Why is there less STUFF than Melee/Brawl?

#31Chzrm3Posted 12/5/2012 2:43:57 PM
rumbalumba posted...
^SF doesn't have adventure, etc. because it is a fighting game, so is Tekken.


Tekken does have that stuff. Have you played Tekken 6? It had a story mode that was pretty thorough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkZUwIJRKM

You walk around and beat dudes up, there's a bunch of levels, it tells a story, etc.

Capcom has made bank this generation out of including the bare minimum in each of their fighting games. Tekken and MK9 are both fighting games, just the same as SF, but that's no excuse to have absolutely nothing outside of fighting.
---
If I haven't mentioned Trivio in my post, it's because she is so beautiful and precarious that I just wanted to show her how much she means to me.
#32ThaCMasterPosted 12/5/2012 2:46:00 PM
Chzrm3 posted...
To be fair, we should also compare Melee/Brawl to other fighting games.

Compare it to SF, for example. Pick any SF in that entire franchise's catalog, and they'll all seem incredibly bare-bones by comparison. Or you can even look at MvC3, which is a game that, like this, is supposed to be a celebration of a company's history (and in that case, two companies!), and it's got absolutely none of the fun auxiliary stuff that Smash has. UMvC3 came out in 2011, it was an expansion for a pre-existing game, and Capcom had an enormous budget, and compared to Brawl or Melee it's an absolute joke content-wise.

Even my beloved Tekken doesn't measure up well to Melee. TTT2 has some pretty awesome stuff, like all the unlocks you can get for individual character customization, the combot trials, how insanely fun tag mode is, etc, but it still comes up lacking when compared to Melee. And to Brawl? Not even close. XD

I guess the main takeaway here is that the Smash series is just flat out excellent. It's the best example of fan-service and attention to detail in a fighting game, ever. There's a reason Brawl is the best selling fighting game of all time, and Melee follows closely behind.

If you compare any fighting game to Smash, it'll come up short, because Smash is incredible.

In that sense, PSASBR actually fares pretty well. Considering it's the first entry in this (hopefully) franchise, it actually beats out games like SF 4 and UMvC3 when it comes to content. MK9 beats out PSASBR because MK9 had an awesome story mode and the exhaustive challenge tower, but that's okay, because it was MK9. TTT2 also has more content than PSASBR, but again, Tekken is a massive franchise.

I think the fact that you can point to games like SFxT and say "PSASBR puts that to shame." is pretty legitimately exciting.

As an aside, this game certainly could've had more levels if they'd allocated their resources a bit better. While the mash-ups are fun, there are a few cases where they basically created an entirely new environment solely for the mash-up. (Look at the LocoRoco stage, and how there's an incredibly detailed robot/city in the background that really has nothing to do with the level). So there's a give-and-take there - do you prefer highly interactive levels with a lot going on, or having a huge selection of levels that are diverse because of how their platforms are laid out, what IPs they represent and what music you listen to on them?

Personally, I prefer Smash's approach. Melee had 29 stages and the vast majority were like Termina Bay or Fourside - a different way of laying out platforms and some AWESOME fanservice/music/details. But that's just me, and I know a lot of people love the mash-ups so I won't harp on that.

Sorry, this post ended up being massive.

TL;DR - Smash is amazing and is better than every other fighting game in the world when it comes to additional content.

Smash sells well because it is catered to Nintendo fans than hardcore fighting fans. Casual audience is larger than a hardcore fighting game audience. More sales doesn't equal more quality either.
---
PSN ID BigDaddyCMasta
www.thacmaster.proboards50.com
#33rumbalumbaPosted 12/5/2012 2:47:24 PM
^oh yeah i forgot about that! it was actually fun, though. XD


even then, it isn't really the focus of Tekken. and as i've said, Tekken is a fighting game, not a party brawler. it wouldn't benefit from other modes (like Capture the Flag, or the modes from Smash) simply because it isn't a party brawler.

while All-Stars is trying to be a party brawler. just look at it. 4-player FFA, items, platforms, etc.
#34Chzrm3Posted 12/5/2012 2:49:59 PM
ThaCMaster posted...
Smash sells well because it is catered to Nintendo fans than hardcore fighting fans. Casual audience is larger than a hardcore fighting game audience. More sales doesn't equal more quality either.


So how come MvC3 sold less than 2 million, while Brawl gets 11 million? Are you telling me there just aren't that many Marvel fans in the world? XD

Compare MvC3 to Smash and it's easy to see why Brawl sold over 5 times what MvC3 did.

Brawl's quality isn't higher because it sold more, either. The quality's higher because it's packed to the brim with fanservice. With music alone it's got over 200 tracks, what other fighting game even comes close?
---
If I haven't mentioned Trivio in my post, it's because she is so beautiful and precarious that I just wanted to show her how much she means to me.
#35rumbalumbaPosted 12/5/2012 2:50:54 PM
ThaCMaster posted...
Chzrm3 posted...
To be fair, we should also compare Melee/Brawl to other fighting games.

Compare it to SF, for example. Pick any SF in that entire franchise's catalog, and they'll all seem incredibly bare-bones by comparison. Or you can even look at MvC3, which is a game that, like this, is supposed to be a celebration of a company's history (and in that case, two companies!), and it's got absolutely none of the fun auxiliary stuff that Smash has. UMvC3 came out in 2011, it was an expansion for a pre-existing game, and Capcom had an enormous budget, and compared to Brawl or Melee it's an absolute joke content-wise.

