Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2019, 01:59:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Shop: Amazon
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  Gaming  |  Topic: The Ultimate Battle - Best Game By Year 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Ultimate Battle - Best Game By Year  (Read 11526 times)
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58084


WWW
Reply #175 on: December 19, 2018, 11:59:54 PM

It has a hugely active community, but I'd argue one of the smallest skilled playerbases as a percentage of overall players. Being actually good at Smash takes way too much effort since it was originally just Mario Party But Fighting Instead of Partying also Fan Service.
ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2033


WWW
Reply #176 on: December 20, 2018, 07:04:37 PM

Which is why it's such a shame that the ideas from Smash couldn't have been implemented by a company that actually gave a shit about its competitive community. Graduate the technical requirements a bit, have a control scheme that isn't completely pants-on-head, maybe add some goofy game modes for casuals; there is zero reason not to do these things but we'd all rather continue to hump the remains of Street Fighter 2 with another identical remake.

Also, "too much effort" to be "actually good"? Are you saying the skill ceiling is too high, or... what?
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #177 on: December 20, 2018, 09:03:59 PM

I wrote an angry post, but after calming down I decided to delete it and reconsider.

Still, you have to explain this: "In a sane world, Smash Melee would have singlehandedly forced the entire incestuous genre of shitty fighting games to reinvent itself."

What shitty fighting games? Smash is not a big deal in the Fighting Game Community, so what are you talking about? It has its appeal to some people but it doesn't have much to bring to the genre. Seriously, I really don't get what you are talking about. It's like you see Smash like some sort of revolutionary game in a genre that needs innovation. What? Fighting games are doing fine, doing great. Probably better than ever. Who needs Smash other than the Nintendo people?

ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2033


WWW
Reply #178 on: December 21, 2018, 12:45:47 AM

Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinkt, Tekken, Dead or Alive, King of Fighters, Marvel vs Capcom are all basically reskins of the same game. You could transplant a character from any one of them into any other and very little would seem out of place. And they're not one-offs; they keep getting new versions and sequels every year or two. I don't mind incremental improvements, but what really differentiates them from the Street Fighter 2 we had in 1991? When you play that game, what do you miss aside from balance and more characters?

Super meters were a great innovation, and tag teams are pretty cool I guess in games that have them. But for the most part they're all just repeating the design decisions we've gotten used to. As an obvious example, the use of quarter/half-circle inputs that have become ubiquitous for specials is completely arbitrary, and it's frankly bizarre that it's still commonplace for games to make it intentionally difficult to physically enter move inputs on the controller, so much so that it's a significant barrier of entry for casual players. In a sane world that design decision would at absolute best be considered niche and exist in one or two series that cater to people who value hardcore technical skill, and in the rest we'd be able to do our moves by just pressing a button or two.

Last time I tried to talk about this with some fighting game people (I started the conversation out less confrontationally that time, I promise) they told me that having some input lag at the beginning of your specials was important for balance reasons because it let you time the moves so they come out quickly after a knockdown, without being able to pull them off instantly from a neutral position. When I pointed out you could achieve the same thing just by letting the first few frames of the special animation clip the get-up animation, they acted like that was contrived and confusing, as if animation canceling isn't an entirely normal thing that every game has already. The lengths people go to to reify arbitrary mechanics just because we've all gotten used to them carried out over and over again throughout the last fifteen years are stunning.

Look, I like fighting games. I have a lot of fond memories of Soul Calibur and Guilty Gear, which I gave a pass in my list above because I think they do some interesting things even if they're not *that* different. Guilty Gear made my top 20 when we were doing those lists. And yeah, fighting games are fine, they're fun, they do the job. If you really love Street Fighter and that's all you want to play forever then it's ideal, even. But I don't know how you can look at the competitive fighters that are out there and not get the sense that most of them are pretty much the same game you've seen a hundred times; that you'd already seen a hundred times ten years ago.

