for mandatory touch typing lessons beyond the more general case for better computer-related education in general (Which is not saying much more than the even more general 'better education means better educated civilians). But even that wouldn't help most people anyway. Exposure is enough, without formal training being necessary.
If someone really wants to pump up their WPM or master some sort of formal technique, they are welcome to go learn on their own initiative. Touch typing is something anyone with a computer - i.e. almost everyone in the industrialised world - can learn quite easily on their own initiative. If they don't have that initiative in the first place, then training is pointless.
When I did mandatory PE lessons at school, I learnt techniques for things like football ('soccer') tennis volleyball basketball cricket swimming kayaking sprinting long distance running blah blah blah. I considered the entire thing dull, pointless, too much effort. I frankly did not give a shit about PE and used every opportunity to kill the time on my own terms rather than deciding to train myself up to be as much of an athlete as possible within the time allotted. I have had countless hours of PE lessons and I have never even considered being an athlete or sportsman of any description; I have never had any touch typing training of any description and yet I touch type simply out of familiarity and desire for efficiency when using a computer (My keys are rearranged to spell my name, good for confusing people who want to use my system).
Replace PE with TT and the incidence of pupils behaving and feeling as I did would likely increase dramatically. If people want to get good at football, they'll play it on their own time with friends, they don't need lessons to discover and learn that sort of thing. With touch typing the need for school lessons is even more unnecessary. It's a step away from schools teaching something as completely irrelevant as 'proper walking technique' or 'how to make a cup of tea.'
The example you give is an example of how the entire fighting games portion of the videogame industry operates. I mean, I'm not sure how many character balance-related revisions there have been of SFIV but in general all fighting games go through balance revisions.
The most immediate example in my mind is VF5; there are at least 3 arcade versions, and the PS3 and 360 versions are based on different versions thereof.
And yes you make a good point regarding the replay data, but again, this is nothing new. Think of ghost cars in racers, emulated speedruns, any form of macro used in a videogame, etc.
Unfortunately the type of data in TFA will be used less by devs and more by publishers, distributors etc. Basically I smell a massive marketing opportunity, which is equivalent to a massive de-valuation of the player/consumerbase. E.g. much as it is now but worse, 'Oh you don't fit the player types we want to sell to (The most common player types)? Well tough shit!'
Imagine hooking cinema-goers up to biometrics recorders. This is the same thing.
This sort of thing is useful in a games development context, i.e. helping developers understand how to build their game for a target audience.
In every other context I can think of, it is at best futile and ignorant, at worst arrogant and immoral.
I think you'll find there are plenty of people like you, who haven't missed the parallels of terminology and apparent frame of mind between the US and many of its enemies.
I don't know that Tekken and SC are considered especially technical. Definitely not SC anyway, even without your amusing anecdote.
It is a weird situation I find myself in after reading your post: I agree that the SSB games are not particularly hardcore - when compared to a few SEGA/SNK/Capcom fighers that everyone should be familiar with, for example - but not with your notion of hardcore (And this is a point which is up for debate, since as far as I am aware, videogames haven't been particularly well theorised in this respect). I do not think that being able to pick up and play a game precludes it from being hardcore, I do not think plot has anything to do with whether a game is hardcore. I also do not understand why something which requires skill does not require dedication; surely the more skill required, the more dedication required?
That is the sort of general standpoint I take when talking about hardcore; hardcore games, for me, are the ones which allow everything except the core elements of abstracted screen output and perfect player input to fall away (Not saying I am perfect, of course). In other words, hardcore games for me are the ones which place the greatest demands on the human mind in many ways, including pattern recognition and physical co-ordination, to the extent that other issues are irrelevant, e.g. the player is concerned about hitboxes, not avatars, button presses, not animations. Plot, learning curve/accessibility, etc, really have nothing to do with it, and skill is everything, if skill is defined as the mind's processing efficiency.
For fighting games, the good ones are a special kind of hardcore, because of the adversarial nature. I mention this simply because you claim you do not see the appeal of fighters, though if you ask around, any fighting fan will tell you the same thing (And if I may squeeze in a little jab at the 'hardcore SSB fans,' this is the kind of thing they have said to me, but suggesting Nintendo invented it/SSB is the only game which achieves this): The game becomes much more than the mental/dexterity test it is against a machine; against a human, you find yourself in a sort of Vulcan mind meld state (A metaphor not intended to carry drama more than it attempts to carry the point), possibly not too dissimilar from high level chess matches where anticipation of the opponent is key, countering their movements before they've been made and so on. Obviously chess and fighters are two different schools of games, but at the abstract level they do share the similarity of 'know your opponent' and implement this idea in two different, utterly compelling fashions.
