Meet the Revolution's controller.

[schild]

Um...no. That's not obvious at all. Go to any fighting game website in the world other than dedicated DOA forums and ask them what they think of DOA. You'll find that guys on a SF forum also play Tekken, VF, Samurai Showdown, guys on a Tekken forum also like VF, SC, etc. Nobody likes DOA. Some of the best Street Fighter players in the world are also some of the best Tekken players and VF players in the world, some of the best SC players are also some of the best VF players, etc. The entire community appreciates and plays good games - and everyone hates DOA.

You don't have to take my word for it. Almost every serious fighting game fan has tried DOA and almost none of them like it at all. Gameplay-wise it just does not stand up.

Edit: That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. You can. Clearly you are part of the target audience. The mark of a good fighting game is that it can be enjoyed casually and also at a highly competitive level of play. DOA doesn't stand up at high levels of play.

I'd actually like one of these "elite few" to come and discuss why Dead or Alive doesn't stand up at high levels of play. Because really, that's utter bullshit. It's not my fault they haven't taken the game seriously. Though I'd probably write off anyone who thought that as the same type of person who will stand in line for a raid.

[schild]

I think of Powerstone as Dreamcast's Super Smash Bros. Decent levels, great 4 player action. Tremendously bad 2 player vs.

[Margalis]

I'd actually like one of these "elite few" to come and discuss why Dead or Alive doesn't stand up at high levels of play. Because really, that's utter bullshit. It's not my fault they haven't taken the game seriously. Though I'd probably write off anyone who thought that as the same type of person who will stand in line for a raid.

Umm...I'm trying not to sound like an elitist prick here, but it's hard.

There was a DOA (I forget which version, 2 probably) tournament held some time ago in Japan. The guy who won won by literally doing the same move 50 times in a row. And before you say well obviously he was playing some scrubs, he wasn't. Everyone there was quite good at DOA. The game is just broken.

There are people that take fighting games much *more* seriously than yourself. Without being a complete dick, I'm going to say that I highly doubt you play DOA at a high level by my definition. High level is has a legit shot to win a major tournament or at least understands the game enough to know what it does take to win one. It's not a matter of having played X hours, although X being high does help. Have you ever been to a national DOA, regional or even semi-informal DOA tourney?

There is an avid, large community of fighting game players that at least try out basically every fighting released. They have no incentive to dislike DOA. I'm talking about people who play in national qualifiers, fly around the world for events, etc. The latest Evolution tourney (SF, Tekken, couple other games) had players from Japan, Korea and Western Europe. (I'm sure other places as well)

There are people with a much greater knowledge and ability at DOA and fighting games in general than yourself. They think the game is crap, for good reason. They are the expert opinion, you are not.

Again, you can enjoy the game, that's fine. It's a fun game for beginning to intermediate players. The more you like and are good at fighting games though, the worse a game it becomes. Some games just break down at high levels of play because of degenerate strategies, horribly skewed risk vs. reward on some moves, etc etc. DOA is one of those games. The problem is that some people take these games much MORE seriously than you and have found huge problems with it.

I don't understand how this is a shock or an insult, considering the makers of the game say themselves that it is not aimed at hardcore fighting fans. And I don't think you are a hardcore fighting fan.

I just find it annoying how people on this site grumble about the lowest common denominator and the stupidity of the masses and such, then people pimp DOA. DOA is the definition of a lowest common denominator game. Discriminating fighting game fans all hate it for good reason.

[WindupAtheist]

Since the Margalis vs Schild slapfight is more interesting than the umpteenth page of "OMG ITS A TV CONTROLLAR" I guess I'll just talk about fighting games.  Keep in mind that I couldn't tell Soul Calibur from Virtua Fighter to save my life.

Killer Instinct - I had fun with this back around ten years ago.  The graphics were a bit weird, but I liked the fact that they didn't make the boxer a slow lumbering retard.  They also had him throw nice reasonably boxer-like punches.  (Balrog was terrible for this, nothing about his stance or punches evoked his supposed fighting style.)  I played this on the Xband modem for the SNES, and met some friends I know to this day.