And then there's Smash Bros. It's not a perfect game, and in a vacuum if you wanted to put <your favorite game> over it I wouldn't argue. But Smash 64 was a fighting game that did *everything* different from what we were used to. The floaty platform physics, the aerial play, the real stages instead of different skins on an empty rectangle, the scaling knockback and escalating tension as damage racked up, the ring-out victory condition, the simple control scheme, even the colorful aesthetics and goofy casual game modes set it apart from pretty much everything else in the field. Smash 64 didn't necessarily invent all those concepts but it made them work together splendidly, and Melee refined it to a level suitable for serious competitive play despite competitive having afaik basically no support at all from HAL/Nintendo. If you think Smash didn't innovate or bring anything new to the genre compared to all the games I listed above then we must just be disagreeing on what words mean because it's not really even opinion at this point.

So naturally, the rest of the fighting game community spent most of the next decade shitting on Smash players and every other major game dev in the field has been churning out SF2 clones ever since.

And again: there's nothing wrong with Street Fighter 2 clones. Many of them are great games. But it's like the supermarket has 20 different brands of chocolate ice cream and one brand of strawberry, and no major creameries have even bothered trying to come up with a third flavor because the public is all convinced that chocolate is fine.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7758


Reply #179 on: December 21, 2018, 02:32:48 AM

I haven't been a true fighting game fan for many years now, but your entire premise is off when you say:

Quote
Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinkt, Tekken, Dead or Alive, King of Fighters, Marvel vs Capcom are all basically reskins of the same game.

Some of these might clone each other, but no way are they all reskins of the same thing.  Furthermore, the arbitrary mechanics?  For Street Fighter to a huge degree, and MK to a bit lesser degree, your timing and skill in pulling off the move is just as important as which move you selected.  Being able to do all of these things was what separated novices, good players and great players.  And you could see the differences by watching.  Not remotely arbitrary.

Smash Brothers, on the other hand.  Last time my boys played it (as teen and pre-teen) - and they were pretty decent at it - they would occasionally let their 4 year-old brother in for a laugh.  It usually took me a while to figure out which character he was controlling, because button mashing was almost as effective as skilled play.  He rarely won, but he sometimes did or got close.  I called it Button Smash Bros.  You are not wrong that it changed the formula a lot, but it feels wrong to me to even inlude it in the same discussion.  It is the ADHD of fighting games.


"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2033


WWW
Reply #180 on: December 21, 2018, 03:03:19 AM

I hate to break it to you, but your kids aren't very good at Smash Brothers, and "button mashing was almost as effective as skilled play" is a facile dismissal that just tells me you don't know what skilled play looks like. All of the spacing, reflexes, and timing elements of other fighting games are just as present in Melee; technical skill is deemphasized somewhat since most of the moves aren't hard to pull off but you have to be more improvisational with your combos thanks to the way knockback and damage work, and the aerial game means there's a lot more positioning to consider especially if you're not playing on Final Destination.

Also, are we both talking about Melee? 64 was good but not especially refined and Brawl made some fuckstupid decisions that may or may not render it not worth talking about. Unfortunately I can't speak much to the newer ones, but the only real issue Melee had was that its balance wasn't great.

Of the seven series in the bit you quoted, would you choose two of them and describe what features are not in common between them?
ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2033


WWW
Reply #181 on: December 21, 2018, 03:42:36 AM

Or, put it this way: here are the first results on Youtube for:
"Tekken final": https://youtu.be/uiMWBKipnzc?t=162
"Mortal Kombat final": https://youtu.be/DW2iN-UbDkw?t=2
"Smash final":  https://youtu.be/fZ3c3JCNzIQ?t=30

If someone watching these videos were describing the mechanics of the games to you, without using proper names or visual style, how long do you think it would take you to figure out which each one was? If not for the super meter in MK or the sidestepping in Tekken, would you ever be able to distinguish the two?
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7758


Reply #182 on: December 21, 2018, 04:18:01 AM

That's like saying "have someone describe driving a car versus driving a bus....."