I don't know if that helps you see the appeal, and I don't know if anyone finds the problem of defining 'hardcore' interesting, but for me, it is a very compelling issue. I hope I haven't been too boring.
I think the people who tend to see SSB as a hardcore game - in terms of 'advanced play,' I mean, not in terms of collectibles - seem to consistently be the people who haven't played more technical fighters. An excellent example is the Virtua Fighter series.
For some, SSB is the most hardcore fighter they have played. For others, it is far from hardcore, relatively speaking.
All that said, I am a long time player of both series mentioned in this post, having been playing them both since they each got a first release (VF is about 10 years old and SSB is about 8, iirc), and I can see a place for each of them, and can enjoy each of them. Perhaps it is simply a difference of opinion, but anecdotally, I have never found anyone familiar with both series who feels that SSB is 'hardcore' over VF, and logically, I don't see how one could argue that position. It seems pretty self-evident from the demands each series places on the player, that someone who has learnt VF can more easily get to grips with SSB than vice versa. Again, that is possibly only opinion, but I have yet to find anyone with experience of both who would disagree.
I did have an unenjoyable discussion regarding SSB and 'hardcore' on/. recently, hopefully this can be a fresh start should anyone decide to continue this discussion. Either way, I think people should keep playing what they enjoy playing, and not worry about labels like 'hardcore,' which aren't exactly well-defined in the first place.
Lol yeah, because you can't jump in VF and I wasn't referring to random items, explosions, changing environments.
I am not even shunning SSB, I am a long time player, I have been playing since release, eight years ago iirc. The point is, in comparison to actual hardcore fighting games, SSB is a party game. It's a spectrum, SSB over on the party/casual side, VF over on the hardcore side. STFU n00b and other leet-speak insults go here.
lrn2play something other than SSB, you scrub. I am bored of your 'moving target' style of discussion. Cede the point or shut up. This is my last message.
-My comment concerning items and levels was about effect, regardless of intent. -Name something in Virtua Fighter that takes control away from the player. -How can an assumption be valid when it is inaccurate? -I am very familiar with the SSB[M] scene. I am very familiar with the fighting scene in general. You are not, and have as admitted as much. You can love SSB[M] all you want, it doesn't bother me, but it makes no sense to compare it to games you admit you know nothing about. -No, you really don't have a clue, unless everything you've said regarding fighters besides SSB[M] has been lies on your part. -You've already admitted to being unfamiliar with VF. Try being consistent and see if you get anywhere. -If I loosened up, my position would be as incoherent and foolish as yours.
Well, I think that about covers it. If you want to continue insisting that SSB[M] is more hardcore than Virtua Fighter, that's your business. I would suggest, though, that your definition of hardcore is lacking, or just your experience of fighting games outside the SSB series. Either way, you don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't say anything about Virtua Fighter, I made it clear that I hadn't played it a lot. cf. I haven't played that much Virtua Fighter, but I'd wager to say that it's quite similar [to Tekken's] "Press a certain sequence of 15 Buttons or Combinations to perform the Ultra-special combo with 100 moves" type of combat system, which nobody uses anyway.
The fact remains that you can press a long combination of buttons and watch a sequence of how the character does some ultra-cool moves and beats the shit out of the other player. Casual gamers think ten button presses is a long sequence. Casual gamers think ten hit combos are unbeatable. Casual gamers think that timing and co-ordination have nothing to do with implementing such combos. Casual gamers think any fighting system they haven't learnt is somehow inferior to SSB's.
Switching off items isn't trying to make it like Virtua Fighter. Yes it is.
Even with all items turned off and only one stage there is enough in Smash to entice players with the combat system. Only players who prefer more casual fighters/haven't gotten into more hardcore fighters.
Enough to compete with Virtua Fighter. Says the man who repeatedly states he hasn't played much Virtua Fighter.
let's no go any further into discussing what game elements give more control to players I know why you feel that way: Because SSB[M] has many elements that take control away from the player, whereas hardcore games (VF, SF) have none.
I also never said that Virtua Fighter was a button masher You 'wagered to say' that it was.
I don't know why you take such offence at it... I don't know why people take offence at that. I have not taken offence to anything you have said. Though I do occassionally come close to finding offence in comments which assume I'm not familiar with SSB or otherwise generally insult my intelligence. But don't worry, I'm not angry or anything, you can rest easy.
The original question was simply whether or not Smash Bros. is a hardcore game. And the answer is yes Yes, it is more hardcore than Mortal Kombat. No, it is not as hardcore than Virtua Fighter.
We have no shared definition of hardcore, so this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. So we should both agree that I'm right and that you need to learn more than one game before you can comment on fighting games in general.