Bushido Blade - I love this game.  I love the aesthetics.  I love the subtitles.  I love the lack of health meters and all that extraneous immersion-breaking crap.  I even love the instakills, because the developers had the good sense to make it super-easy to play huge numbers of quick matches while prominently displaying the overall score for that session.  When you're up 1 to 0, you might be lucky.  When you're up 15 to 5, you're just better than me.  (Do a Star Wars remake with lightsabers and watch me pee myself in joy.)

Street Fighter Alpha 3 - This was as fun as any Street Fighter, but what the fuck was up with the commentator's voice?  I don't need a cartoon interpretation of a gameshow host screaming Engrish non-sequitors at me between matches, thank you very much.

WWF Raw and it's ilk - Don't laugh.  At least not until you can show me a "real" fighting game that lets you design your own character and move-set from the ground up, then toss him into matches involving up to 4 simultaneous combatants.  I don't even like wrestling.  At all.  But I loved the games.

EDIT:  That last one + online play + rankings & virtual championships = moneyhats

[Margalis]

Killer Instinct was fun, I used to play it a lot. The graphics were all pre-rendered which for the time was quite novel. What was the boxer's name? I want to say TJ Combo. Too bad the sequel was actually worse than the original. In the arcades this ran on the Nintendo "Ultra" hardware that came with a hard drive built in. Dudley from SF3 is probably the best representation of a boxer in a fighting game. The problem with Killer Instinct was that it had no throws and could become a real turtle-fest because the overhead attacks for most characters were slow and that was the only way to hit someone low blocking. (Other than jumping at them, which is very easy to block) It's another game that is not very good when played at an expert level. But it did have a lot of charm. (KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING COMMMMMMMMMMMBOOOOOOOO)

I kind of like wrestling games. I kind of like actual wrestling on TV as well. (Sadly) I wouldn't really say they are fighting games. Just wrestling games. Their own silly breed of entertainment.

[Nija]

Bushido Blade is by far and away my favorite fighting game. The insta kills were hilarious more often than not. I think it was the rapier that with one of the girls had a LIGHTNING fast lunge that often stabbed people in the face as soon as the bell rang. My brothers hated me for that one I'm sure.

[WindupAtheist]

Killer Instinct was fun, I used to play it a lot. The graphics were all pre-rendered which for the time was quite novel. What was the boxer's name? I want to say TJ Combo.

Yep.  I had a record of 212-64 at Killer Instinct on Xband.  I could never beat the really good players, but I could thump the newbs and intermediates.  I'd have had a better record if it weren't for that damned 'random select' feature, since I only knew what I was doing with Combo.

Not to derail things even further, but Xband was the shit.  You'd plug it into the cartrige port, plug the cartrige into the top of the Xband, plug a phone line into it, and play against other people from your local calling area.  (There was a nationwide service, but that cost a monthly fee.)  Killer Instinct and Mortal Kombat 2 were the big games, although there was a system for playing Doom that never did work quite right.  Once the match was over, you could chat one-on-one with your opponent.  Everytime someone mentions a console keyboard like it's an outrageous idea, I chuckle, because I had a keyboard plugged into the SNES ten years ago.

Funny thing, though.  Since it connected a bunch of teenagers within the same couple of area codes, the little social network migrated right off of Xband and into real life.  When it finally shut down, it had almost zero effect since everyone was talking on the phone and hanging out in person already.

Too bad the sequel was actually worse than the original.

Indeed.  Killer Instinct 2 was a universal disappointment amongst everyone I knew who had played the first.

I kind of like wrestling games. I kind of like actual wrestling on TV as well. (Sadly) I wouldn't really say they are fighting games. Just wrestling games. Their own silly breed of entertainment.

How then would you define a fighting game?  Keep in mind that Smash Brothers apparently does count.  Just curious.

[Fabricated]

Since we're talking about fighting games, I'll just state my own opinion.

The DOA series, while very pretty, is a shitty fighter.

Super Smash Brothers Melee has more depth than DOA.

[Margalis]

I would say that in a fighting game the central element is the fighting and that the game is meant to be played competitively. The fundamental trait of a fighting game is a test of skill. And of course robots or people (or dinosaurs) punching each other.