Yes, there are mechanical similarities, and they are built off the same principles.  But in the real world, they look and feel completely different.  Being good at one in no way makes you good at the other.  We can say the same about all of these fighting games.  I was amazing at street fighter (at the time of SF2).  I was "pretty good" at MK.  I stink at and hate all the Smash games.  I was okay at Tekken.  Etcetera.  Same genre, notably different execution.  Going from Street Fighter to MK is like walking on pavement versus walking in the mud.  Which is not a critique of MK, because sometimes I want to walk in the mud.




"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #183 on: December 21, 2018, 04:25:25 AM

Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinkt, Tekken, Dead or Alive, King of Fighters, Marvel vs Capcom are all basically reskins of the same game.

I disagree with what you said.

Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #184 on: December 21, 2018, 04:34:27 AM

Let's put it differently: you care about reinventing fighting games. People who like fighting games do not.

Some people have been trying to come up with new sports for ages, yet Basketball, Football, American Football, Hockey and the likes are still what they were with no need for innovation.

Street Fighter "clones" are fine and what Fighting Game fans want to play. Smash gimmicks could be fun for some people, but they are not meant to innovate shit and not meant to improve any fucking formula. The core of Fighting games is a different thing and don't need no big innovation. Also, you linked three finals videos and the Smash one is the one that makes me want to instantly turn the computer off. A lot of the appeal is to see big characters beating each other out, not seeing rolling pokemons on platforms vibrate each other down a cliff.

Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7758


Reply #185 on: December 21, 2018, 04:51:00 AM

A better argument might be that these games haven't really evolved a whole lot over the years (except possibly Smash?  No idea), which I think ezrast is kinda also saying.  I can go along with that.  Recent proof being that I bought MK X a couple years ago, popped it in and proceeded to obliterate my kids, despite none of us having ever played it.  I, of course, played it up as if I was just an amazing natural talent, but the truth is that the game has not changed overly much since its inception, and the same basic skills are required.

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2033


WWW
Reply #186 on: December 21, 2018, 06:10:44 AM

Let's put it differently: you care about reinventing fighting games. People who like fighting games do not.

Some people have been trying to come up with new sports for ages, yet Basketball, Football, American Football, Hockey and the likes are still what they were with no need for innovation.

Street Fighter "clones" are fine and what Fighting Game fans want to play. Smash gimmicks could be fun for some people, but they are not meant to innovate shit and not meant to improve any fucking formula. The core of Fighting games is a different thing and don't need no big innovation. Also, you linked three finals videos and the Smash one is the one that makes me want to instantly turn the computer off. A lot of the appeal is to see big characters beating each other out, not seeing rolling pokemons on platforms vibrate each other down a cliff.
Great, you can like those games all you want. I was pretty clear about that in my wall of text above. But I find your stance shockingly conservative and I don't think there's anything substantive I can respond to in your last paragraph at all. (edited to tone down the invective a bit; sorry)

Here, since I clearly wasn't obvious enough the first time that "reskin" was hyperbole and that I have, in fact, played fighting games before, let me rephrase: each of the seven games I listed (each of which has had multiple revisions and sequels; we're talking about literally dozens of titles here) is built on the following assumptions:
- A game consists of discrete rounds; the winner is the first to reach two or three wins
- Each round begins with exactly two opposing fighters in an arena (sometimes players have backups that can assist or tag in)
- Some arenas may have cliffs or walls around the edges, but the interiors are featureless
- Each fighter has a health bar that resets each round; a round is won when one fighter hits the other enough to make their health hit zero
- Each fighter has a variety of light/medium/strong basic moves with certain sequences designed to cancel into each other
- Each fighter has a set of special attacks, generally performed by pressing three or more specific inputs in sequence
- Movement is mostly one-dimensional - jumping is usually allowed but sticking to the ground affords better control, and the z-axis is de-emphasized or absent entirely

Obviously there's a ton of space within these rules to be twitchy or deliberate, or emphasize mechanics or spacing or reflexes or mindgames, or differentiate yourself in lots of other ways. These aren't super nuanced rules, but they are restrictive along a certain set of dimensions, and they're pretty fundamental to what we think of as fighting games. Sometimes a game bends or breaks one of the rules (health doesn't reset in KI; air dashers put a lot of stress on the last point). Those changes are seen as pretty out-there next to the old standards we all know and love.

