[FFreak3]

why would you consider the game "kiddie" as compared to "real" fighters?
I don't get it.

[reiner]

Age old fight between fighting games. Some folk like stylized imagery and some people like realism. Unrealistic fighters like Smash Bros have always been given the "kiddy" label. It's kind of a dumb argument. Also has to do with themes too. It's like if they started making an NFL game with cel shading and power ups. It would also be labeled kiddy. It's an insult to provoke, nothing more.

[Corronchilejano]

I think traditional fits better than realistic. I see nothing realistic in a guy jumping from standing position up to 20 feet in the air, or someone throwing a fireball with his hands, or better yet a guy that receives a direct stab in the chest with a 5 foot long katana and survives. Point to give: Its a lot more cartoony, a lot less bloddy.
The Kiddy card is the reason Pocket Fighter doesn't get 20x sequels, even if it's the SAME THING but funnier (for a while at least). I'd like to see a Pocker Fighter Vs King of Pockets or something, just for kicks. People look too much at what appearence it has, less on what the hell it's doing.

This post has been edited by Corronchilejano: 24 April 2008 - 05:16 PM

[FFreak3]

Have I ever told you guys the mime joke?
Goes like this:
There was this mime, who got kicked out of mime school for being too avant garde.
So he goes back to school on graduation day, and while everyone is politely not staring at him, he goes up on stage and sets fire to himself, keeping silent even as he burns to death. Meanwhile, everyone around him completely looses all their professionalism and scream and generally aren't being mimey.
Get it?
. . .
Oh . . . I guess you had to be there.


(the jokes been floating around since early '85 . . . it actually has a trackable history because of it's uniqueness)

Now you see, you don't tell the joke for laughs. You tell the joke to see other peoples faces as they get it. Saying something so weird, pointless, and out there, disguised as humour, just to watch peoples faces.

I think that may be along the lines of Yahtzees reasoning for making this review.

This post has been edited by FFreak3: 24 April 2008 - 07:39 PM

[Battlefrank]

God damnit, Yahtzee LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

Thanks for deleting my troll post asshole.

This post has been edited by Battlefrank: 24 April 2008 - 10:50 PM

[Sliver]

To FF3.

I could debate smash brothers with you. For instance the fact that the majority of the characters B movies are one useful in a 3 or 4 player game while a 1 on 1 fight is determined by who knows how to use their smash moves. How Fox's down B reflects the majority of players projectiles, but Links bombs still get through. How you can make jugglypuff's down B hit every time if you use a drill kick first and the use it as your hitting the ground. How Ness down smash may hit people to his left and right but his regular left/right smash is still useful because it can hit projectiles.

But arguing over strategy and subtle nuance would mean the game had depth, that you needed your brain as much as your reflexes to play it, and in doing so defeating your argument that's it's simply a button masher.

This post has been edited by Sliver: 24 April 2008 - 11:11 PM

[FFreak3]

Not necessarily, silver, though a good argument.

The real question at hand that i raised, was, Is it possible to keep you incapacitated with punch combos without resorting to any slow, power moves? If so, then although there is nuances to the game, they are valid only so long as all players on the field are not button mashers.
If you do examine the nuances and timing of different punches and kicks as compared to the nuances and timing of character reaction, (how long before you can move again after being punched? what moves can you make?), the it becomes clear that i can punch again before you can recover. If I keep on punching, is this the case? No, eventually I have to move forward. Then the question is, can i create a combo that allows me to do this continuously?

In Brawl, I find that many such combos can be created, so long as you don't give in to the temptation of power moves, because they take too long.
.: a button masher need only mash one button, while pointing in the direction of his enemy.

(Questions raised here: What do you consider a button masher? (I probably have a different definition from you). Is it possible to escape from such a combo, (with most or all characters, not just one or two exceptions)? How do such combos face against each other? Do they require a degree of skill to wrest control so they can be started? (you could also argue that such a combo doesn't exist, but that would require evidence or logical exposition proving that such combos cannot exist))

(just in case you misread, the nuances I mentioned were in the first two games, and i haven't had to find any nuances yet in Brawl, thus why I don't like it as much as it's predecessors)

[Uszi]

Not necessarily, silver, though a good argument.

The real question at hand that i raised, was, Is it possible to keep you incapacitated with punch combos without resorting to any slow, power moves? If so, then although there is nuances to the game, they are valid only so long as all players on the field are not button mashers.
If you do examine the nuances and timing of different punches and kicks as compared to the nuances and timing of character reaction, (how long before you can move again after being punched? what moves can you make?), the it becomes clear that i can punch again before you can recover. If I keep on punching, is this the case? No, eventually I have to move forward. Then the question is, can i create a combo that allows me to do this continuously?

In Brawl, I find that many such combos can be created, so long as you don't give in to the temptation of power moves, because they take too long.
.: a button masher need only mash one button, while pointing in the direction of his enemy.

(Questions raised here: What do you consider a button masher? (I probably have a different definition from you). Is it possible to escape from such a combo, (with most or all characters, not just one or two exceptions)? How do such combos face against each other? Do they require a degree of skill to wrest control so they can be started? (you could also argue that such a combo doesn't exist, but that would require evidence or logical exposition proving that such combos cannot exist))

(just in case you misread, the nuances I mentioned were in the first two games, and i haven't had to find any nuances yet in Brawl, thus why I don't like it as much as it's predecessors)

I thought a generally accepted definition of button mashing would be executing moves in a fighting game by pressing the buttons with no knowledge of what they would do, nor any strategy besides pressing as many buttons as fast as possible.

I would consider consistently using the same move a step up from button mashing.

[Man Of Doom]

I thought a generally accepted definition of button mashing would be executing moves in a fighting game by pressing the buttons with no knowledge of what they would do, nor any strategy besides pressing as many buttons as fast as possible.

I would consider consistently using the same move a step up from button mashing.

It is really, it indicate that the user at least has some idea that they know what they're doing, and that the move is a good one. SSB examples are Pikachu's Lightning Bolt, and Donkey Kong's Down+B attack, where he pounds the floor indefinitely.

It's generally called spamming to do the same move constantly, and does at least show more skill than button mashing.

[reiner]

It is really, it indicate that the user at least has some idea that they know what they're doing, and that the move is a good one. SSB examples are Pikachu's Lightning Bolt, and Donkey Kong's Down+B attack, where he pounds the floor indefinitely.

It's generally called spamming to do the same move constantly, and does at least show more skill than button mashing.

We used to call this "turkey action". Finding one useful move and spamming it over and over.

Plus I like saying turkey action without someone thinking I'm a zoophile.

[Uszi]

We used to call this "turkey action". Finding one useful move and spamming it over and over.

Plus I like saying turkey action without someone thinking I'm a zoophile.

Turkey action makes me hungry.
Mmm. Gravy.

[Game Over]

[sarcasm and stupidity]Its so much fun watching our beloved childhood characters to fight each other in some tournament. I mean, do they even know they're there?

Optimus prime was right.[/sarcasm and stupidity]

This post has been edited by Game Over: 25 April 2008 - 02:51 PM

[Sliver]

english lesson

button mashing = hitting random buttons without knowing what they do.

hitting buttons fast /= button mashing

Learning what move to use, and what context to use it in to start and maintain a combo takes a degree of strategy and forethought. the simple act of selecting a fighter (as an experienced player) involves sorting out a million little variables in your head before you make a decision. What do their special moves do? What smash moves do they use? How fast are they? Are they light or heavy characters? And all of them are important since they can literally determine the course of a battle.


But I think the best argument is the simple fact that as I said before. I played the game for years learning every subtle nuance and I never lose to someone randomly smashing buttons. In fact I never lose, period. I have friends who played for years, and I've never seen them lose to someone randomly smashing buttons either. In fact, it may shock you to learn that I've never seen or even heard of someone losing to random button mashing or move spamming. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN!

[Corronchilejano]

I just don't understand how can there be a "that guy" on a button masher.

[Slade]

Button masher. Fighter. Finesse. Turkey action.

The best characters are Yoshimitsu and the Duck Hunt Dog, hands down.