Why do so many people who play fighting games don't consider platform fighters a fighting game?

[GameSmashDash]

How? Why is it that so many of you have your head stuck in the sand on this subject; why is platformer fighters like Brawhalla not considered a fighting game by you guys?

[Sstavix]

Like who?

[2Nami]

Stop talking about party games on a real fighting game discussion board

[Sstavix]

Oh, like that guy.

In my opinion, games like Smash Bros are fighters, but in the same flavor as Tetris and Portal being puzzle games, or blackjack and Magic: The Gathering are card games. Definitely the same genres, but the sub-genres are so radically different that they could be played in completely different fashions.

I think it's because platform fighters are radically different in two different ways:

1) Simplistic control scheme. Platform fighters typically don't have complicated commands like QCF+P. Their buttons consist of attack, special attack, jump and dodge/shield. Some players are probably dismissive based on that alone. But there is also....

2) Ring-outs. Traditional fighters focus on beating your opponent into the ground. But the goal of platform fighters is to knock your opponent off the edge of the screen. Your opponent could be at 0% damage, or 300%, the result is the same. Most fans of the more traditional fighting games also loathe environmental damage to their characters. Yes, some games (like Mortal Kombat or Injustice) may have scene transitions, but the central focus and goal of the game is still to beat your opponent to death. For platform fighters, it's all about the environment.

So they are both fighting games, but played in different ways. Hope that helps!

[GameSmashDash]

Originally posted by 2Nami:

Stop talking about party games on a real fighting game discussion board

Brawlhalla isn't a party game; tell me how is it not considered a fighting game.

[Kiyaya]

Because smashers are stinky

In all seriousness though-
I just prefer to call games like SFV "Traditional Fighters", games like Tekken "3D Fighters", games like Smash "Platform Fighters" rather than use the blanket "Fighting game" term.

However, I do see where people are coming from.
As mentioned before, the games are different in a fundamental level.
In SFV you win by reducing the players healthbar to nothing. In Smash you throw them into the abyss.
Many fighting games typically demand resource management through super meter. Smash typically doesn't (with some exceptions).
Etc etc.

Beyond game mechanics though, another factor to consider is skill transfer. This is something to think about with other genres too.
Good at counter-strike? You'll pick up COD pretty quick.
Good at Forza? Probably won't be shabby at Mario Kart.
Good at Guilty Gear? You'll know a few things about SF.
Good at Smash?... Doesn't really transfer to SF. Or any other non-platform Fighters. It will help, such as teaching neutral and spacing, but beyond that what else is there?
Go from SF to Tekken, I understand how to play defense and the concept of high/lows. I understand mix-ups and how to run offense. I understand spacing and whiff-punishes. And these aren't too different from what they look like in SF.
Meanwhile pressure in Smash is completely different. Defense? Hardly comparable. All you really have is neutral and spacing. Even execution requirements are different.

TL;DR Smash (and by extension other platform Fighters) are too different.

But call them whatever you like. Really don't care.

[You'll get D-D-Destroyed]

Its probably because they consider them too different to what they are used to

[GameSmashDash]

Originally posted by You'll get D-D-Destroyed:

Its probably because they consider them too different to what they are used to

That's why I said platformer fighter; it's a sub genre. Now if I said classical fighter game then I could understand hubbub.

[Kiyaya]

Originally posted by GameSmashDash:

Originally posted by You'll get D-D-Destroyed:

Its probably because they consider them too different to what they are used to

That's why I said platformer fighter; it's a sub genre. Now if I said classical fighter game then I could understand hubbub.

The title of the thread is "Why do so many people who play fighting games don't consider platform fighters a fighting game?". You asked why they aren't considered under the blanket "fighting game term", so what you are saying here doesn't really have any bearing on your original point.

[GameSmashDash]

Originally posted by Kiyaya:

Originally posted by GameSmashDash:

That's why I said platformer fighter; it's a sub genre. Now if I said classical fighter game then I could understand hubbub.

The title of the thread is "Why do so many people who play fighting games don't consider platform fighters a fighting game?". You asked why they aren't considered under the blanket "fighting game term", so what you are saying here doesn't really have any bearing on your original point.

Right; the tittle is too muddled in it's meaning. I sometimes forget people don't understand the concept of umbrella terms. That or that's just an American thing.

[Red Renji]

Brawlhalla is a kids/family game, great for parties

[sere]

Originally posted by Nick's Lycan my balls:

Brawlhalla is a kids/family game, great for parties

We only play classic fighting games at my parties.

[Double Jump]

Why Platform "Fighters" aren't Fighting Games: The win condition is a totally different one. Instead of reducing a lifebar you intend to increase knock back to finally kick your opponent off screen. Emphasis is put on environmental movement, hence "platforming". This has very little to do with Fighting Games.

In the same vein you could argue that Dark Souls is much more a FG than Platformers. It is mostly 1v1 with the goal to reduce your opponents lifebar to Zero. Or you could even say COD 1v1 is a fighting game because win conditions here are much closer to real FGs as well. But are these examples FGs? - And neither are Platform "Fighters".

It is just my opinion though, you don't have to agree with it :)

[Mohsin_ramirez]

Why is it your so desperate to affirm your party platform fighter game is in the same league as actual fighting games? Maybe you should take your head outta whatever.

[Vol'pe]

Pretty good answers by Sstavix and Kiyaya, but I would also add that platform fighters aren't nearly as framedata-heavy as traditional fighting games. Platform fighters do require you to know how fast you can recover after using certain ability, but the variety of these abilities and moves is very limited. In smash you only have 3 tilt-attacks, up-b, down-b, side-b and neutral-b, that's it. SF on the other hand has 6 normal attacks, multiple specials that can be powered up if two punches/kicks are pressed simultaneously. There are dozens of ways to connect everything and every single attack has it's own frame data, as well as how attacks of other characters you play against work against your character. In a traditional fighting game you are pinned down to the ground, you're always close to your opponent and you won't survive if you don't know your opponent's frame data to answer to each of their attack directly. In smash even the heaviest characters are pretty mobile and able to run away from the situation, but not in a traditional fighting game. You will be pressured by neutral game as if you're standing in a boxing ring and the only thing you can do is take punches in the face and try to hit your opponent with your hand, which is incredibly difficult.

Before playing my first fighting game I've spent like 300 hours in Smash Ultimate and couldn't understand why it's not a fighting game either, but I do now. I guess in order to understand it, people really have to get into the both types of fighting games, it will make sense once you achieve good results.

[stun]

because they aren't fighting games?