Smash Brothers, The Fighting Game

  I'll continue my streak of Smash related articles with yet another subject. This one is a subject that I've somewhat tackled in my previous article regarding Sakurai's philosophy but wish to expend more. Why? Because understanding Smash more and what genre it pertains to is a step closer to improving the game in my opinion and also, because there is a tremendous amount of misconceptions going about what genre Smash belongs to. It's often annoying when people spread misinformation regarding anything, really. So this article is essentially a bullet point-style rant on why Smash is, in fact, a Fighting game as an attempt to put this debate to rest once and for all. Understanding where all the misconceptions started is a way to get closer to the truth so let's dive in!


  This belief all started with a 2008 interview with series creator Masahiro Sakurai. When asked about what were some of the tweaks he made for Brawl, he answered saying that Final Smashes were the brand new inclusion in Brawl and further down said: "But really, my vision of Smash Bros. is that it’s a party game, really." From there on, every now and then, he would always clarify that to him the series is designed as party games. Given his status as game director and series creator, none really questioned that view. I mean, he made the game, surely he knows what he's saying? But what if this belief people had for so long was wrong? This is why I am making this article. Let's begin with our first point.


Game Creators do not determine genres

   Right off the bat, this needs to be understood. As much as a game creator wants his game to belong to a genre, that does not mean that their games belong to that genre. Genre classification does not work that way and does not abide by the wishes of someone. To classify a genre, in general, this genre needs to follow a certain criteria to be part of said genre. For instance, you cannot be a Racing game and not race in the game nor can you be a Platforming game and not have platforming sections. This is pretty basic as far as classifying genres goes. If George Lucas decided the next day that Star Wars was a comedy because it has funny moments and not a science fiction series, would you truly believe him? All the science fiction elements are there, should we ignore them? The same applies with Smash Bros. The series revolves around characters fighting each other and someone has to come on top. Be it Free-for-all, 2 vs. 2, 1 vs. 1, the goal is pretty much the same, to beat the enemy by KO-ing them. Just like a Fighting game. This is core elements we're talking about, things you can't simply turn off. The series also has footsies, neutral game, mix-ups, anti-airs, elements normally found in the most basic of Fighting games are an indication of its true genre classification. To further dismantle the argument, let's compare what Sakurai, creator of the series is saying to what the developers of Rivals of Aether, a smash-like game, is saying. On one side, Sakurai says it's a party game but on the other, Dan Fornace, creator of Rivals of Aether says it's a Fighting game. If game creator/directors determine genres, we have one hell of a dilemma here.

Party game isn't even a genre

    Yes, I do not consider the party game to even be a game genre. Why? Let me explain. When comes to what a Fighting game is, you'd say that it has to do with the fact that in the game, you have to fight to win. The same thing goes with Racing games. In Racing games you pick a car and you run laps around tracks or courses. With these examples set, let's look at what makes a party game a party game. Party games are defined as games played at social gatherings to provide entertainment. Have you spotted what's wrong? The main determining aspect of the party game genre is a factor OUTSIDE of the game and not from inside. Look at what defines Fighting games and Racing game. Elements that are within the game. It does not help that the party genre is pretty broad. I mean, if I bring friends at my house and we play Street Fighter together taking turns, isn't that a party game? I invite friends at a LAN party and we play League of Legends or Counter-Strike together, aren't they party games? You can't just make exceptions with genre classifications, this is objective territory. The genre itself is way too varied in its core elements and game design for it to be taken seriously. Take a look at this. Mario Party, Super Smash Bros. and let's say, Rayman Arena. All three games are vastly different from each other. There is something wrong. When you take a look at the Fighting game genre, you have Street fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken, Guilty Gear, Blazblue, etc. Sure they have slight mechanical differences like how Mortal Kombat has fatalities but the core elements are the same.

