable.

No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off because Super Smash Bros is only fun because the cast. Take away the cast and add another and you have a mediocre game.

kejigoto

Agreed.

I love Nintendo's systems but Super Smash Bros main appeal is as a party game with all the characters together. The gameplay is not fun or fair and the balance is laughable.

No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off because Super Smash Bros is only fun because the cast. Take away the cast and add another and you have a mediocre game.

Banjo_Kongfooie

I highly doubt Title fights will reah the success SSB got.

Come back to me when it has sold as well as the SSB games have, gotten as mush critical praise, and gotten a pretty large competeive scene where thousandsof people worldwide face eachother in smash tournaments.

[QUOTE="kejigoto"]

You're still making a huge assumption here, plus there is a very successful series in Japan that uses a similar approach as Smash Bros. called Jump Ultimate Stars. Again because one company can't replicate it doesn't mean the original is overrated. And the reason there are so few attempts is because no one really has a stable of characters to draw on like Nintendo does.The lineup is a bonus but there is still a solid game beyond that.

Again fail logic is fail.

Also it is spelled apparently.

HarlockJC

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

I love Nintendo's systems but Super Smash Bros main appeal is as a party game with all the characters together. The gameplay is not fun or fair and the balance is laughable.

No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off because Super Smash Bros is only fun because the cast. Take away the cast and add another and you have a mediocre game.

AzatiS

How could it be about balance when the game drops random items and environment effects? It's about crazy fun.SaltyMeatballs

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]1) I never said Gamespot did alone or that they have nostalgia of Super Smash Bros.

The first one did not do stellar so why would they.

I am saying a core element of super smash is nostalgia. Just like a core element of DOAXB2 is sex appeal...

2) Not really...

HarlockJC

Of course it requires some skill but it is still a joke compared to most fighters. I mean you have to remove the default options to make the game resemble something other than a game of luck.

The roster balance is still atrocious.

One of the reasons that made SSBB so nice was it's even nicer when you can design your own levels/matches not sure what the better term here. This was done before LBP.

HarlockJC

Plenty of games did that before LBP...

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]How could it be about balance when the game drops random items and environment effects? It's about crazy fun.HarlockJC

Yes but Salty is right the games focus is on fun. Great party game except it is sold as a fighting game.

However the game is not competitive by any means when there is a seperate tier for Metaknight and they have to ban him...

I honestly wonder if anyone who bashes the depth of Smash Brothers has ever played the game in a serious 1 on 1 match. I've been playing Brawl serously for awhile, and I'm shocked at the depth in the game. For a game that gets bashed endlessly for dumbing down Melee's mechainics, there is a requirement to have some understanding of how the engine and the gameplay works. That means understanding Short Hops, movement, stage control, using DI to reduce knockback, edgeguarding and the ability to gimp recoveries, and various other factors that a casual player is likely to never notice. And that's not even counting the fact that certain characters have advanced techniques of their own.

Melee and SSB64 were also the same way.

The argument that Smash Bros is not a real fighting game because of the items and stages that contain hazards is laughable. The items can easily be turned off, and many of the stages contain no hazards that will affect gameplay. And with those factors, it comes down to skill.

I'm not going to argue that Smash Bros sells because it offers the chance to play as Nintendo's Mascots in a fighting game. I'm not even going to argue that a good portion of the audience buys the game and enjoys it on the level of tossing bom-ombs at each other on the Mario Bros stage.

But there is depth to Smash's gameplay. Tournaments are being played for all three games. If Smash lacked any depth, does anyone really think it would have survived this long in tournaments? Even Brawl, widely considered the least competitive of the three titles still enjoys a sizable competitive scene.

I honestly wonder if anyone who bashes the depth of Smash Brothers has ever played the game in a serious 1 on 1 match. I've been playing Brawl serously for awhile, and I'm shocked at the depth in the game. For a game that gets bashed endlessly for dumbing down Melee's mechainics, there is a requirement to have some understanding of how the engine and the gameplay works. That means understanding Short Hops, movement, stage control, using DI to reduce knockback, edgeguarding and the ability to gimp recoveries, and various other factors that a casual player is likely to never notice. And that's not even counting the fact that certain characters have advanced techniques of their own.