Wrestling games tend to be more for "fun" than for competition, in that the history of wrestling games is literally who can press the buttons the fastest. Also the fighting is wrestling games tends to go along with a bunch of other stuff like having the cool new stars on the roster, story modes, different match types from real life, create a wrestler, etc. If you read a lot of wrestling game reviews they tend to focus as much on things as whether or not Hell in a Cell is included as the actual game systems. I suppose it would certainly be possible to make a wrestling game that was very competitive in nature. But in wrestling games today that isn't really the main point. You don't see tournaments for wrestling games or anything like that. But again, you could, that just doesn't seem to be the focus.

Smash Brothers is mostly a multi-player game, and the multi-player aspect is all fighting. When people play it competitively they turn off the random items and only play certain stages. Smash Brothers is meant to be a wacky fun sort of game, but it is entirely skill based. (If you turn off the random items and such) I would say Smash Brothers is a borderline fighting game, but there is a significant community that plays the game very seriously as a test of skill. You can play it as a competitive test of skill if you want.

There are games like Virtua-On that are basically fighting games, even though people may not count them as such. I suppose those are more fighting/mech simulation, but the idea is the same. 2 men enter, one man leaves.

The reason I said DOA is a bad fighting game is that it's kind of dopey fun but if you are familiar with other fighting games and try to play it at a competitive level it shows some really ugly flaws really fast. It's like tic-tac-toe is fun until you realize there is one strategy that is always the best. Tic-Tac-Toe cannot be played competitively. There are some fighting games that are fine until you get to a certain skill level and then they basically become degenerate, where one strategy or a small collection of strategies is all that matters and the game becomes very simple. Those games still take some skill, but they aren't very fun or interesting games. It's like what you see in Madden online where everyone chooses the Eagles and just either throws a long bomb or runs with McNabb. At a casual level you play any two teams and just go at it with whatever, but at a serious level the game devolves into throw a bomb or run with McNabb and it stops being interesting.

[MrHat]

Soul Caliber 1 on the Dreamcast was the best gaming experience I've ever had.

Edit:  No other fighting game I've ever played felt more natural than Soul Caliber (1&2).  Not having to memorize moves to be a great player really made this game special.  The fact that a complete noobie can beat you with button mashing is a great feature imo (can't be me though).  I won't play any fighting game that doesn't have the completely fuild movement system that this has.  The battles I had with my roommate at the time could only be called EPIC.  Random 8v8 Soul Caliber is the single greatest fighting game experience in existance.

[WindupAtheist]

I don't think whether or not their are tournaments for a game should determine it's genre.  Still, I can agree that your typical wrestling game doesn't "feel" like an official Fighting Game.  I think it's a matter of pace.  Both Street Fighter and Smash Brothers, different as they are, play at a pace much quicker than that of a wrestling game.  Part of it might also be that most Fighting Games have at least a semi-fantastical setting, while a wrestling game attempts to (loosely) represent a real-world event.

Could one theoretically make a boxing game which counted as a Fighting Game?  Would it cease to be one if you took the same engine and tacked on a career mode?

[Margalis]

Tournaments don't determine genre. But my point is that it should feel natural to have a tournament for a fighting game. One of the basic questions is is this game meant to be a competitive test of skill? Some games are more wacky fun, some games more simulation. One indicator of this is that it's possible for an experienced player to be much much better than a beginner. Another indicator is there aren't random elements. A lot of fighting games have a tournament as the actual plot. That's the point of the game: a bunch of people get together and one guy ends up being the best.

A boxing game could be a fighting game. Boxing isn't that different from something like Tekken. In fact, Tekken has a boxer. But again, I think most boxing games fail the test of being competitive centric games. There are a lot of games where you compete but it's more of a "fun" competition than serious. Things like balance and fairness don't matter all that much. I don't think they spend a lot of time in boxing games trying to make sure all the characters are about equal and there are no exploits because people just don't play the games that way. The only boxing game I've played over the past 5 years or so is Ready to Rumble, which is pretty clownish.

