Conversion

[Organous]

I recently got into a big debate with a game store manager about the validity of Smash as a fighting game. In this particular debate, we obviously were not going to budge on our positions, but I'm wondering how you guys would try to convert otherwise traditional fighter gamers into Smash. Here were the points he brought up as I understand them.
1) Focus on ringouts vs. reduction of life. No need to really elaborate here. It's the primary play element of the game, but he says this just doesn't "feel" right.
2) Traditional fighters, aside from unlocking all the characters, are ready to play in hardcore competition right out of the box, fully balanced. Smash, on the other hand, with its wacky stages and items (balanced and otherwise), is not actually designed to be a balanced game, and thus any attempt to move it into tournament play (restricting stages & items) only changes our actions, not its fundamental nature.
3) Emphasis on position rather than damage & combos. Even Guilty Gear, which I'm told is very reliant on getting the right position, is still at its core about precisely what attacks you do, how much damage they deal, what combos they open up, and then fundamental stats like speed, frames, etc. His point here, which I didn't debate as it didn't really seem to be the primary thing, is that the game lacks depth because it doesn't have as many attacks as others.

I think that's the meat & potatoes of his argument. I know I'm not going to convince him to play, because apparently he just can't stand it. We've all got something like that, no matter how popular. Halo would be mine. For those who aren't so hardcore against it, though, what would you do to get people into Smash who otherwise prefer traditional fighter games? On a related note, what obstacles have you found people had regarding this game?

 

[Demon_Fox]

I would just tell them that Smash is the best game.

But seriously, basically I love every kind of fighting game but every time I get ko'd in SF or DOA I think: "Get up you, stupid *****." I just can't stand that damage thing in most fighting games, since it totally banishes the willpower out of it. Imagine you were in such a fight. You get hit a few times but that doesn't bar you from getting up again if you kiss the dust once.

 

[Doggalina]

It has a good-sized competitive community. That's all the validation he should need.

 

[Zankoku]

3) Emphasis on position rather than damage & combos. Even Guilty Gear, which I'm told is very reliant on getting the right position, is still at its core about precisely what attacks you do, how much damage they deal, what combos they open up, and then fundamental stats like speed, frames, etc. His point here, which I didn't debate as it didn't really seem to be the primary thing, is that the game lacks depth because it doesn't have as many attacks as others.

His argument here is very wrong. There's a very large emphasis on positioning and spacing in fighter games. The ability to combo is a measure of technical skill and its only purpose for the player is to reduce the number of times he has to space himself properly. In other words, the better you are at comboing the fewer times you have to put yourself at risk to score some damage.

 

[psike]

He's probably not a big fan of Nintendo is he? If that is the case, he is lost already : ) Of course if they don't start putting out some Wii games that are worth my while other that smash, I may be lost soon too...

 

[Yawgmoth]

(-_-), no one is going to take the smash community seriously if you go around making it seem like we all think brawl is a good fighting game. the good players still prefer Melee anyway. brawl was not only designed as a party game but it is in practice and his points are somewhat true for it. even though Melee might have started like that also with the rushed development and the lack of the need to cater only to casual gamers back then, the result is on a completely different level. 1) its still critical to do damage in Melee just like a traditional figther, but theres the added element of requiring a KOing finisher, combo, intercept, edge gaurd/edge hog, etc. this a considerable amount of depth beyond the traditional fighter, imo. 2) is just one guys opinion vs that of the everyone in competitive melee community with nearly a decade of tournament history. 3) is just blatently uninformed. maybe he should actually play Melee competitively before trying to seem like he knows what hes talking about.

 

[Yuna]

I recently got into a big debate with a game store manager about the validity of Smash as a fighting game. In this particular debate, we obviously were not going to budge on our positions, but I'm wondering how you guys would try to convert otherwise traditional fighter gamers into Smash. Here were the points he brought up as I understand them.

First, check that they are not an obvious idiot as this idiot you've tried to convert obviously is. Or he's just really, really uninformed and thus a glorified n00b.

1) Focus on ringouts vs. reduction of life. No need to really elaborate here. It's the primary play element of the game, but he says this just doesn't "feel" right.

As opposed to many 3D fighters, where Ringouts are a very important element? Also, since when does a "real" fighting game have to be "the same as everything else"?

2) Traditional fighters, aside from unlocking all the characters, are ready to play in hardcore competition right out of the box, fully balanced. Smash, on the other hand, with its wacky stages and items (balanced and otherwise), is not actually designed to be a balanced game, and thus any attempt to move it into tournament play (restricting stages & items) only changes our actions, not its fundamental nature.

A) Many games were not originally designed to be balanced or play on a really, really deep level. It's irrelevant whether or not they were.
B) Many games need to ban characters and sometimes even stages (generally 3D fighters, but even the Guilty Gear XX-series, which is a 2D fighter bans Boss I-NO's stage unless both players agree on playing on it). Since when has the need to ban certain things ever disqualified a game as a "real" fighting game?

3) Emphasis on position rather than damage & combos. Even Guilty Gear, which I'm told is very reliant on getting the right position, is still at its core about precisely what attacks you do, how much damage they deal, what combos they open up, and then fundamental stats like speed, frames, etc. His point here, which I didn't debate as it didn't really seem to be the primary thing, is that the game lacks depth because it doesn't have as many attacks as others.

Melee was a lot about combos and damage as well. The fact that Brawl is less so does not mean combos and damage building is not emphasized. No matter how good positioning you have, you're most likely not going to kill someone at 0%.

He has no leg to stand on. Tell him to get a Smashboards account and strike up a thread here so I can chew him out directly.