Smash breaks every single one, and still manages to have a solid competitive scene.

Some of us respond to this by recognizing that even if you like the classics, even if you don't like Smash in particular, the fact that Smash exists indicates that there's a ton of unexplored room to play with the assumptions underpinning the genre, and maybe come up with something interesting.

Some of us decide that because it's different from the things we like, Smash isn't a real fighting game worth engaging objectively or in good faith - it's a cartoon gimmick game for babies.

I don't think the second group is a respectable place to be for anyone interested in critical discussion about video games.

A better argument might be that these games haven't really evolved a whole lot over the years (except possibly Smash?  No idea), which I think ezrast is kinda also saying.  I can go along with that.  Recent proof being that I bought MK X a couple years ago, popped it in and proceeded to obliterate my kids, despite none of us having ever played it.  I, of course, played it up as if I was just an amazing natural talent, but the truth is that the game has not changed overly much since its inception, and the same basic skills are required.
Thanks for that; it's a point I may have understated: most of these games go through many, many revisions with only minor changes. I do like that they get updated, though, and I respect that development frequently needs to be conservative for the sake of the competitive scene, so it's not all downside.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 07:08:42 AM by ezrast »
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7758


Reply #187 on: December 21, 2018, 06:45:29 AM

As long as they keep the fun in them somehow.  Which cannot be said, IMO, with games like Madden and FIFA, to name a few.  Some of the basic core is the same, but I feel they get less fun with every iteration for the sake of "realism".  Or more cynically, just so they can have a reasons to charge people 60 bucks for the same fucking product every year.

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58084


WWW
Reply #188 on: December 21, 2018, 07:01:37 AM

Quote
Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinkt, Tekken, Dead or Alive, King of Fighters, Marvel vs Capcom are all basically reskins of the same game.

None of these are remotely the same game. If you're gonna lead a post that long off with total horseshit, don't be surprised if people don't get past that.
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #189 on: December 21, 2018, 07:27:53 AM

You are hung up on the need for innovation. Here's your list:

Quote
- A game consists of discrete rounds; the winner is the first to reach two or three wins
- Each round begins with exactly two opposing fighters in an arena (sometimes players have backups that can assist or tag in)
- Some arenas may have cliffs or walls around the edges, but the interiors are featureless
- Each fighter has a health bar that resets each round; a round is won when one fighter hits the other enough to make their health hit zero
- Each fighter has a variety of light/medium/strong basic moves with certain sequences designed to cancel into each other
- Each fighter has a set of special attacks, generally performed by pressing three or more specific inputs in sequence
- Movement is mostly one-dimensional - jumping is usually allowed but sticking to the ground affords better control, and the z-axis is de-emphasized or absent entirely

Nothing is wrong with that. It's what  the majority of fighting game players want, totally comfortable with it. It's why 50.000 were watching the Street Fighter 5 Cupcom Cup finals last Sunday.
It's not about being conservative because ooohhh the good old days were better! and let's all fear the change together! It's because that formula and those games are a specific thing which to many would NOT be interesting if changed too much. In fact plenty of experiments exist and they do have their own niche (within what is already kind of a niche genre). Smash is a different animal and that's why it caters to almost completely different people (that's why it was controversial when it was first admitted to EVO). It's great that it exists, but your complaints about lack of innovation in the tradition of fighting games is only coming from the fact that YOU now enjoy Smash more than you enjoy traditional ones.

For the FGC people the Street Fighters and the Tekkens are SPORTS. They do NOT NEED innovation the same way you don't add extra baskets in basketball or allow two forward passes in American Football. There is NO denying that the majority of fighting games haven't been innovating. And you know why? Because there is no need, no demand for revolutions. Just small iterations. They still do come up with new stuff with every new release but they do not need to reinvent the wheel and if they did they would just lose their followers.