Games like boxing, wrestling, UFC games and such tend to be more interested in simulation. Getting the named guys in the game, following the rules of the sport. Fighting games pay a lot of attention to engine details, making sure the moves all "feel" right, crisp controls - because that's all they have to offer. I would love a wrestling game with really crisp controls that was a pure test of skill. Most wrestling games feel pretty sloppy. Good fighting games have a lot of technical skill involved and demand crisp controls. You have to do things like move around quickly, distance yourself properly, etc.

In SFA3 for the PSX they added a "world tour mode" which was kind of an RPG thing, you could earn points and build up your character in that mode, but it was still very much a fighting game. I would say in a true fighting game the emphasis is what happens in the fight, not any surrounding stuff.

The question of whether X or Y game is a fighting game becomes splitting hairs at some point. As I mentioned before, Virtua-On is a 1 on 1 competition of pure skill. Is it a fighting game? I don't know. But I would say that most fighting game fans can at least appreciate Virtua-On even if they don't like it themselves.

To MrHat: SC1 was a good game, a lot of people consider it better than the sequel, which was shinier but had some gameplay issues the first one did not. Just as nearly everyone rates Tekken 4 below Tekken 3 and Tekken Tag.

One thing interesting about fighting games is that the emphasis is so much on gameplay instead of graphics and new shiny that people often like older versions better than newer versions. And I don't mean in a nostalgia way. There are still Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo tournaments, and that game came out in 1995! At the most recent big North American tournament there was also Tekken Tag (5 years old now) and an unofficial XMen vs. SF tournament. (Also about 5 years old) But no Tekken 4. People don't just talk about liking the old versions, they actually still play them. You also find a lot of fans actually own arcade cabinets! Again, this is because the main draw is good gameplay that lends itself to a competitive test of skill, and people won't just dump that for the newest version unless the newest version is actually better.

Imagine if a bunch of Madden players decided that Madden 95 was better than Madden 2005 and played that in the big Madden tournaments! It's almost inconceivable. Yet in tournaments people still play SSF2T and notSFA3, which came out 7 or so years later.

[schild]

I love SSF2T. I dislike the crossover stuff (Marvel Vs Capcom, etc) immensely. I've _always_ hate Tekken and Virtua Fighter - though I logged a ridiculous number of hours on both. While I may have enjoyed Soul Caliber 2, I liked one more - due solely to where I was living at the time, in a dorm room. Soul Caliber 2 was the better game. Whether that makes it better in tournaments - that's another thing entirely. And doesn't mean two shits. Just as the top top top top tier grinding bullshit guilds shouldn't mean anything to MMORPGs. Unfortunately developers sometimes forget to remove their head from their ass when they wake up in the morning.

As for other games, I enjoyed Rival Schools more than Virtua Fighter. I enjoyed MKII more than Deception, which was a shame. I really wanted to like Deception. I also logged a lot of time in Tech Romancer, UFC, and Powerstone (as mentioned before) on the Dreamcast. The Dreamcast was really where fighting games peaked for me. The controller never got tiring.

[Margalis]

Whether that makes it better in tournaments - that's another thing entirely. And doesn't mean two shits. Just as the top top top top tier grinding bullshit guilds shouldn't mean anything to MMORPGs. Unfortunately developers sometimes forget to remove their head from their ass when they wake up in the morning.

Meh, I knew someone was going to make that analogy, but it's a terrible one. Fighting games are a test of skill. That's really the point. A tournament if just a formalization of that. A fighting game tournaments isn't really different than having some friends over, it's just more structured and bigger. And unlike a MMORPG it's not about spending a lot of time, grinding, waving around an epeen or shiny items or anything like that.

Also, unlike in MMORPGs, there are not contrary goals. What I mean is, catering to uber-guilds can negatively impact other players. But catering to tournament players in a fighting game has a trickle-down effect that makes the game better for everyone. One of the hallmarks of a good tournament game is that it doesn't have a lot of abusable bullshit. Getting rid of that stuff is good for everyone. Making a game tournament worthy doesn't mean adding content only some people can enjoy or anything like that, it just means making the game more balanced and removing stupid bullshit while retaining depth and fun.

There is a very logical progression from casual fighting game player to tournament player. Obviously not everyone plays in tournaments, but it isn't a different style of play that appeals to a different type of person. Whereas in a MMORPG being in an uber-guild is very much a different style of play than soloing or playing with a group of friends.