Historically, it is a Fighting game

   History points to Smash being a Fighting game. A long time ago, before Smash Bros was the series we know and love, compiling characters from Nintendo's rich history, Smash went by a different name. Do you want to know what it was named? Dragon King: The Fighting Game. The Fighting Game. It could not be more obvious and more straight to the point than this. It's in the name. And the core gameplay hasn't changed a bit. It only got an aesthetic make over. Do aesthetics speak louder than gameplay or the other way around? But it does not end there. During an interview with Sakurai, he had this to say: "Well, I wanted to offer an alternative to the two-dimensional fighting games that were crowding out the market." Straight from the mouth of the creator himself. The very reason Smash came to life was as a response to Fighting games. Not beat-em-ups like people say when the Party game card gets destroyed but to Fighting games. Nintendo themselves on the back of Brawl cover pretty much states clear as crystal that it is a Fighting game. And under which genre do you find Smash Bros on the Nintendo eShop? Fighting games.

Mechanically, it is a Fighting game

   At their core, Fighting games have all the same elements. In them, you have to select character and the stage you want to fight on. Once this is done, the fight begins and will only end when someone KOs the other fighter. Isn't t that what you do in Smash? Yes. And yet why do we persist in not calling what it truly is and instead act like it's a Beat'em up which it isn't. Beat-Em Ups are games where you travel from point A to point B while fighting weak enemies along the way. Final Fight, Streets of Rage, River City Ransom and Turtles Back in Time are all examples of Beat'em ups. Is Smash similar to these games in objectives? No, because you don't win Smash by going from point A to point B, as if it even has a point B. You win by KO-ing your opponent(s). The game is essentially composed of offensive option such as Jabs, Smash Attacks and Special Attacks as well as Defensive moves such as Shielding, Dodge Rolls, Air dodges. You have the anti-airs like up-tilts. Jabs, tilts and Smash attacks are the Light Medium Heavy attacks that we know so well in Fighting games. Some people would probably say that because the game has items it is a party game but items are optional and a game can't rely on an optional factor to justify it belongs to said genre.

   Having made my point, I think it is essential that people stop spreading misinformation regarding things they might not understand. When saying things like "Smash is a party game" you are speaking for an entire genre, not just Smash. You are speaking for PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, Rivals of Aether, Brawlhalla, WaveDash Games' new IP. While you may have held on to a belief for many years, it may not mean that it is correct. Sometimes, we have to question things. With all of that said, I hope you enjoyed the article and hopefully you have understood why it is wrong to assume Smash is party game because its creator says so.

Rant On Sakurai's Philosophy Regarding Super Smash Bros.

     I've already complained on multiple aspects of the new Smash Bros game. All the things, or at least most, have a common denominator - Sakurai's decision. I know full well that there are people out there that will defend the things I criticized by just saying that it is Sakurai's vision, his philosophy when making these Smash games. That is why I am making this article, because, to me, this vision, does not make any sense to me. I feel the need to address Sakurai's philosophy regarding Smash, explaining why it's stupid and doesn't make sense.

One of the things I have criticized was the general lack of Advanced Techniques. These techniques that often add a new layer of complexity and depth and that take a while to master. We're talking about L-Canceling, Wave Dashing, Dash Dancing, Crouch Canceling, Directional Influence, etc. I am by no means a competitive player, granted I like to play with items offs on neutral stages with platforms and nothing too wacky, hoping that one day I'll start attending tourneys. But, every time, I or anyone else brings this complaint to the table, people start saying the series was never meant for competitive play, only for casual play. True, Sakurai made Smash for beginning players in response to other highly technical fighting games. However, Smash is very much a competitive fighting game. Sure the game is fun at parties but the game is first and foremost a fighting game. The items can be turned off and as such don't remove the fact that it is a fighting game. Even with items on, the goal is still the same, to get the most KOs (Time battle) or to be the last man standing (Stock Matches). If just the items made Smash a party game, then Mario Kart would be a party game and not a Racing game. Then you have 4-player matches. Again, if 4-players multiplayer made it a party game, Mario Kart would be one instead of a Racing game, Golden 007 would be one instead of a First Person Shooter.

Smash has the components you'd find in a fighting game, the mix ups, the combos, the spacing, the footsies, the anti-airs, the tier lists, the balance, etc. All these things are part of the core gameplay of smash, they cannot be turned off unlike items and aren't optional to use like 4-player matches. So Smash being a fighting game means that it is also a competitive game. These very words may come to a surprise to those who feverishly defend Smash as being a party game. Smash is just different layers of competition. At low levels (or casual levels), you don't care much about the mechanics and you pick whatever character you want to use without really caring if they are good based on tiers or not. But you also have intermediate players and competitive players that make ample use of the game's mechanics and where tier lists do matter. This is also true for pretty much any fighting game ever. Street Fighter, Tekken, Mortal Kombat, Guilty Gear, etc. They all can be played casually or competitively. But the absurd thing here is that a lot of people view Smash as being a game that can only be played casually. Indeed, absurd. I believe that what people want to say about Smash isn't so much as the game being casual (Any fighting game can be casual) but rather that Smash is easy to pick up and play. Whilst in other Fighting games, you have a button to punch, kick, strong punch, strong kick (With some variation), quarter circles, half circles, P, K, etc. Smash has a button to use basic attacks and the directions that go with them. You have one button to use specials and the directions to go with them, one button to shield, and simply moving the control stick sideways or down if you want to dodge roll or spot dodge. There's a simplicity to it that everyone understands.

Another aspect of Sakurai's philosophy that greatly annoys me is that to him, everyone should win. Entry-level casuals should somehow have an easy time with players with experience and hours upon hours of practice. To him this is fair. To me this is completely absurd. A player who just picked up the game and is close to the level of someone who put time and effort into the game to get good is anything but fair. Being that Smash is a naturally competitive fighting game, the player with most experience, practice and technical skill should be the one expected to win. But somehow, Sakurai believes this to be unfair and wants to give players with no skill a chance. How? Well, the Rage mechanic in Smash 4 is one of the ways to accomplish this. The more percentage you have, the stronger your attacks are. What bothers me about this mechanic is just how biased it is. When you play a competitive game, the results should be objective. You got destroyed by a guy? Tough shit, but you got destroyed by a guy. But in this case, the loser has the game on its back saying "You can do this! I got your back". Like, somehow it's wrong that we are winning, that it's wrong we put time and effort into becoming better players. It may be harsh way to say it but it does fall in line with something Sakurai previously said. "Mostly I don't incorporate feedback like that. Basically, Smash Bros. is designed to be sort of targeted at the center, intermediate players, and if you think of sort of a skill graph or something where if you're targeting just the peak of that performance level, you're targeting a very small group of people. We wanna avoid a situation where it becomes a game sort of like other competitive fighting games, where it's only apreciated by a very small, passionate group of sort of maniac players. We definitely don't want that sort of situation. It's supposed to be a fun game for a wide variety of people."

But this goes against what Smash is by nature. After all, be it Free For All or 1 Versus 1, there is only one winner. This is why I made the point about Smash being a competitive game by nature, because the game is all about one player winning over the other(s). It's natural. Regarding the point he made in the citation, Sakurai wants to avoid making a game that appeals to a small audience. Nice point and all until you realize that Melee (The most competitive Smash game to date) was an astronomical success, being by far the best selling GameCube game with sales of 7 million copies sold. Does this scream of a game that was successful at pleasing a large group of people? Yes, absolutely yes! So where is the problem? That some players got incredibly good at mastering techniques to a point where they were seen as "gods"? To fix this, Sakurai thought of the genius way of simply removing them. If entry-level players and intermediates can't keep up, no one should have access. So instead of making these techniques easier like how Rivals of Aether does with wavedashing, instead of giving a visual cue of when you successfully L-cancel like Project M is already doing, the genius' way of handling the situation is by removing it entirely. Look, Sakurai, no one is learning how to become better by having these techniques removed. If the mechanics are adapted to casual players sloppiness, surprise, surprise, the players are still sloppy and haven't gotten any better. There is no way for these beginners to get better if you do not tell them in game that there is a technique called L-cancelling and how to perform it.

   Despite all the things said, Sakurai truly does not believe in a competitive scene for Smash. To him it's better if these people go elsewhere to play their games competitively because Smash isn't it. In his opinion, Smash as a competitive game has no future. This is where I facepalm. For one, people want to play Smash competitively. No, they don't want to play Street Fighter, no they don't want to play Mortal Kombat, no they don't want to play Blazblue or Guilty Gear, they want to play Smash. Smash is Smash and that's what they want. So stop telling people to go elsewhere when all they want is Smash because Smash is its own thing and Street Fighter is its own thing. After that, he says that Smash as a competitive game has no future. There are a few things wrong with this statement. First, competitive players aren't asking you to turn Smash into a competitive only game, they want you to make it competitively viable. As much as you don't want to believe that it's possible to make a Smash game that appeals to casuals and competitive, Melee is a permanent reminder that this notion is wrong and baseless. Second, how come you say that competitive Smash has no future when you have done no efforts in helping it grow? Throughout the years, you've mostly hampered the competitive scene and yet you act like its fair to say such statements when you have done nothing to help it progress. You blatantly don't listen to them and yet you criticize competitive Brawl for being campy, as if it's the player's fault. The metagame develops around game mechanics not personal preference.

  Even if players have good reason to hate and criticize the newer games but especially Brawl, because of the fact that they are games that are purposefully, consciously and willingly developed to NOT be what the competitive players wanted, these people receive hatred from those who defend Sakurai's decisions, being called "self-entitled", "toxic" and "tourney fags". The question is "why?" Because they are truly self-entitled and should just accept what they are given? No. Because these people making these claims have never been affected by these changes. Come the day that some director removes items and Free-for-alls from the game, how would you feel? Will you stay true to your words and simply accept what you are given? No, you will be the first to go on the Internet and rant about it. The same is for the competitive scene. They loved the aggressive nature of Melee, the speed, the combos, the movement options and the control the player had over the game. With most of these things gone, it's all but understandable that they express frustration like they did. However, not all casuals lack empathy towards their competitive brothers and some also get frustrated along with them.

Mmm. Personally, I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those. If you play Smash Brothers seriously as a competitive game, the game itself has no future. - See more at: http://www.gamnesia.com/news/sakurai-explains-why-he-doesnt-want-smash-to-be-a-competitive-game#sthash.IcmdmA0f.dpuf

Mmm. Personally, I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those. If you play Smash Brothers seriously as a competitive game, the game itself has no future. - See more at: http://www.gamnesia.com/news/sakurai-explains-why-he-doesnt-want-smash-to-be-a-competitive-game#sthash.IcmdmA0f.dpuf

Mmm. Personally, I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those. If you play Smash Brothers seriously as a competitive game, the game itself has no future. - See more at: http://www.gamnesia.com/news/sakurai-explains-why-he-doesnt-want-smash-to-be-a-competitive-game#sthash.IcmdmA0f.dpuf

Mmm. Personally, I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those. If you play Smash Brothers seriously as a competitive game, the game itself has no future. - See more at: http://www.gamnesia.com/news/sakurai-explains-why-he-doesnt-want-smash-to-be-a-competitive-game#sthash.IcmdmA0f.dpuf

Mmm. Personally, I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those. If you play Smash Brothers seriously as a competitive game, the game itself has no future. - See more at: http://www.gamnesia.com/news/sakurai-explains-why-he-doesnt-want-smash-to-be-a-competitive-game#sthash.IcmdmA0f.dpuf

  All of that happened because one man just can't accept something that Smash was since the beginning: A competitive Fighting game. One that is easy to pick and play but one nonetheless. With each new installment. the nature of the game always battled to show itself as it's being crushed under the vision of someone who does not want to acknowledge it. But eventually, it's something you must accept because the competitive scene is growing and so is the Platform Fighter genre, as its growing to become a more competition oriented genre with Project M, Rivals of Aether and whatever Wavedash Games is cooking. Hopefully, one day, Smash becomes something bigger than it is already.  

Thoughts on Super Smash Bros. for Wii U

   Been a while since I made an article related to Smash Bros but today is the the day I give my thoughts on the latest entry in this great series. After hyping Smash 4 (Which is the name I give the new entry) with four ''Top Ten'' lists back in 2012, I think it is only natural that I give you my thoughts on this game. We will be focusing on the Wii U versions has it clearly is the bigger and better one. I also feel like it's necessary to say that this isn't a review. With all these things out of the way, let's get to it.

  To be up front with you, there are things I like in this new game and things that I really, REALLY do not like in this game. I'd say I've changed in these couple of years in the sense that now, I don't look to see which character gets in but rather I look at the game mechanics and see if they work. To put it bluntly, I think I prefer playing by the competitive rules than I do the casual rules. I've got nothing but that documentary on Melee to blame: The Smash Brothers. I don't want you to think that I don't like the game (Because I like it very much) but I will spend most of my article addressing things that I have an issue with in this new Smash game. There are good things, yes. But when there are bad things, the bad things need to be addressed. So hold on to your butt, there's one bumpy road ahead of us.

...But first, let's talk about the good things. For one, the game looks gorgeous. To look this good, at 1080p, 60 frames per second, good lord. It's a beauty. Second, this game has the biggest and most unique roster in the franchise with 52 characters AND COUNTING which leads us to... Third, DLC, updates, patches. This is the first Smash game to feature DLC, so we can even more characters, stages and god, even modes even though the game is still out. Fourth, for better of for worse, this game has the best online a Smash game has ever gotten. Then you have 8 player smash, you have special smash, you have all these unlockables and finally, we get custom movesets. There are more good things to this game but really, these are the standout points. Let's get to the ugly part now and mind you, some of things are opinionated while others are things I legitimately think are bad.

Defense OP, pls nerf: The title says it all. This is just something I can't get over with. The overpowered defensive options in this game are, well, overpowered! The shield takes too long to destroy (Except for certain characters with a move MEANT to destroy shield) and it regenerates way too fast. Air dodging is, again, too safe. Dodge rolling is so easy to spam. It's infuriating when you want to go offensive on people who abuse of these defensive option. They are just too good. And defensive play is much less exciting then offensive play, both in terms of playing and in terms of watching. Yes, all these things are opinions, but their opinions that MANY people agree with, ever since Brawl. Does that mean that defensive options should be taken away because they have no place in the game? No! They are just too good in this game and they need a nerf.

Where the combos at, Sakurai?: I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with me that pulling of a combo in Smash, especially in 64, Melee or Project M, is very satisfying. This is because of the hitstun in these games. Hitstun is basically the period where you can't do anything outside of teching and DI'ing when you get hit by an attack. That's putting it briefly. However, the non-existent hitstun in Brawl and now Smash 4 has made it nearly impossible to combo  properly which is a huge disappointment considering the fact that Smash has combo system of its own not present in any other games. Basically, it's all about making your own combo and predicting your opponent's trajectory and seeing this very unique way of comboing not being capitalized upon is absolutely disappointing to say the least. If you have PM, Melee or 64 and you play Smash 4 back to back, it's something that becomes painfully obvious.

Over abundance of over powered items: If you ever played Smash 4 with items chances are that you came across some ridiculously powerful items. That is a big problem that affects more than just regular Smash matches. The way I see it, items should only help you in racking up damage, not do the freaking job for you. I would scream this till my lungs explode but Smash is a FIGHTING game. You need to fight, not just let the items do the freaking job for you. With the abundance of one hit kill items and once again having to face the issue of having explosive items spawn right next to you, it's almost impossible for me to feel like this was fair or fun. You have the Dragoon, the Daybreak, several assist trophies and Pokemon, both hammers, that stupid Drill gun whatever, Laser guns and more. All items that have the potential of killing at very early percents. ''But you can turn items off''. Can you turn them off in Classic mode tho?

Classic mode is.... terrible: Oh boy, Classic mode. Has there ever been a mode that made me rage so much and that is utterly displeasing to play. Classic mode. Where do I begin? First, the items. As I stated in my previous point, there are a lot of OP items and with item set to high, there is a lot of frustration to be had. Why do these modes not have an item switch yet? Second, the eight player battles. I like eight player Smash however, they have no freaking place in this mode. Why? Well, because they are too chaotic. It's hard to know where you are. With the characters, items and stage trying to kill you, you WILL rage when going for the achievements for this mode. Third, Random Team battles. Team battles are FUN! Except when you're paired with a bunch of idiots and you end up going 1 or 2 vs 4. Forth, you have the utterly unbalanced Fighting Mii Team portion before you fight the final boss. While some characters like Ike have easy to spam attacks, other don't. Not to mention that, for some strange reason, a of character's smash attacks don't kill the Miis in one shot. And of course, the game is kind enough to spam explosives on next of you on top of having 5 characters actively trying to kill you. And then finally, where are the minigames to break the tension? Breaking the Targets? Race to the Finish? Where are they? Look, when you have achievement, trophies, soundtracks, customs that are unlocked by, say, not losing a single stock at higher difficulty, I don't want to feel like I'm fighting against the odds and just wish that this playthrough is the lucky one. I like challenge but the things I've named aren't what makes the game challenging. They're just bullshit. This guy explains why classic is so bullshit better than me.

All-Star Mode and 1 v 2+: This is a point I don't see many people complaining about but it still is pretty goddamn annoying. The amount of times you have to go up against 2 or more characters on either All-Star Mode or Event Matches is overwhelming to say the least. I do enjoy a good 1 v 2 but if I have to this every freaking time when playing these modes, it gets annoying real fast. Especially when you are usually at a disadvantage because it really isn't fair. Getting ganked and pummeled can only be fun for so long.
 



Patching out any kind of advanced technique and pointless nerfs: To put it bluntly, Project M is currently my favorite Smash Bros. game. It combines the content of Brawl with the mechanics of Melee and it is glorious. You wanna know what else is amazing? The game is regularly updated. Smash 4 is also a game that gets regularly updated, which is a great thing but not so great and when Sakurai and his team are so dead set on eliminating any semblance of ATs and nerfing beloved characters to oblivion. While patching and releasing updates can be certainly used for good things, like for instance making a low tier character better, removing glitches, nerfing certain overpowered characters (Slight nerfs nothing too big), removing ATs just makes the game far more shallow. There is this meme which is big in the Smash community: Better nerf Greninja. What this meme symbolizes is the trigger happy nature of Sakurai's team in nerfing characters that aren't even top tier whatsoever and making them even worse then before, like Greninja. Greninja could use Shadow Sneak, arguably one of his best moves, after a Dive Kick. Wasn't even a glitch or anything, just a technique unique to Greninja. I will always say this to anyone against them but Advanced Techniques add a new layer of strategy, depth and introduces new ways to approach your opponents. Removing them because others can't adapt to people using them or because others can't pull them off just makes the game more shallow. Really, I just don't want to fear my favorite characters (Which are Fox and Captain Falcon right now) having to get nerfed just because he's good.

So there it is, the things that I do not like in the Smash game. Does it make it a bad game? No. But it certainly makes a lot less enjoyable than something like Project M where I truly feel satisfied playing the game. Most if not all these things can be fixed with an update. It's up to Sakurai and his team to decide whether than want to do it or not.