You really sound like someone who has been bored with hockey for a while and start chiming around that it would be so much better and more spectacular if they allowed to play with three pucks at the same time because you saw it on Spike TV, it's called xTreme Hockey and it was so much better. Ok, more power to you. But these are highly competitive games, these games were eSports WAY before the concept even existed. Innovation comes in many shapes, newer version, v-triggers, prospective shifts, aerials, new skins, new characters, new combo systems, new combo breakers, cancels, ultimates, guard breaks, new skins, graphics, and so on. But no there is no such need for major changes as long as the sequels are making their audience happy and the competitive scene healthier than ever.

Remember when Starcraft was king, and then DOTA came along and wiped it away and changed the RTS scene forever? People did not even know they needed or wanted DOTA/LOL and what we called MOBAs for a while, but they did. It was ripe.
Well here's the thing, Smash came and it DID NOT change the fighting game scene forever. Not because the world isn't sane, but because Smash is not such a big deal.

I am gonna say it again. You clearly like what Smash has been doing. Great. It has room to grow on its own genre and there's always room for cross pollination in videogames, regardless of the genre, so it'll keep happening one way or another.

But your initial statement:

Quote
In a sane world, Smash Melee would have singlehandedly forced the entire incestuous genre of shitty fighting games to reinvent itself.

is laughable and simply based on personal preference.

ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2033


WWW
Reply #190 on: December 21, 2018, 08:30:28 AM

Quote
Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinkt, Tekken, Dead or Alive, King of Fighters, Marvel vs Capcom are all basically reskins of the same game.

None of these are remotely the same game. If you're gonna lead a post that long off with total horseshit, don't be surprised if people don't get past that.
Can I say they're... pretty similar? Or that their core mechanics are near-identical? Or that they're all, like, very obvious, very direct descendants of the Street Fighter 2 legacy that have shown extremely little divergence from their source material compared to, say, how shooters evolved from Doom over the same time period, or RPGs from $early_90s_rpg?

How much nuance do I have to add before it's not controversial, or does everyone actually think that Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinkt are as distinct experiences as, I dunno, Planetside and Rainbow 6, or whatever?

I mean, Capcom vs SNK is a thing that exists. They took a bunch of Street Fighter characters and a bunch of King of Fighter characters and put them in a game together and I'm under the impression that the characters played roughly like they did in their source games; am I misinformed? Did people have a hard time envisioning how this would work?

And, Falc, again, I'm not suggesting anyone stop making Tekken, and I think you're really overstating the sports analogy. Dragon Ball FighterZ is a new game and had more entrants than any other at Evo 2018, beating out Street Fighter and both of Arc's other, established, series. They're also still hosting two different versions of Smash, so unless Evo is an outlier these days I'm finding it hard to buy the idea that the FGC isn't interested in new games or games like Smash.

Anyway, there's more to gamers than the FGC hardcore. I'd at least have expected a few more mediocre clones trying to capitalize on the fanservice/party game angle than the one lame Playstation thing we got. Not that I'm particularly sad about that part of it, but it is odd.
Rendakor
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9374


Reply #191 on: December 21, 2018, 08:45:27 AM

There were a few more Smash clones; one with TMNT, and another one with Cartoon Network characters.

Check out my podcast: ADD&D, Attention Deficit Dungeons & Dragons!
"I think it's time for a dose of F13 RED PILL MOTHER FUCKERS" ~cosapi
Velorath
Contributor
Posts: 8112


Reply #192 on: December 21, 2018, 01:11:19 PM

There's a lot of fighting games that have tried something different but most of them didn't get large following or have long-term staying power. A few examples:

Bushido Blade: No health gauge. Attacks were mostly one-hit kills.
Power Stone: Up to 4 players in a 3D stage that you could freely move around in which also had power ups and traps.
Fantasy Strike: Came out last year. Like a traditional fighting game but with simplified controls.
ARMS: Up to 4 players. Behind-the-character view. Does not play like a traditional fighter.
Dissidia Final Fantasy NT: Looks terrible from videos I've seen but certainly not a normal fighting game.