I'll take your wager regarding Virtua Fighter, since you are wrong, good sir. Also note that 15 button presses in Tekken don't get you 100 moves. VF and Tekken are so dissimilar in that regard, though, it's not even funny. You haven't even played VF properly and yet you assume it's the same as another game you haven't even played properly.
A hardcore gamer plays a game for what it is, yet hardcore SSB players play without items on Final Destination? Contradict yourself much generally? If hardcore players do that - which they do - then they are simply trying to make the game more like Virtua Fighter or similar 'hardcore' games. Please, please, please don't start commenting on VF when you don't know anything about it. Also note that my point about super jumps and obstacles stands: They would certainly break the VF system, turning it into a new game, in all likelihood one with less control given to the player, as you freely admit regarding random items, and they certainly detract from the 'hardcore' status of a game, given what you and I both know tourney SSB players do, namely turn those items off and prefer Final Destination.
Maybe you can get away with calling GameFAQs users hardcore, although in the majority of cases I would be inclined to disagree. But the existence of 'hardcore' fans doesn't make the game they love hardcore.
VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher.
-I haven't been mocking SSB. -I am having trouble inferring exactly what you consider 'hardcore' to mean. -'Hardcore' as in 'totally obsessed' fans != 'Hardcore' game. -US != World. (Also, all the fighting games we've mentioned are Japanese, unless I'm forgetting some games mentioned. The US shouldn't be a yardstick) -Yet again, popular game != hardcore game. -You and your friends != majority of SSB players. -Hardcore/Casual is a Spectrum, as I've said. -You are a casual SSB player who considers VF 'too hard.' [Learning curve like a cliff, inaccessible] I do not know of anyone who fits the reverse of that description. -Vast majority of SSB[M} fans, vast majority of players who consider it deep, are that young, yes. Exception != rule. -You've already admitted you're not a 'hardcore' player, so what difference does your age make? -I don't think the general public classifies Soul Calibur as hardcore. If they did, then yes, SSB[M] is a hardcore fighter. So is just about every other fighter in existence.
Of course I can shffl. Yet another poster who assumes that because I don't consider SSB[M] as hardcore as VF, I must not know anything about the game.
Tekken and SC, I would agree with you, more so for SC. SC's a laugh, but not a very good game, Tekken's good but very relaxed. But you have obviously put little time into VF if you think it doesn't have its obsessed players, doesn't have players who are as accurate with timing and spacing. I mentioned Tekken in my previous post to complement the notion of a spectrum, and I maintain that Tekken is further toward 'hardcore' than SSB[M] is.
Metagaming is not a measure of hardcore (There are options to turn items off? Really? You mean, there are options to make the game more like a hardcore fighter? I hadn't noticed that in the mere ~8 years I've been playing), nor are your search results for forums. I freely admit VF has a minimal following in the English speaking world, but again, Western popularity is not a measure of hardcore.
Finally, your reliance on forums is laughable. You admit you play SSB[M] as a party game. Well then, you don't actually know how 'hardcore' it is, do you?
I think it's charming that a couple million American teens have found a fighting game they can play, and can feel that there is so much depth to, and can apply the 'hardcore' label to themselves because they can shffl and wavedash. It really doesn't bother me that there are millions of people who prefer SSB[M] over Virtua Fighter; I am happy that people can find what they want to enjoy. But I have yet to discover anything that makes the SSB series 'better' than the VF series in any way. But this is something we can chalk up to difference of opinion. After all, have we even shared a definition of hardcore? Then the discussion is a shouting match, although one with best intentions on my part, I assure you.
Yes, there is a fair amount of 'depth' to the two SSB games. I have been a player since the first one was released on the N64, though, and to say SSB is hardcore, to me, seems insane, when compared to something like the Virtua Fighter series. Imagine adding super jumps, explosions, moving platforms, obstacles, and random items to Virtua Fighter. That would certainly increase the 'depth,' but it would take away from the 'hardcore' nature of the game.
Just as you assume I have only played SSB for a brief amount of time, I am going to assume you haven't spent much time playing the Virtua Fighter series, nor the Street Fighter series, nor the Tekken series, nor the Guilty Gear series. If you had, I might suggest that you would realise SSB is at the 'party/casual' end of the 'spectrum,' if we can think of 'party' and 'hardcore' as two ends of such a spectrum (Which I do).
Also note that your GameFaqs argument is completely inconsistent; popularity is pretty much the opposite of hardcore. Popularity on Gamefaqs even more so.
QFT. I am continually amazed by how many people treat SSBM like it's the ultimate fighting game experience. The line in the summary about SSB being hardcore elicited a chuckle.
>XB360 has too many exclusive titles that are actually good.