Melee and SSB64 were also the same way.

The argument that Smash Bros is not a real fighting game because of the items and stages that contain hazards is laughable. The items can easily be turned off, and many of the stages contain no hazards that will affect gameplay. And with those factors, it comes down to skill.

I'm not going to argue that Smash Bros sells because it offers the chance to play as Nintendo's Mascots in a fighting game. I'm not even going to argue that a good portion of the audience buys the game and enjoys it on the level of tossing bom-ombs at each other on the Mario Bros stage.

But there is depth to Smash's gameplay. Tournaments are being played for all three games. If Smash lacked any depth, does anyone really think it would have survived this long in tournaments? Even Brawl, widely considered the least competitive of the three titles still enjoys a sizable competitive scene.

caryslan2

Its a joke that Brawl has a competitive season... Especially when they just now banned Metaknight after years of data. (a character should not even be banned). The roster in each game was noticeabley unbalanced.

I mean Brawl is more unbalanced than Marvel vs Capcom 2

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]How could it be about balance when the game drops random items and environment effects? It's about crazy fun.Banjo_Kongfooie

Yes but Salty is right the games focus is on fun. Great party game except it is sold as a fighting game.

However the game is not competitive by any means when there is a seperate tier for Metaknight and they have to ban him...

And does SSB64 and Melee not count for anything? They are widely played and there are several viable characters in those games. And I find it funny that Metaknight gets bashed when other fighting games have their share of banned characters or overpowereed characters. Old Sagat from SSIIT is soft banned in Japan and Marvel vs Capcom 2 has "the four gods" of Cable, Sentinel, Storm, and Magneto.

I'm not going to argue that Metaknight is overpowered, but once you get past him the rest of the top tier of Brawl is managable.

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]How could it be about balance when the game drops random items and environment effects? It's about crazy fun.Banjo_Kongfooie

Yes but Salty is right the games focus is on fun. Great party game except it is sold as a fighting game.

However the game is not competitive by any means when there is a seperate tier for Metaknight and they have to ban him...

well, for one, thing are other Smahs games than Brawl. The previous two games had beetter balane than Brawl, and there were no god tiers or banned characters in SSB64 nor Melee.

And Yes Metaknight hurt Brawl's metagame and competitive scene, that's exactly why he was banned. Perhaps his banning will help improve the character variety in torunaments and thusncreate a more interesting metagame.

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

I love Nintendo's systems but Super Smash Bros main appeal is as a party game with all the characters together. The gameplay is not fun or fair and the balance is laughable.

No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off because Super Smash Bros is only fun because the cast. Take away the cast and add another and you have a mediocre game.

AzatiS

This...

It infuriates me such an unbalanced game with shallow gameplay has a competitive scene. Virtua Fighter 4, Tekken 6, BlazeBlue, KOFXIII,SSFIV are much deeper than SSBB.

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]How could it be about balance when the game drops random items and environment effects? It's about crazy fun.Banjo_Kongfooie

Yes but Salty is right the games focus is on fun. Great party game except it is sold as a fighting game.

However the game is not competitive by any means when there is a seperate tier for Metaknight and they have to ban him...

Just because you don't regard it as being a competitive fighter doesn't mean that it isn't a competitive fighter. It isn't hard to tweak the settings and narrow down the items. It's nice of you to voice your opinion on the matter but your opinion is just that, an opinion and it certainly isn't fact.

[QUOTE="AzatiS"][QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

I love Nintendo's systems but Super Smash Bros main appeal is as a party game with all the characters together. The gameplay is not fun or fair and the balance is laughable.

No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off because Super Smash Bros is only fun because the cast. Take away the cast and add another and you have a mediocre game.

Banjo_Kongfooie

This...