Tournament fighting game players aren't looking for a different experience than casual players. The difference is, they are better at the game and more likely to break it by finding infinite combos, degenerate strategies and the like. It's not like casual players like those infinite combos and degenerate strategies.

If you look at a game like XMen vs. SF, it has infinite combos all over the place, and is a pretty poor tournament game because it devolves into who can land the infinite first. As a casual player you may not notice this until you go to the arcade one day and some guy keeps killing you with infinite combos off of one hit. Then it kind of ruins the whole experience. Losing to infinite combos is not fun for experts or beginners. As such, XMen vs. SF is only a fun game if you either don't know what you are doing or play with some house rules.

[schild]

Fighting games are _not_ a test of skill. For 99% of the players, they are merely A Fun Genre to Play. You saying it's a poor argument when you're representing a very tiny sliver of a margin of the total fanbase means Nothing. While it's nice that tournament worthy games are better for everyone, it doesn't mean that every Tekken and Virtua Fighter ever released wasn't a sluggish piece of shit. They were - at least compared to other fighting games. I don't know how this conversation became about tournament players, but just like with any other genre, I'm not one to give two shits about the upper echelon of players who are good at one type of game. I don't even consider them gamers. Just like with any other sport, once it becomes about actual competition, game is synonymous with winning. I'm sure there are remote counter examples, but by and large, at this "level" of playing you're talking about there isn't any "fun" in losing.

[Llava]

I'm not one to give two shits about the upper echelon of players who are good at one type of game. I don't even consider them gamers.

They're not hardcore.  They just like it more than you.

Just like most casual MMOG players prefer World of Warcraft.  You might have thought it was shit, but the average MMOG player doesn't agree.

[WindupAtheist]

Fighting games are _not_ a test of skill. For 99% of the players, they are merely A Fun Genre to Play.

Aren't games supposed to test your skill while being fun?

--EDIT--

I've _always_ hated Tekken and Virtua Fighter - though I logged a ridiculous number of hours on both

Maybe not?

[Pococurante]

Aren't games supposed to test your skill while being fun?

Supposed to?  No.  Games are simply a way to tune out and relax for many people.  Anything that builds a skill unneeded in the real world is simply entertainment.

[StGabe]

Well obviously testing and challenging at a skill level *is* fun.  To some of us.  Otherwise I wouldn't have logged 200+ hours of Lumines play.  Lumines has cool content with the skins and stuff, but let's face it, that's maybe a few hours of "entertainment" tops.  What makes it really fun is the challenge of getting better at the game.  Same with Tetris, Free Cell, a lot of FPS's, fighters, etc.  I'm still playing Lumines not because the music is great the 10th time I hear it or because it makes me feel like a hero but because I want to hit 100 deletes in 60s (current record 97) and I enjoy playing towards that.  I both zone out and relax while doing so AND get to achieve better skill and better results and both of those things make for the mythical "fun" that we all treasure so much.

That was really the point of Raph's book on games wasn't it?  That learning patterns and skills is what makes playing games fun?

I think that it is neither the case that a game cannot be fun without testing skill nor is it the case that a game that is based solely around testing skill cannot be fun.  Whatever rocks your boat.

But then absolute statements make one feel all cozy and warm inside don't they? :)

Gabe.

[Pococurante]

Well maybe it is just a matter of degree.  Certainly there is a level of competition in games even if it is just self-challenge.  But the degree I mean is when people begin thinking of "game skill" as an accomplishment often to the exclusion of not putting anything close to the same amount of energy into an alternate real world activity that does something meaningful.  The guy playing Bass Fishing is probably not thinking of what he does as skill, he's just killing time until he can get off shift and take the bass boat out for real.

[StGabe]

I dunno about that.  I think almost all games have a very strong sense of achievement in them.  That guy playing Bass Fishing *is* going to enjoy getting a large fish, a larger fisher than his friend, or being better at the game today than he was yesterday (whatever that means in a Bass fishing game -- like I know).  And those accomplishments and challenges are fun for him whether he would directly mention them as such or not.

It's no different with those real world activities and I think a distinction between the two doesn't really help.  I enjoy playing volleyball.  For the sake of playing volleyball, yes.  I find it relaxing, a fun social experience, etc.  I also enjoy getting better.  I enjoy the feel of a really good volleyball hit or giving my setter a high-five after I put a good finish on what was a very difficult set.  And I enjoy beating another skilled team.  And I can feel the same sorts of emotions and "fun" in a videogame.

It is a matter of degree though.  And preference.  What is challenging to me may be catassery to you.  What is "fun" to you might be too easy for me and thus boring.  Or vice versa depending on the type of challenge involved.

But if the keyword is fun then you can't be judgemental about what fun means to any given player.  And I think to a lot of players, achieving better skill in a game is an accomplishment that is fun.  Without that challenge, without the ability to get better at the game (or in the game by earning in-game abilities) I think interest tends to wax quickly.  You either need to give the player the opportunity to achieve new content or the ability to achieve higher levels of skill.  I can't think of a game that doesn't do one of these two things.

[Merusk]

Aren't games supposed to test your skill while being fun?

Supposed to?  No.  Games are simply a way to tune out and relax for many people.  Anything that builds a skill unneeded in the real world is simply entertainment.

Youre making the mistake of assuming games only build skills not applicible to the real world.  Yah, you may not be doing it to improve your critical thinking, pattern matching or hand-eye coordination and micro motor (finger dexterity) skills but they're inherent to many games and apply well in the "real world." (And by real world I'm assuming you mean the everyday ho-hum to get paid and cover your basic needs.)  If anything in an ever-increasing electronic socieity 'real skills' and strength built through traditional 'skill' games are less and less useful.  Strength and physical quickness matter little in the day-to-day of cubeworld.

[WindupAtheist]

Supposed to?  No.  Games are simply a way to tune out and relax for many people.  Anything that builds a skill unneeded in the real world is simply entertainment.

My mom doesn't like video games in general, but she does play a lot of Doctor Mario when she wants to unwind.  I, on the other hand, have only played it a few times.  If she and I had a side-by-side competition at Doctor Mario, she would smoke me.  Not that she would want to, or care.  But any game that DOESN'T require skill, where the experienced player is no more likely to win than the newb, is just a slot machine and probably pretty goddamn boring if you're not a compulsive gambler.

[schild]

I'm not one to give two shits about the upper echelon of players who are good at one type of game. I don't even consider them gamers.

They're not hardcore.  They just like it more than you.

Here's the thing, I doubt they do like them more than me.  :-D

Just like most casual MMOG players prefer World of Warcraft.  You might have thought it was shit, but the average MMOG player doesn't agree.

Very newbie friendly and shallow games often do appaeal to the majority of casual players in any genre.

[Hoax]

People who take fighters seriously are disturbed, any time you hear people talking about how many frames a block lasts or someshit dont make eye contact and back away quickly.

[Sky]

People who take fighters seriously are disturbed, any time you hear people talking about how many frames a block lasts or someshit dont make eye contact and back away quickly.

I have to agree with you here. I like fighters, but I get turned off by people who are really into them. I remember some game, maybe mortal kombat, my ex's little brother played it religiously. I learned the basics, punching and kicking, and played it kinda like Double Dragon or something. Turns out if you don't know the super combos, you lose. And I think winning by memorizing some stupid string of moves (up up down down left right left left right A B left A down up YOU LOSE KEKE) is retarded. It's great for those who are into rote memorization, but I'll take strategic use of a smaller skillset any day.

[Merusk]

Just like most casual MMOG players prefer World of Warcraft.  You might have thought it was shit, but the average MMOG player doesn't agree.

Very newbie friendly and shallow games often do appaeal to the majority of casual players in any genre.

Oh irony, thou art divine.

[Samwise]

Not to spoil the party by bringing up the Revolution controller again, but check out this article that talks about the possible method to Nintendo's madness.  (Linked from PA.)

[Hoax]

Damn you Samwise

DAAAAAMN YOU

[Pococurante]

So his opinion is that to survive Nintendo needs to prevent hardware becoming commoditized by content producers, refuse to produce content for other platforms, and the "verbs" of the market by dictating standards to the other hardware makers, apparently through licensing fees though he doesn't bother to dig into this part.

Mindless idiocy.

Magnavox and Atari tried that and failed miserably despite that between the two of them they essentially created the console market.  Commodore? Failed.  Apple? Failed and is now nothing but a boutique player.

Platform hardware is a commodity. Peripheral hardware is at best a niche industry, albeit one with high potential volumes but that alone just gets them a seat on the wall and not at the table.  Microsoft as a content provider will ensure that, and Nintendo's competitors are not going to play Nintendo's reindeer games either.

All the pastel-colored remote controls in the world won't change this.

Edit: amazing the difference an omitted negative can make

[Nija]

I was at the Metreon in SF one time when they were having a Marvel vs Capcom tourney, by total accident, and I agree with the 'fighting game people are disturbed' theory.

These jokers made a Fur-con look like the Brady Bunch.

[WindupAtheist]

I was at the Metreon in SF one time when they were having a Marvel vs Capcom tourney, by total accident, and I agree with the 'fighting game people are disturbed' theory.

These jokers made a Fur-con look like the Brady Bunch.

Elucidate.  It amuses me to hear of unfamiliar forms of catass.

[Margalis]

Fighting games are _not_ a test of skill. For 99% of the players, they are merely A Fun Genre to Play.

Remember when SF2 was in every arcade and half the grocery stores in the country, and there was always a long line to play? There was a reason for that.

99% of fighting game players don't see it as a test of skill? What are you on, cause I'd like to have some! Fighting games originated in arcades where winner stays, loser pays. The better you are, the longer you play and the cheaper it is as well.

You're telling me that 99% of fighting game players want a game that is completely mindless button mashing, where they can play for hundreds of hours and not get any better or have any idea WTF if even going on? What's the point of that?

Edit:

It disturbs me to read something like this:

I like fighters, but I get turned off by people who are really into them. I remember some game, maybe mortal kombat, my ex's little brother played it religiously. I learned the basics, punching and kicking, and played it kinda like Double Dragon or something. Turns out if you don't know the super combos, you lose. And I think winning by memorizing some stupid string of moves (up up down down left right left left right A B left A down up YOU LOSE KEKE) is retarded. It's great for those who are into rote memorization, but I'll take strategic use of a smaller skillset any day.

To me this is the same as:
I like Chess, but I get turned off by people really into it. I learned the basics and played it kind of like Checkers. Turns out if you don't know the opening positions and strategies, you lose. And I think winning by memorizing some stupid opening string of moves is retarded. It's great for those who are into rote memorization, but I'll take strategic use of a smaller skillset any day.

I mean, I can understand the attitude, but you must see why it comes off as a bit silly. It's like playing basketball with your slow, short, white friends then Jordan comes to your court and schools you. Damn that Jordan!

Nobody wins in fighting games (against other good players) by memorrizing moves and combos. That is, however, usually a prerequisite for being really good. The same is true in any competition. Knowing as much as you can is always better. Knowing how to do a slice or a drop shot in Tennis helps you. Knowing how to throw different pitches in baseball helps you.

I understand if you just want to goof around, and those games can still be fun doing that. But don't begrudge people who actually get better and learn and claim that it is just memorization. It isn't. That's like saying Roger Clemens is just some scrub who memorized how to hold his arm and fingers on a baseball. Yeah, it would suck if Roger Clemens was on your opposing College baseball team. That doesn't make him some sort of lamer.

Just like with any other sport, once it becomes about actual competition, game is synonymous with winning. I'm sure there are remote counter examples, but by and large, at this "level" of playing you're talking about there isn't any "fun" in losing.

The fun is getting better, and eventually being the guy who wins. You can learn and improve even while losing. Is tournament level Chess fun? I don't know, but it sure is compelling for some people.

As far as fighting game fans being weirdos or losers, this is a MMORPG forum. Nuff said.

[Fabricated]

Not to spoil the party by bringing up the Revolution controller again, but check out this article that talks about the possible method to Nintendo's madness.  (Linked from PA.)

That article is the biggest crock of shit I have read in a long time.

[Samwise]

Just as a point of interest, how many people here have played Donkey Konga Jungle Beat?  And not found it fun at all?