Really? I'm a 360 games myself, but unless by 'good' you mean 'mostly middling, somewhat entertaining, I suppose,' I don't know what games you're on about. All of the good 360 games I've played, all of the good 360 games I own, are multiformat.
It is good that you are concerned about casual chat in MMO videogames. It shows you haven't been destroyed by MMOs. I know a few people whose main discussion topics of choice in meatspace revolve around their virtual endeavours, even going so far as to (humourously, but still annoyingly and depressingly) act out moves and mimic character voices.
In short, count yourself lucky.
I have to disagree. My experience of online multiplayer extends no further than WoW, though. When I used to play, it was with a small group of meatspace friends; we would party up and go questing in dungeons (Woo!), all the while talking through Ventrilo. Simultaneously, there were often meatspace conversations between rooms, as three of us shared a house, as well as private (whisper) and public (party/guild/general) text chat, not only between meatspace friends who may or may not have been on Ventrilo, but also 'Internet people.'
In a game which is ultimately about juggling activities, it really isn't hard to juggle multiple voice and text conversations, and different situations suit different communication methods. If anything, it is easier to say something with your voice and simultaneously type something, than it is to say two things with your voice at once, or type two things at once.
When you play a game, you learn an abstract system - one which has no relation to the real world at all, despite whatever aesthetics might be layered on top - and defeat it. That is what videogames are. They don't address real world issues, no matter how much people on either side of the censorship fence seem to think they do.
First off, I'm against censoring, and, as a British citizen, I intend to find an (easy, armchair) way of supporting the appeal, which should, to my mind, be inevitable and successful. But I have to make the point that probably disagrees with a majority on both sides of the issue.
Digitised, interactive violence does not desensitise a player to violence, it doesn't encourage it, and it isn't cathartic. Some people want to believe videogames (movies, music, paintings) turn people into murderers, while some people want to believe that the same forms of entertainment can reduce the likelihood that someone can turn into a murderer. I call bullshit, on both counts.
The only difference between Manhunt (A game where you 'surprise murder' people) and a hypothetical game where you give surprise gifts to people, are the visual and audio effects. Of course, when someone plays a game, they see the graphics and hear the audio (Though I will mention an anecdotal exception in a minute), but the fact is the player isn't even simulating any violent (Or altruistic) acts. Why? Because all a player does is push buttons on a pad/keyboard!
I play a few console FPSes quite extensively. When Resistance came out, for instance, my housemate and I sat through the entire game in one sitting (Nine hours, since you asked, and no, it wasn't worth it. Such an abysmal game). My housemate and I also play a lot of Virtua Fighter 5, and a lot of Stepmania.
You will notice I have ordered those three games in order, from most abstract to least abstract. Interestingly, the game with the most violence, is the most abstract. First, to explain how I am using the term abstract: Resistance is the most abstract because there is the greatest disconnect between player and game, partly because of the fact that you play 'through' an avatar, and partly because the game mechanics (attempt to) conceal themselves fully from the player. That is, where Stepmania tells you exactly what the right button to press or not press at every single moment of the game, VF5 lets you press anything but, through the presence of avatars, shows you where certain button presses will be beneficial and others detrimental, and Resistance attempts to create the faulty illusion that 'you' are running around 'shooting aliens' when, in fact, there is no you, there is no shooting, and there are no aliens. Anyone with any familiarity with any console shooter can immediately settle into the pattern of 'hiding behind cover' and 'shooting aliens' in entirely abstract terms; the game is simply a case of timing/accuracy/co-ordination, and 'variable management' (Making sure your 'health' and 'ammo' don't run out).
Obviously, the same could be said of any videogame, so I will: Every videogame is abstract and therefore disconnected from reality. Resistance players don't learn to fight off alien invasion, Virtua Fighter 5 players do not become martial arts experts (My bedroom door agrees), and Stepmania players do not become amazing dancers (There are a few nightclubs full of people who would agree if they knew my hobbies). Why? Because when you play a game, you learn an abstract system - one which has no relation to the real world at all, despite whatever aesthetics might be layered on top - and defeat it. That is what videogames are. They don't address real world issues, no matter how much people on either side of the censorship fence seem to think they do.
I visited my aunt this week, and heard one of my cousins, being 9 years old, tell her he was going to play GTA (The first 3D one for the PS2). She told him to turn the sound down, and he agreed, 'because of the swearing.' Now, I'm sure there is a portion of the
Slashdot Mirror
for mandatory touch typing lessons beyond the more general case for better computer-related education in general (Which is not saying much more than the even more general 'better education means better educated civilians). But even that wouldn't help most people anyway. Exposure is enough, without formal training being necessary.
If someone really wants to pump up their WPM or master some sort of formal technique, they are welcome to go learn on their own initiative. Touch typing is something anyone with a computer - i.e. almost everyone in the industrialised world - can learn quite easily on their own initiative. If they don't have that initiative in the first place, then training is pointless.