It infuriates me such an unbalanced game with shallow gameplay has a competitive scene. Virtua Fighter 4, Tekken 6, BlazeBlue, KOFXIII,SSFIV are much deeper than SSBB.

SSBB is only unbalanced when you take into account Metaknight. Remove him, and the game is alot more balanced. As for depth, Brawl still has its share of advanced techniques. Have you ever played Smash Bros competitively? Have you ever talked or visites the Smash Wiki.

I've said this before, none of the games would not be played competitively if there was no depth to them. The players would get bored and they would move on to something else. There are still people playing SSB64 and Melee in tournaments. Jigglypuff and Mewtwo have recently gone up in the tier lists because people are discovering new techniques and advancing the high-level play on those characters.

Smash has depth, why no one will accept this is beyond me.

I've said this before, none of the games would not be played competitively if there was no depth to them. The players would get bored and they would move on to something else. There are still people playing SSB64 and Melee in tournaments. Jigglypuff and Mewtwo have recently gone up in the tier lists because people are discovering new techniques and advancing the high-level play on those characters.

Smash has depth, why no one will accept this is beyond me.

caryslan2

The fact that games like Pokemon and Super Smash have serious tournies shows many games can be competitive.

The difference between pokemon and Super Smash is the depth pokemon has to its core game.

Super Smash Bros is only rated high because of its cast and the content revolving around the cast.

Most reviewers do not review the game with items off. They review the game under the default settings.

It would be like Halo on default allowing a golden surfboard that one shots everything to randomly drop at a random location in a game... That is shallow gameplay.

no... that type of sub genre is very fun and super smash brothers brawl is one of my favourite games this gen.... digimon rumble arena 1/2 is a sorta similar game..and that was heaps fun as well... you really cant go wrong with this type of game..campzor

I loved digimon rumble arena and 2... Ominusha Warlord is like that too... They are a little different though because the health bar.

These games can have some depth to them to. I can find depth in any fighter. I would actually consider Digimon Rumble Arena to be less based on luck as you can not get instant kills with a random hammer or pokeball.

Digimon Rumble Arena's roster was unbalanced though as you can select a Mega... or select the mega/rookie combo.Mortal Kombat should have a more active tourny scene in comparison to Brawl as well.

The fact that Virtua Fighter 5 has a less active tourney than Brawl or Melee is a ****ing joke.

[QUOTE="caryslan2"]

I've said this before, none of the games would not be played competitively if there was no depth to them. The players would get bored and they would move on to something else. There are still people playing SSB64 and Melee in tournaments. Jigglypuff and Mewtwo have recently gone up in the tier lists because people are discovering new techniques and advancing the high-level play on those characters.

Smash has depth, why no one will accept this is beyond me.

Banjo_Kongfooie

The fact that games like Pokemon and Super Smash have serious tournies shows many games can be competitive.

The difference between pokemon and Super Smash is the depth pokemon has to its core game.

Super Smash Bros is only rated high because of its cast and the content revolving around the cast.

Most reviewers do not review the game with items off. They review the game under the default settings.

It would be like Halo on default allowing a golden surfboard that one shots everything to randomly drop at a random location in a game... That is shallow gameplay.

[QUOTE="caryslan2"]

I've said this before, none of the games would not be played competitively if there was no depth to them. The players would get bored and they would move on to something else. There are still people playing SSB64 and Melee in tournaments. Jigglypuff and Mewtwo have recently gone up in the tier lists because people are discovering new techniques and advancing the high-level play on those characters.

Smash has depth, why no one will accept this is beyond me.

Banjo_Kongfooie

The fact that games like Pokemon and Super Smash have serious tournies shows many games can be competitive.

The difference between pokemon and Super Smash is the depth pokemon has to its core game.

Super Smash Bros is only rated high because of its cast and the content revolving around the cast.

Most reviewers do not review the game with items off. They review the game under the default settings.

It would be like Halo on default allowing a golden surfboard that one shots everything to randomly drop at a random location in a game... That is shallow gameplay.

What do reviews have to do with anything? I'm sure 90% percent of Brawl players play with the items on and on all the stages. Hell, I even do that from time to time when I just want to play for fun.

The argument was never about reviews or anything like that. My point is that under the surface, Smash Bros has a great deal of depth. There are advanced techniques, the ability to understand hitboxes and lag(hence why you would never see a Falcon Punch in a competitive 1 on 1 match), the ability to control the stage, the ability to gimp your oppoent and remove their ability to return to the stage, and understanding movement.

And this is not even going into advanced techniques like L-Canceling, Short Hops, Wavedashing, Changrabs, DACUS, Smash Smash Slide, Directional Influnce, Smash Directional Influence, and other advanced techniques.)

Adding another layer to all this are the advanced technquies that are exclusve to indivudal characters.

I'm sure this stuff is meaningless to a good portion of the players who play Smash. But you know what, the same could be said of other fighting games as well.

My original point stands. I'm bothered by this idea that Smash Bros is nothing more then a casual franchise that gets by because Mario and Pikachu are slapped on the cover. Yes, I'll agree that most players play the game because of all the famous Nintendo characters. Hell, even I'll admit that the Nintendo characters are what drew me to the series in the first place.

But as I played against other players in 1 on 1 matches, I began to discover that Smash Bros is deeper then most people assume.

I love Nintendo's systems but Super Smash Bros main appeal is as a party game with all the characters together. The gameplay is not fun or fair and the balance is laughable.

No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off because Super Smash Bros is only fun because the cast. Take away the cast and add another and you have a mediocre game.

Banjo_Kongfooie

SO much wrong in just one post.

If it is anything like Smash Bros then count me in...if it is anything like Mortal Kombat then my hype is dead.

What I find funny is that a schmuck with a dead series as an avatar/sig/username is making this claim. How's the next installment of Banjo-Kazooie coming along?Nintendonly

[QUOTE="Nintendonly"]What I find funny is that a schmuck with a dead series as an avatar/sig/username is making this claim. How's the next installment of Banjo-Kazooie coming along?BrunoBRS

However, Banjo-Kongfooie seems to think that him buying Kinect Sports will help bring back Banjo-Kazooie.Nintendonly

[QUOTE="Nintendonly"]However, Banjo-Kongfooie seems to think that him buying Kinect Sports will help bring back Banjo-Kazooie.BrunoBRS

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="Nintendonly"]However, Banjo-Kongfooie seems to think that him buying Kinect Sports will help bring back Banjo-Kazooie.Nintendonly

Well I might agree with you because of one specific game.

But Smash Bros. is Fun. I played it yesterday with my cousins and we had a Blast.

So if Title Fight happens to end up sucking that means Smash Brothers isautomatically overrated? :|

No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off Banjo_Kongfooie

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off starjet905

[QUOTE="starjet905"][QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off BrunoBRS

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]No other company will be able to pull Super Smash Bros off starjet905

Doesn't play like Smash Bros. but I see what you're saying and I should continue the list.

Marvel and Capcom did it with Marvel vs Capcom.

Super Smash Bros is in no way overrated. TranquilityBlue

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="starjet905"]Square Enix did with Dissidia.starjet905

Its proves how Nintendo's characters can sell anything, including a really fun party game

Smash Bros requires a huge amount of skill (well with a lot of the items off). I know all the controls for SSBM but I suck. Brawl, I've sunk in enough time and I'm quite good if I do say so myself.

So if Title Fight happens to end up sucking that means Smash Brothers isautomatically overrated? :|

Demonjoe93

Sony Wins CES SF4 Tournament

Sony's Jeff Rubenstein,Microsoft's Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb and Capcom's Seth Killan all lead teams of twenty for their respective companies. And with Capcom, the game's developer, carrying the obvious advantage, it's surprising that Sony took home the trophy (pun intended).

But most importantly, it shows that a developer can be beat at their own game, literally.

http://beefjack.com/news/sony-wins-ces-sf4-tournament/

Just sayin, FYI Sony peps seem to know a thing or 2 about fighting games.

You have 3 threads on the first page, that is a serious problem.