Even my beloved Tekken doesn't measure up well to Melee. TTT2 has some pretty awesome stuff, like all the unlocks you can get for individual character customization, the combot trials, how insanely fun tag mode is, etc, but it still comes up lacking when compared to Melee. And to Brawl? Not even close. XD

I guess the main takeaway here is that the Smash series is just flat out excellent. It's the best example of fan-service and attention to detail in a fighting game, ever. There's a reason Brawl is the best selling fighting game of all time, and Melee follows closely behind.

If you compare any fighting game to Smash, it'll come up short, because Smash is incredible.

In that sense, PSASBR actually fares pretty well. Considering it's the first entry in this (hopefully) franchise, it actually beats out games like SF 4 and UMvC3 when it comes to content. MK9 beats out PSASBR because MK9 had an awesome story mode and the exhaustive challenge tower, but that's okay, because it was MK9. TTT2 also has more content than PSASBR, but again, Tekken is a massive franchise.

I think the fact that you can point to games like SFxT and say "PSASBR puts that to shame." is pretty legitimately exciting.

As an aside, this game certainly could've had more levels if they'd allocated their resources a bit better. While the mash-ups are fun, there are a few cases where they basically created an entirely new environment solely for the mash-up. (Look at the LocoRoco stage, and how there's an incredibly detailed robot/city in the background that really has nothing to do with the level). So there's a give-and-take there - do you prefer highly interactive levels with a lot going on, or having a huge selection of levels that are diverse because of how their platforms are laid out, what IPs they represent and what music you listen to on them?

Personally, I prefer Smash's approach. Melee had 29 stages and the vast majority were like Termina Bay or Fourside - a different way of laying out platforms and some AWESOME fanservice/music/details. But that's just me, and I know a lot of people love the mash-ups so I won't harp on that.

Sorry, this post ended up being massive.

TL;DR - Smash is amazing and is better than every other fighting game in the world when it comes to additional content.

Smash sells well because it is catered to Nintendo fans than hardcore fighting fans. Casual audience is larger than a hardcore fighting game audience. More sales doesn't equal more quality either.



then why is Brawl's metascore sitting at 93? compared to All-Stars' 75?


SF4, Tekken, etc. sell very well. and they do have casual fans. in fact there are more casuals playing an SF game than there are hardcore.
#36AgitoXIIIPosted 12/5/2012 2:53:21 PM
Crabhammar posted...
I know you have good intentions, but this thread can only lead to rage. You should close it now.

/topic (if the TC would actually listen to me)


Tch, the hell if the thread would "lead to rage" it's a good topic to bring up. It would only "lead to rage" because people on this forum know this is an inferior product that Smash.

This game was probably just thrown together anyway.
---
FINAL FANTASY XV
Please be a great game, we need you to be one.
#37ThaCMasterPosted 12/5/2012 2:57:43 PM(edited)
Gaming scores? Really, by biased reviewers who are paid to make those scores? Different companies give different scores for different games. That doesn't determine the quality of a game, especially at a high level.

The people who review those games and post a score don't even play the game on that level to begin with.

Almost every game has a larger casual base than a hardcore base considering hardcore players are a small percentage of players nowadays, but it doesn't mean they play the game for as long a time in as lengthy a scene. Modern fighters are catered more towards casual players, but they are generally more serious fighting games compared to Brawl.

Brawl was never intended to be a serious competitive game and it shows. It's more of a fun mascot fighter.

Chzrm3 posted...
ThaCMaster posted...
Smash sells well because it is catered to Nintendo fans than hardcore fighting fans. Casual audience is larger than a hardcore fighting game audience. More sales doesn't equal more quality either.


So how come MvC3 sold less than 2 million, while Brawl gets 11 million? Are you telling me there just aren't that many Marvel fans in the world? XD

Compare MvC3 to Smash and it's easy to see why Brawl sold over 5 times what MvC3 did.

Brawl's quality isn't higher because it sold more, either. The quality's higher because it's packed to the brim with fanservice. With music alone it's got over 200 tracks, what other fighting game even comes close?


Fanservice is there to appeal to casual fans. What makes a good fighting game good is good mechanics and depth, not fanservice. Those are bells and whistles you add later.

Marvel fans buy comics primarily. Sure you have people who buy it out of love for a character, but nowhere near how many nintendo fans play Smash. Marvel vs Capcom has had over a decade of competitive fighting as well. So it is more hardcore overall, though it is toned down.
---
PSN ID BigDaddyCMasta
www.thacmaster.proboards50.com
#38rumbalumbaPosted 12/5/2012 2:58:44 PM(edited)
^lol grasping at straws. if there's any company who doesn't need to pay reviewers, it's Nintendo.
#39ThaCMasterPosted 12/5/2012 3:00:07 PM(edited)
rumbalumba posted...
^lol grasping at straws. if there's any company who doesn't need to play reviewers, it's Nintendo.


You're the only person who is grasping at straws. Most companies want good reviews for their games so they sell. You're trying to use a reviewer score as a sign of game quality at a competitive level when your example doesn't work. I hope nobody is stupid enough to buy a game just based off a review of a certain company. Those reviewers are often wrong on many things.

Melee is considered a deeper game than Brawl despite Brawl selling better, so what does that mean?
---
PSN ID BigDaddyCMasta
www.thacmaster.proboards50.com
#40jamman1288Posted 12/5/2012 2:59:50 PM
Great Discussion going on!

I think that there is less stuff because PSASBR is the first they have released.