Maybe newer stuff like Fantasy Strike and ARMS will catch on, but I don't really see them drawing in people who like traditional fighting games.
Zetor
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3075


WWW
Reply #193 on: December 21, 2018, 01:34:22 PM

Since neither me nor any of my friends owned a console growing up, the closest thing we had to a fighting game was One Must Fall 2097. It does have most of the things in your list, but there were two things that sorta made it different:
- You could go with different pilots in the mechs with their own stats for speed/damage/resilience, so a Jaguar piloted by Ibrahim would work very differently than a Jaguar piloted by Cossette
- Most maps had environmental hazards: walls electrocuting robots thrown into them, occasional spikes coming out from the back of the arena, orbs you could hit to trigger a fireball under an enemy, etc.

I guess the question is: how much of that is considered innovation vs just small iterations on a well-known standard?

Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 21239


Reply #194 on: December 21, 2018, 01:37:45 PM

In a sane world, Smash Melee would have singlehandedly forced the entire incestuous genre of shitty fighting games to reinvent itself. Alas we don't live in that world, but it's still probably the only game on the list that has an active community today, eighteen years later.
I still don't see where you've described what parts of Melee or Smash Bros in general you want to see in other fighting games.
ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2033


WWW
Reply #195 on: December 21, 2018, 02:01:26 PM

It was buried deep in my first wall:
The floaty platform physics, the aerial play, the real stages instead of different skins on an empty rectangle, the scaling knockback and escalating tension as damage racked up, the ring-out victory condition, the simple control scheme, even the colorful aesthetics and goofy casual game modes set it apart from pretty much everything else in the field. Smash 64 didn't necessarily invent all those concepts but it made them work together splendidly, and Melee refined it to a level suitable for serious competitive play
More generally, I want to see more tight, competitively-focused games that live close to, but outside of, the deep-but-narrow design space occupied by traditional fighters.

edit for Velorath: Bushido Blade is a good example of a game I liked a lot and found interesting; I don't remember if it was competitively viable though. There was a game called Blade Symphony a few years back that tried to take the concept and tune it for competition but I wasn't thrilled with the execution for some reason or another, maybe because it was in early access at the time.

Zetor: I don't think you need to draw a distinction between the two - a small feature can still be an innovation, just a small one. I wouldn't generally consider numbers tweaks and balance changes to be innovations, though even those can have transformative effects on design - setting everyone's health to 1, for example.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 02:21:12 PM by ezrast »
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #196 on: December 21, 2018, 02:24:15 PM


The floaty platform physics, the aerial play, the real stages instead of different skins on an empty rectangle, the scaling knockback and escalating tension as damage racked up, the ring-out victory condition, the simple control scheme, even the colorful aesthetics and goofy casual game modes set it apart from pretty much everything else in the field.

None of the things you mention are particularly interesting or innovative. But this tells me that you like them so much that what you want is more Smash clones.

It's like me and my known love for auctions in video and board games. I would put them anywhere and I feel they'd improve any game. For real, before any match, there should be a quick 30 seconds auction for character stats out of a pool. So every match is different!
In a sane world, there would be auctions in fighting games. Alas, we don't live in that world.

Azuredream
Terracotta Army
Posts: 896


Reply #197 on: December 21, 2018, 02:31:27 PM

Haven't there been a few melee clones made? Rivals of Aether, Brawlhalla?

The Lord of the Land approaches..
ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2033


WWW
Reply #198 on: December 21, 2018, 04:19:50 PM


The floaty platform physics, the aerial play, the real stages instead of different skins on an empty rectangle, the scaling knockback and escalating tension as damage racked up, the ring-out victory condition, the simple control scheme, even the colorful aesthetics and goofy casual game modes set it apart from pretty much everything else in the field.

None of the things you mention are particularly interesting or innovative. But this tells me that you like them so much that what you want is more Smash clones.