When I did mandatory PE lessons at school, I learnt techniques for things like football ('soccer') tennis volleyball basketball cricket swimming kayaking sprinting long distance running blah blah blah. I considered the entire thing dull, pointless, too much effort. I frankly did not give a shit about PE and used every opportunity to kill the time on my own terms rather than deciding to train myself up to be as much of an athlete as possible within the time allotted. I have had countless hours of PE lessons and I have never even considered being an athlete or sportsman of any description; I have never had any touch typing training of any description and yet I touch type simply out of familiarity and desire for efficiency when using a computer (My keys are rearranged to spell my name, good for confusing people who want to use my system).
Replace PE with TT and the incidence of pupils behaving and feeling as I did would likely increase dramatically. If people want to get good at football, they'll play it on their own time with friends, they don't need lessons to discover and learn that sort of thing. With touch typing the need for school lessons is even more unnecessary. It's a step away from schools teaching something as completely irrelevant as 'proper walking technique' or 'how to make a cup of tea.'
The example you give is an example of how the entire fighting games portion of the videogame industry operates. I mean, I'm not sure how many character balance-related revisions there have been of SFIV but in general all fighting games go through balance revisions.
The most immediate example in my mind is VF5; there are at least 3 arcade versions, and the PS3 and 360 versions are based on different versions thereof.
And yes you make a good point regarding the replay data, but again, this is nothing new. Think of ghost cars in racers, emulated speedruns, any form of macro used in a videogame, etc.
Unfortunately the type of data in TFA will be used less by devs and more by publishers, distributors etc. Basically I smell a massive marketing opportunity, which is equivalent to a massive de-valuation of the player/consumerbase. E.g. much as it is now but worse, 'Oh you don't fit the player types we want to sell to (The most common player types)? Well tough shit!'
Imagine hooking cinema-goers up to biometrics recorders. This is the same thing.
This sort of thing is useful in a games development context, i.e. helping developers understand how to build their game for a target audience. In every other context I can think of, it is at best futile and ignorant, at worst arrogant and immoral.
>>inappropriate use of stock footage or using visual scenes of the wrong event
Exploding car makes EPIC LULZ!!!
"I want the long, deep storylines. I want the high-definition graphics."
You want books and movies.
I think you'll find there are plenty of people like you, who haven't missed the parallels of terminology and apparent frame of mind between the US and many of its enemies.
I don't know that Tekken and SC are considered especially technical. Definitely not SC anyway, even without your amusing anecdote.
It is a weird situation I find myself in after reading your post: I agree that the SSB games are not particularly hardcore - when compared to a few SEGA/SNK/Capcom fighers that everyone should be familiar with, for example - but not with your notion of hardcore (And this is a point which is up for debate, since as far as I am aware, videogames haven't been particularly well theorised in this respect). I do not think that being able to pick up and play a game precludes it from being hardcore, I do not think plot has anything to do with whether a game is hardcore. I also do not understand why something which requires skill does not require dedication; surely the more skill required, the more dedication required?
That is the sort of general standpoint I take when talking about hardcore; hardcore games, for me, are the ones which allow everything except the core elements of abstracted screen output and perfect player input to fall away (Not saying I am perfect, of course). In other words, hardcore games for me are the ones which place the greatest demands on the human mind in many ways, including pattern recognition and physical co-ordination, to the extent that other issues are irrelevant, e.g. the player is concerned about hitboxes, not avatars, button presses, not animations. Plot, learning curve/accessibility, etc, really have nothing to do with it, and skill is everything, if skill is defined as the mind's processing efficiency.
For fighting games, the good ones are a special kind of hardcore, because of the adversarial nature. I mention this simply because you claim you do not see the appeal of fighters, though if you ask around, any fighting fan will tell you the same thing (And if I may squeeze in a little jab at the 'hardcore SSB fans,' this is the kind of thing they have said to me, but suggesting Nintendo invented it/SSB is the only game which achieves this): The game becomes much more than the mental/dexterity test it is against a machine; against a human, you find yourself in a sort of Vulcan mind meld state (A metaphor not intended to carry drama more than it attempts to carry the point), possibly not too dissimilar from high level chess matches where anticipation of the opponent is key, countering their movements before they've been made and so on. Obviously chess and fighters are two different schools of games, but at the abstract level they do share the similarity of 'know your opponent' and implement this idea in two different, utterly compelling fashions.
I don't know if that helps you see the appeal, and I don't know if anyone finds the problem of defining 'hardcore' interesting, but for me, it is a very compelling issue. I hope I haven't been too boring.
Haha, just realised the 40% error in my estimate of VF's age. I thought a two year gap didn't make much sense.
I think the people who tend to see SSB as a hardcore game - in terms of 'advanced play,' I mean, not in terms of collectibles - seem to consistently be the people who haven't played more technical fighters. An excellent example is the Virtua Fighter series.
/. recently, hopefully this can be a fresh start should anyone decide to continue this discussion. Either way, I think people should keep playing what they enjoy playing, and not worry about labels like 'hardcore,' which aren't exactly well-defined in the first place.
For some, SSB is the most hardcore fighter they have played. For others, it is far from hardcore, relatively speaking.
All that said, I am a long time player of both series mentioned in this post, having been playing them both since they each got a first release (VF is about 10 years old and SSB is about 8, iirc), and I can see a place for each of them, and can enjoy each of them. Perhaps it is simply a difference of opinion, but anecdotally, I have never found anyone familiar with both series who feels that SSB is 'hardcore' over VF, and logically, I don't see how one could argue that position. It seems pretty self-evident from the demands each series places on the player, that someone who has learnt VF can more easily get to grips with SSB than vice versa. Again, that is possibly only opinion, but I have yet to find anyone with experience of both who would disagree.
I did have an unenjoyable discussion regarding SSB and 'hardcore' on
Lol yeah, because you can't jump in VF and I wasn't referring to random items, explosions, changing environments.
I am not even shunning SSB, I am a long time player, I have been playing since release, eight years ago iirc. The point is, in comparison to actual hardcore fighting games, SSB is a party game. It's a spectrum, SSB over on the party/casual side, VF over on the hardcore side. STFU n00b and other leet-speak insults go here.
lrn2play something other than SSB, you scrub. I am bored of your 'moving target' style of discussion. Cede the point or shut up. This is my last message.
-My comment concerning items and levels was about effect, regardless of intent.
-Name something in Virtua Fighter that takes control away from the player.
-How can an assumption be valid when it is inaccurate?
-I am very familiar with the SSB[M] scene. I am very familiar with the fighting scene in general. You are not, and have as admitted as much. You can love SSB[M] all you want, it doesn't bother me, but it makes no sense to compare it to games you admit you know nothing about.
-No, you really don't have a clue, unless everything you've said regarding fighters besides SSB[M] has been lies on your part.
-You've already admitted to being unfamiliar with VF. Try being consistent and see if you get anywhere.
-If I loosened up, my position would be as incoherent and foolish as yours.
Well, I think that about covers it. If you want to continue insisting that SSB[M] is more hardcore than Virtua Fighter, that's your business. I would suggest, though, that your definition of hardcore is lacking, or just your experience of fighting games outside the SSB series. Either way, you don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't say anything about Virtua Fighter, I made it clear that I hadn't played it a lot.
cf.
I haven't played that much Virtua Fighter, but I'd wager to say that it's quite similar [to Tekken's] "Press a certain sequence of 15 Buttons or Combinations to perform the Ultra-special combo with 100 moves" type of combat system, which nobody uses anyway.
The fact remains that you can press a long combination of buttons and watch a sequence of how the character does some ultra-cool moves and beats the shit out of the other player.
Casual gamers think ten button presses is a long sequence. Casual gamers think ten hit combos are unbeatable. Casual gamers think that timing and co-ordination have nothing to do with implementing such combos. Casual gamers think any fighting system they haven't learnt is somehow inferior to SSB's.
Switching off items isn't trying to make it like Virtua Fighter.
Yes it is.
Even with all items turned off and only one stage there is enough in Smash to entice players with the combat system.
Only players who prefer more casual fighters/haven't gotten into more hardcore fighters.
Enough to compete with Virtua Fighter.
Says the man who repeatedly states he hasn't played much Virtua Fighter.
let's no go any further into discussing what game elements give more control to players
I know why you feel that way: Because SSB[M] has many elements that take control away from the player, whereas hardcore games (VF, SF) have none.
I also never said that Virtua Fighter was a button masher
You 'wagered to say' that it was.
I don't know why you take such offence at it... I don't know why people take offence at that.
I have not taken offence to anything you have said. Though I do occassionally come close to finding offence in comments which assume I'm not familiar with SSB or otherwise generally insult my intelligence. But don't worry, I'm not angry or anything, you can rest easy.
The original question was simply whether or not Smash Bros. is a hardcore game. And the answer is yes
Yes, it is more hardcore than Mortal Kombat. No, it is not as hardcore than Virtua Fighter.
We have no shared definition of hardcore, so this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. So we should both agree that I'm right and that you need to learn more than one game before you can comment on fighting games in general.
I'll take your wager regarding Virtua Fighter, since you are wrong, good sir. Also note that 15 button presses in Tekken don't get you 100 moves. VF and Tekken are so dissimilar in that regard, though, it's not even funny. You haven't even played VF properly and yet you assume it's the same as another game you haven't even played properly.
A hardcore gamer plays a game for what it is, yet hardcore SSB players play without items on Final Destination? Contradict yourself much generally? If hardcore players do that - which they do - then they are simply trying to make the game more like Virtua Fighter or similar 'hardcore' games. Please, please, please don't start commenting on VF when you don't know anything about it. Also note that my point about super jumps and obstacles stands: They would certainly break the VF system, turning it into a new game, in all likelihood one with less control given to the player, as you freely admit regarding random items, and they certainly detract from the 'hardcore' status of a game, given what you and I both know tourney SSB players do, namely turn those items off and prefer Final Destination.
Maybe you can get away with calling GameFAQs users hardcore, although in the majority of cases I would be inclined to disagree. But the existence of 'hardcore' fans doesn't make the game they love hardcore.
VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher. VF is not a button masher.
-I haven't been mocking SSB.
-I am having trouble inferring exactly what you consider 'hardcore' to mean.
-'Hardcore' as in 'totally obsessed' fans != 'Hardcore' game.
-US != World. (Also, all the fighting games we've mentioned are Japanese, unless I'm forgetting some games mentioned. The US shouldn't be a yardstick)
-Yet again, popular game != hardcore game.
-You and your friends != majority of SSB players.
-Hardcore/Casual is a Spectrum, as I've said.
-You are a casual SSB player who considers VF 'too hard.' [Learning curve like a cliff, inaccessible] I do not know of anyone who fits the reverse of that description.
-Vast majority of SSB[M} fans, vast majority of players who consider it deep, are that young, yes. Exception != rule.
-You've already admitted you're not a 'hardcore' player, so what difference does your age make?
-I don't think the general public classifies Soul Calibur as hardcore. If they did, then yes, SSB[M] is a hardcore fighter. So is just about every other fighter in existence.
Of course I can shffl. Yet another poster who assumes that because I don't consider SSB[M] as hardcore as VF, I must not know anything about the game.
Tekken and SC, I would agree with you, more so for SC. SC's a laugh, but not a very good game, Tekken's good but very relaxed. But you have obviously put little time into VF if you think it doesn't have its obsessed players, doesn't have players who are as accurate with timing and spacing. I mentioned Tekken in my previous post to complement the notion of a spectrum, and I maintain that Tekken is further toward 'hardcore' than SSB[M] is.
Metagaming is not a measure of hardcore (There are options to turn items off? Really? You mean, there are options to make the game more like a hardcore fighter? I hadn't noticed that in the mere ~8 years I've been playing), nor are your search results for forums. I freely admit VF has a minimal following in the English speaking world, but again, Western popularity is not a measure of hardcore.
Finally, your reliance on forums is laughable. You admit you play SSB[M] as a party game. Well then, you don't actually know how 'hardcore' it is, do you?
I think it's charming that a couple million American teens have found a fighting game they can play, and can feel that there is so much depth to, and can apply the 'hardcore' label to themselves because they can shffl and wavedash. It really doesn't bother me that there are millions of people who prefer SSB[M] over Virtua Fighter; I am happy that people can find what they want to enjoy. But I have yet to discover anything that makes the SSB series 'better' than the VF series in any way. But this is something we can chalk up to difference of opinion. After all, have we even shared a definition of hardcore? Then the discussion is a shouting match, although one with best intentions on my part, I assure you.
Hi LordVader,
Yes, there is a fair amount of 'depth' to the two SSB games. I have been a player since the first one was released on the N64, though, and to say SSB is hardcore, to me, seems insane, when compared to something like the Virtua Fighter series. Imagine adding super jumps, explosions, moving platforms, obstacles, and random items to Virtua Fighter. That would certainly increase the 'depth,' but it would take away from the 'hardcore' nature of the game.
Just as you assume I have only played SSB for a brief amount of time, I am going to assume you haven't spent much time playing the Virtua Fighter series, nor the Street Fighter series, nor the Tekken series, nor the Guilty Gear series. If you had, I might suggest that you would realise SSB is at the 'party/casual' end of the 'spectrum,' if we can think of 'party' and 'hardcore' as two ends of such a spectrum (Which I do).
Also note that your GameFaqs argument is completely inconsistent; popularity is pretty much the opposite of hardcore. Popularity on Gamefaqs even more so.
QFT. I am continually amazed by how many people treat SSBM like it's the ultimate fighting game experience. The line in the summary about SSB being hardcore elicited a chuckle.
Party game != 'Hardcore' game
>XB360 has too many exclusive titles that are actually good. Really? I'm a 360 games myself, but unless by 'good' you mean 'mostly middling, somewhat entertaining, I suppose,' I don't know what games you're on about. All of the good 360 games I've played, all of the good 360 games I own, are multiformat.
It is good that you are concerned about casual chat in MMO videogames. It shows you haven't been destroyed by MMOs. I know a few people whose main discussion topics of choice in meatspace revolve around their virtual endeavours, even going so far as to (humourously, but still annoyingly and depressingly) act out moves and mimic character voices. In short, count yourself lucky.
I have to disagree. My experience of online multiplayer extends no further than WoW, though. When I used to play, it was with a small group of meatspace friends; we would party up and go questing in dungeons (Woo!), all the while talking through Ventrilo. Simultaneously, there were often meatspace conversations between rooms, as three of us shared a house, as well as private (whisper) and public (party/guild/general) text chat, not only between meatspace friends who may or may not have been on Ventrilo, but also 'Internet people.' In a game which is ultimately about juggling activities, it really isn't hard to juggle multiple voice and text conversations, and different situations suit different communication methods. If anything, it is easier to say something with your voice and simultaneously type something, than it is to say two things with your voice at once, or type two things at once.
When you play a game, you learn an abstract system - one which has no relation to the real world at all, despite whatever aesthetics might be layered on top - and defeat it. That is what videogames are. They don't address real world issues, no matter how much people on either side of the censorship fence seem to think they do.
First off, I'm against censoring, and, as a British citizen, I intend to find an (easy, armchair) way of supporting the appeal, which should, to my mind, be inevitable and successful. But I have to make the point that probably disagrees with a majority on both sides of the issue.
Digitised, interactive violence does not desensitise a player to violence, it doesn't encourage it, and it isn't cathartic. Some people want to believe videogames (movies, music, paintings) turn people into murderers, while some people want to believe that the same forms of entertainment can reduce the likelihood that someone can turn into a murderer. I call bullshit, on both counts.
The only difference between Manhunt (A game where you 'surprise murder' people) and a hypothetical game where you give surprise gifts to people, are the visual and audio effects. Of course, when someone plays a game, they see the graphics and hear the audio (Though I will mention an anecdotal exception in a minute), but the fact is the player isn't even simulating any violent (Or altruistic) acts. Why? Because all a player does is push buttons on a pad/keyboard!
I play a few console FPSes quite extensively. When Resistance came out, for instance, my housemate and I sat through the entire game in one sitting (Nine hours, since you asked, and no, it wasn't worth it. Such an abysmal game). My housemate and I also play a lot of Virtua Fighter 5, and a lot of Stepmania.
You will notice I have ordered those three games in order, from most abstract to least abstract. Interestingly, the game with the most violence, is the most abstract. First, to explain how I am using the term abstract: Resistance is the most abstract because there is the greatest disconnect between player and game, partly because of the fact that you play 'through' an avatar, and partly because the game mechanics (attempt to) conceal themselves fully from the player. That is, where Stepmania tells you exactly what the right button to press or not press at every single moment of the game, VF5 lets you press anything but, through the presence of avatars, shows you where certain button presses will be beneficial and others detrimental, and Resistance attempts to create the faulty illusion that 'you' are running around 'shooting aliens' when, in fact, there is no you, there is no shooting, and there are no aliens. Anyone with any familiarity with any console shooter can immediately settle into the pattern of 'hiding behind cover' and 'shooting aliens' in entirely abstract terms; the game is simply a case of timing/accuracy/co-ordination, and 'variable management' (Making sure your 'health' and 'ammo' don't run out).
Obviously, the same could be said of any videogame, so I will: Every videogame is abstract and therefore disconnected from reality. Resistance players don't learn to fight off alien invasion, Virtua Fighter 5 players do not become martial arts experts (My bedroom door agrees), and Stepmania players do not become amazing dancers (There are a few nightclubs full of people who would agree if they knew my hobbies). Why? Because when you play a game, you learn an abstract system - one which has no relation to the real world at all, despite whatever aesthetics might be layered on top - and defeat it. That is what videogames are. They don't address real world issues, no matter how much people on either side of the censorship fence seem to think they do.
I visited my aunt this week, and heard one of my cousins, being 9 years old, tell her he was going to play GTA (The first 3D one for the PS2). She told him to turn the sound down, and he agreed, 'because of the swearing.' Now, I'm sure there is a portion of the
Oh, will those funny little gnomes ever figure out phase two?
No offense, but... 'Informative'? Gotta love the /. crowd. Still, well spotted.
That's why so many people are glued to their HDTVs watching BluRay movies on their PS3s.
Burning Rangers was a firefighting game. A scifi firefighting game. Ticks all the boxes, that one.