It's like me and my known love for auctions in video and board games. I would put them anywhere and I feel they'd improve any game. For real, before any match, there should be a quick 30 seconds auction for character stats out of a pool. So every match is different!
In a sane world, there would be auctions in fighting games. Alas, we don't live in that world.
Hey Falc, I did a bad job framing the conversation from the beginning. I was trying to be provocative, it came out as the wrong kind of provocative, and I'm sorry for shitting on a thing that you and others feel strongly about.

The auction idea is legitimately interesting to me and is the sort of thing I like to see come up in chats about game design, so whatever your intentions were with this post, thanks for sharing it.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58084


WWW
Reply #199 on: December 21, 2018, 04:47:13 PM

Don't get Falc started on auctions. He's biased.
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596

a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country


WWW
Reply #200 on: December 22, 2018, 08:11:52 AM

Hey Falc, I did a bad job framing the conversation from the beginning. I was trying to be provocative, it came out as the wrong kind of provocative, and I'm sorry for shitting on a thing that you and others feel strongly about.

The auction idea is legitimately interesting to me and is the sort of thing I like to see come up in chats about game design, so whatever your intentions were with this post, thanks for sharing it.

Yes, I definitely took the bait. I am sorry for taking it too seriously, I am just glad with where the fighting scene is and how strongly tied it is to its roots while at the same time always offering new games and ideas for everyone. Nothing scares me more than something (like Smash, but not only) eventually wiping out its core rules and transforming it into something completely different.

Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15500

Trading Cotton for Chalupas in 2014!


Reply #201 on: December 24, 2018, 01:08:43 AM

Different strokes and such. I look at those Tekkan and MK videos are see boring trash.

Fear the Backstab!
"Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion
"Hell is other people." -Sartre
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58084


WWW
Reply #202 on: January 01, 2019, 12:30:00 PM



Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos wins 2002 in the least exciting discussion we've had yet. 2003 isn't much better.
Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2590


Reply #203 on: January 01, 2019, 09:29:17 PM

BF1942 was a top 3 game I ever played. Up until then FPS games had been mostly quake/duke nukem style so it was very fresh with the large open maps, 64 player servers, advanced physics, and all the very fun vehicles.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 58084


WWW
Reply #204 on: January 05, 2019, 08:47:55 PM



The last dog awful year has passed us. Congratulations KOTOR, for uh, whatever you did for gaming.
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 30069

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #205 on: January 06, 2019, 12:34:45 AM

KotOR was decent, but elevated by the state of the Star Wars franchise in 2003, it was the best thing since Empire. That counts.

schild
Administrator
Posts: 58084


WWW
Reply #206 on: January 08, 2019, 01:44:16 AM



For a good long while I was worried WoW would take it in a year that could only be described as an absolute unit. Maybe one of the five best years in the history of gaming. To have a plain jane diku take it because penetration or something is just depressing.

Wake up Mr. Windrunner, wake up and smell the ashes.

Now we never need to talk about MMOGs again.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7758


Reply #207 on: January 08, 2019, 02:31:32 AM

Not that HL2 should not have won, but I have a special place in my heart for Far Cry.  Partly because of the sweet graphics and the countless hours I spent trying to upgrade and optimise using it as a bench.  But honestly, the weapons mechanics were terrific.

And KOTOR2 came out the year after KOTOR?  Crazypants.

Quite a year for games.

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
Velorath
Contributor
Posts: 8112


Reply #208 on: January 08, 2019, 03:05:06 AM

And KOTOR2 came out the year after KOTOR?  Crazypants.

KOTOR was Bioware and KOTOR2 was Obsidian so there was a bit of overlap in that early work on KOTOR2 started before the original released. Also KOTOR2 got rushed out early and had a bunch of stuff cut from it.
Bunk
Contributor
Posts: 5800

Operating Thetan One


Reply #209 on: January 08, 2019, 11:43:08 AM

VTM-Bloodlines: I still go back and play it from time to time. Plus one of the greatest soundtracks in gaming history. God do I love that game, despite all its bugs and jankiness.

"Welcome to the internet, pussy." - VDL
"I have retard strength." - Schild
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  Gaming  |  Topic: The Ultimate Battle - Best Game By Year  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC