I would like 1080 Avalanche on any system from any developer. But the controller setup might be awkward on a different platform's configuration. As for different developers, and if it was the exact same game, then no I wouldn't care, I would love the EA developed 1080 just as much.
It has nothing to do with the developers, I just didn't like SSX.
You have a knack for blindy loving anything Nintendo makes, even when they screw up. They're a more consistently good developer than anyone else, but they have made some less-than-stellar games. Tell me, how did you like Luigi's Mansion?
...isn't SSX on the Gamecube? or am I mistaken? I thought I played the Gamecube version... Why is it that if I perfer a game within the same genre (Snowboarding) i'm labled as blind? Could it be that you're blind because you like SSX and not Avalanche? I doubt it, I bet you like it more for good reasons. But I like Avalanche for my own good reasons. My wife and I play Avalanche on the last level with the rocket board using the moose girl and we have a lot of fun... that's means we're blind?
Luigi's Mansion is a neat, but small game. It's really too short for my tastes. It's shorter than MGS on PSX. But the gameplay is addicting. More than anything, that game was released to help train people on using two control sticks at once. And it was neat seeing Luigi get his own game after all those years. Overall, it was a solid game but because of it's length, fell short in maintaining a place on the most wanted lists.
SSX was not made by Nintendo. And the GC port is the worst of all three, so there's that.
I believe you if you say that you like Avalanch more than SSX, but you're one of the most biased Nintendo fans that I know and can't see harm in anything that they do. You even defended their anti-online gaming stance, which even Laser Link thinks is insane. Nintendo is the best developer in the world, but they make plenty of mistakes.
I didn't defend their stance, i said i understood it and I hope they dont go online yet, since online gaming doesn't appeal to me the way it's implemented right now.
I understand that Nintendo makes mistakes constantly like any other big company. But what does that have to do with Avalanche or Luigi's Mansion? Do you condier those games to be failures?
Yes, when you compare them with Nintendo's usual high standards. Instead of a new Mario game at system launch we got Luigi's Mansion which is arguably their worst launch title ever, and 1080 Avalanche was surpassed by snowboarding games from other studios. Now I love Mario Sunshine and actually prefer it over Mario 64 because of it's higher difficulty, tighter controls, and superior level design (though apparently I'm in the minority in liking Sunshine more than M64), and I also think that Wind Waker is an incredible game (though I agree it's too easy), so you can't call me a GC-hater. I think that Nintendo as a whole has made more AAA titles in the past three years than they did in the N64's first three years, it's just that some of their titles having been especially lacking. I suppose with so much good there's bound to be some subpar bad ones, but still.
i would agree that Luigi's Mansion was a subpar launch title but not a subpar game. The game is way too short, but what game that is there is very good.
SSB:M was released a few weeks after launch, is that launch title? Miyamoto even sorta apologized for not having Mario Sinshine ready for launch, but I think it was just a marketing ploy. remember the N64 launch in Japan? People went ape shit for the N64 on its launch day and then brought them back a few weeks later because there was a lack of software for it and the japanese got sick of just Mario 64, PW64 and a chess game. So I think Nintendo put off a Mario game at launch to guarantee that it wouldn't happen again. "They will atleast wait until the new Zelda and Mario games are released"-kind of mentality.
They took almost an entire year to release Sunshine, and the game didn't even sell that well (by Mario standards), so I doubt that's it. Nintendo just takes extra long with their Mario platformers, and they weren't ready for the GC launch.
I'm pretty sure that was the marketing ploy they were after, although the sales didn't turn out the way they wanted. But that wasn't Mario's fault, the GC was already, within a year, branded as teh kiddy. Even though there isn't a soul on earth that hasn't played SSB:M. :D
I would say the NGC launch was quite succesful actually. With Rogue Leader taking a huge chunk of the pie and promises of new titles released every week after launch. I think Nintendo purposely stepped down from the launch line up to show the NGC's third party support. I would have to say Nintendo seemed pretty ready to me, but the gameplaying public just cannot stand to be branded as a person who likes 'children's games' even though the system with the most games for children has been the PSX by far with a hundred Mary kate and Ashley series, Barbie series, Elmo and Sesame Street series, Bob the Builder, Blue's Clues, etc etc. It's amazing how much the 'cool' factor can play in to the marketability of a tech device that plays entertainment software products, since PSX fans never cared that they were getting more 'kiddie' software than anyone else. But they were getting more software period. :D
A few notes, was that SSX Tricky you played or SSX 3? Having never played either SSX3 or Avalanche, I have no place saying which was better. That's especially true considering my stance on reviews, and how I will never shape up my opinion based on them. I just noticed a few feature list comparisons and Avalanche came up short. Eh, if I ever get a chance to play both, THEN I'll decide which one I like more. I've never been a FAN of sports games, but that doesn't mean I won't play them when offered to me, for example I enjoyed the diversion that was the skateboarding courses in MGS2 Substance.
Oh, a minor note lazy, MGSTS on GCN is EXACTLY as long as MGS on PS1. They added no story or anything else to it, just gameplay additions and an altered script (as in wording, not lengthier). Well, the cinema scenes are longer, but that's so you can laugh at how weird the previously human Snake looks jumping off the top of a missile and firing a stinger in mid air. Hmm... I just realized something, and I think lazy did too at that last remark in the context of... Well, never mind :D.
Honestly lazy, I too think that, as a business decision, Nintendo made what was likely a good decision not going for online play. However, as a consumer, I am TERRIBLY upset about that. I WANT to shoot a red shell at you in Mario Kart lazy! That could still happen if some tunnel better than Warp Pipe would show up. By "better" I mean of coure "about a skamillion times better", because Warp Pipe, while a great thing for beginners, which the makers it seems are, is certainly not anywhere near as good as similar software, XBConnect, which is really superb except that it's FAR too strict about routers right now.
Online play is something you should mess around with. I know you don't have an XBox or current gen PC, but I do assume you at least have a PC capable of playing Starcraft. You can get a bundle that has both SC and the expansion pack for $10 in most stores, so I REALLY hope you get it. I think you'd find that Blizzard has a VERY good online solution that works VERY well, with friends lists and easy match finding and everything. That's not even the best online matching there is though, that's just a very good example of how far it's come since the last online game you've likely played. WC3, and XBox Live for that matter, have a very nice system where the game itself will find a match for you. WC3 in particular will find one on your skill level based on your current ladder ranking. It's not particularly GOOD mind you, I still have my arse handed to me by the thing far more often than not. However, the ability to just start the game and say "find me a match" right off the menu without having to do anything else is FAR better than the ancient days of having to call your friends or go to a BBS and find someone's IP address and then type it in manually to get a match going (which by the way is what Warp Pipe does...).
Oh yes, regarding the whole setup needed just to get online. Yes, that's a problem. Online gaming is however mainly marketted to those who already HAVE a net connection, and thus already have all the hardware they need. In the case of the GCN, however, you need to get the online adapter yourself. So, essentially in the case of XBox, it's not really an issue since only those who already have an online connection are really interested, and thus everything they need is already there. However, for the others, you make the point that there's a chunk of hardware one needs just to get the game going. Pity the poor fellow playing the PS2 version of FFXI, who has to get the online adapter, the hard drive, the PS2, some USB keyboard and mouse, and THEN a big desk of some kind, JUST to get the game going. If not for the PC version, I doubt that game would be anywhere near as popular as it is.
Wow, that went over the list didn't it? Anyway, one last thing, you pointed out one thing. We all just ASSUMED that there are a LOT of people who are choosing to buy a game ONLY because of the online play feature in it. Considering that I bought Mario Kart Double Dash even though it didn't have online play, and that I've never NOT bought a game because it didn't have online play, that kinda proves that it's likely not a major decision for the actual BUYING of games. People will be dejected but get it anyway. I do know my friends however HAVE decided between two completely unknown games, that are very similar (two military style FPS games) and made up their mind ONLY due to the online play. The question is, how often does this happen? I'm starting to think it's just not often enough for Nintendo to justify the cost.
As a consumer, that makes me upset of course. I'm not their accountant, so I really don't care. I do however understand their decision. Until there's actual PROOF that there is a substantial number of people not buying Nintendo games due to lack of online play (which we just assumed to be the case, and as I should know, just because you THINK of a theory that works doesn't make it true, the fact that you can't disprove something isn't proof in and of itself), Nintendo likely won't change their stance. Well, I can still hope. Besides, I figure if the costs for online games are reduced enough, Nintendo WILL go ahead and start adding that capability.
One last thing, I still refuse to buy Nintendo's current statement about why they aren't doing it. Their statement being that online play "isn't something that really enhances gameplay" is likely just a line for the press, and not their actual thoughts.
lazyfatbum Wrote:I'm pretty sure that was the marketing ploy they were after, although the sales didn't turn out the way they wanted. But that wasn't Mario's fault, the GC was already, within a year, branded as teh kiddy. Even though there isn't a soul on earth that hasn't played SSB:M. :D
I would say the NGC launch was quite succesful actually. With Rogue Leader taking a huge chunk of the pie and promises of new titles released every week after launch. I think Nintendo purposely stepped down from the launch line up to show the NGC's third party support. I would have to say Nintendo seemed pretty ready to me, but the gameplaying public just cannot stand to be branded as a person who likes 'children's games' even though the system with the most games for children has been the PSX by far with a hundred Mary kate and Ashley series, Barbie series, Elmo and Sesame Street series, Bob the Builder, Blue's Clues, etc etc. It's amazing how much the 'cool' factor can play in to the marketability of a tech device that plays entertainment software products, since PSX fans never cared that they were getting more 'kiddie' software than anyone else. But they were getting more software period. :D
Well it's not like it wasn't Nintendo's fault. They
did release a console that looked like an ez-bake oven, after all.
Backl on topic, here are some intriguing new MP2 details from
IGN:
Quote:April 30, 2004 - Moments ago Nintendo officially revealed some more details about the highly anticipated sequel Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. The basic concept behind the story has Samus returning to another mysterious planet to exterminate evil. As long as she finds it. Only this time Samus will find her new battlegrounds torn in half, a world of light and darkness. As Samus, players will have to travel between the light and dark parts of this world, and the gameplay dynamics will of course be affected by this. We'll be able to explain exactly how it all works as E3 gets closer.
Also, the design demonstrates a similarity to the Game Boy Advance's Metroid Fusion in that our heroine Samus will be hunted by an evil enemy; we imagine that this new create will be the designated assassin or terminator to Samus. Looks like exploring the new light and dark lands of this world might have players jumping out of their space boots.
Lastly, a few more details regarding the multiplayer battle have been divulged. The mode supports up to four players, deathmatch style. Essentially it's just as you'd imagine, where the multiplayer dynamics revolve around searching for weapon upgrades and chasing your enemy down. With the lock-on mechanics likely coming in to play, the Morph Ball will come in to play to help players escape when they aren't ready for a face-to-face shootout. Levels will also demonstrate some complexity with shortcuts, and players will be able to escape or attack by taking advantage of strategically placed grapple points on the ceilings.
That's all the latest we have for now, but check back shortly before E3 and we'll have even more.
Interesting, like lazy suggested there is going to be an SA-X-like person hunting you throughout the game. Those were some of the coolest, most tense moments in Fusion so I am definitely looking forward to that. Hopefully they will tie the story to Fusion.
The multiplayer sounds cool, though I hope it's more than just deathmatch.
GOTY 2004. :)
MP2 looks better and better the more we hear about it.
Retro Studios = Awesome not unlike Bo Jackson.
It's not an easy bake oven! It's a cool retro-fitted design that's based on the new generation's values of symmatry and.... yeah it's an easy bake oven... :D
But the PS2 is a formless brick, and the XBox atleast has the big green insignia but is still a formless brick 3 times the size of the PS2, the only system this gen that actually looks cool is the GBA SP. I hope next gen the smooth and sleek style comes back. Curves are good for consoles.
DJ/ I dunno which SSX I played and from what I remember it did look to have more features and it is a very well made game. EA has a really strong series for itself. I think what companies realized, after the release of Waverace and the first 1080 is that snowboarding, or any sport racing doesn't have to be a sports game if you implement it as a racing game with tricks and jumps, the same formula that made Wave Race so popular. It (the design) started a whole genre on N64 where racing was the main goal and tricks was left for more advanced players just to show off, then came Snowboard Kids, Excitebike 64 and all kinds of games using the same design instead of being a straight racing game or a straight tricks game, or the worst in my opinion; the techie games where pulling off a trick requires you to read a manual. The first 1080 had a taste of that, but that's why most players dont pull off 1080's while racing. :D
As far as online play, I want it to the point that I turn on my GC, and start up Metroid Prime 2. I go to the multiplayer menu and there's a menu item marked as "Online death match". I go there, and I get a list of who's playing Metroid Prime 2 in the world right now. I click on the name "Dark Jaguar: Warrior Prince/Princess you decide, or not - I'm comfortable with my mascuninity" and then ask you to play with me by sending you a message either verbally or by text (I would prefer the headphone/mic setup like Xbox has). You reply and confirm that you want to play. The level loads and we play a two player Death Match, or a 20 player death match with all kinds of TC peoples. And it's full screen for each person playing, and there's no lag, no jumpyness and everything is super smooth. If Nintendo can do that, then by God Nintendo needs to get their ass in gear. If they cant, they should, in my opinion, wait until the technology is there.
I keep thinking about the Virual Boy... Gumpie designed it, he also designed the Gameboy and lots of awesome games, he had the Shiggy magic touch. Gumpie wanted it to be in color but wanted to keep price down. If he would have waited until technology caught up to his demands, Nintendo could have released a better system that people would have immeadiately loved, instead of hating it the first time they see the red and black graphics. And that hurt Nintendo alot, their first complete failure in every sense of the word. I bet they had alot of meeting about that and i bet they all decided to look before they jump next time, and that's what they're doing with online play. Nintendo wants to release the best and easiest to use online gameplay system the world has ever seen, and they just cant do it yet and keep the price reasonable.
Using the same example, you may not agree, but the entire industry will eventually go true 3-D through headsets, glasses or consoles that dont need a TV to be played, every developer wants their game to be in true 3-D and they're all biting their time until it gets here, the VB could have been the system to push the whole thing in to existence but instead, pushed it back. Imagine what would happen to online play if Nintendo could make it cheap, effective and a thousand times better than anything out there today. We're not the only people with dreams of seeing virtual chat rooms where you walk around in a 3-D RPG environment and converse with people you can actually see and interact with, where just chatting on a message board is an RPG all itself, it's coming and I think Nintendo is going to put it on the map.
And yeah, Nintendo formed that line as a "here, this'll shut you up" statement. :D
On topic, i really hope that in the DM of Prime 2, when you get locked on by another player you can somehow wiggle out of it, maybe by charging your beam cannon to give off too much interference to be locked on to or maybe counter measures like on a submarine. You get locked on, you fire a missile (or something similar) and the lock on will follow that, instead of you.
Have you played on X-Box Live yet? The process is incredibly simple. Boot up a game, go to multiplayer, enter a match. Or just go to your friends list before or after you put a game in and see what they're playing and join them or invite them to play a game with you.
It's not like X-Box Live is the only simple online system... plenty of PC games have easy-to-use ones, though you do often need to coordinate with them (for a FPS with the normal 'just a list of servers' structure, or for which zone in a thing like Battle.Net)... but still it isn't exactly super complex. And with a console one you'd need to coordinate anyway if you wanted to reliably be on at the same time... unlike a PC (IM program, that is) you probably wouldn't just be on all the time...
It may not be a money-maker, but it increases sales and makes people like you more...
Oh, and the Virtual Boy probably was just ahead of its time. As in, no good then but in the future the idea of VR has promise.
lazyfatbum Wrote:or the worst in my opinion; the techie games where pulling off a trick requires you to read a manual.
THANK YOU! That's EXACTLY my opinion on games like Tony Hawk and such! I believe all that holds me back from liking those games is the fact that there's NO way I could EVER learn all the complicated junk needed to do ANY sort of cool trick and all I ever do is the classic face plant. It's the SAME reason I only like certain fighting games. Having to memorize extremely complicated controls for each move is NOT fun. However, as in Super Smash Bros, where simplicity was the goal from the START, you memorize EVERY move the second you memorize ONE, the smash, and then you can very quickly just learn the physics and figure out the game the way GOD meant it to be learned, long ago when He first forged "Super Angel Wars Mega Hyper Kensutso Magic Massive Online Showdown Fasion Show Dance Dance Super Happy Fun Time Yeah!" and gave it to Adam and Eve.
lazyfatbum Wrote:As far as online play, I want it to the point that I turn on my GC, and start up Metroid Prime 2. I go to the multiplayer menu and there's a menu item marked as "Online death match". I go there, and I get a list of who's playing Metroid Prime 2 in the world right now. I click on the name "Dark Jaguar: Warrior Prince/Princess you decide, or not - I'm comfortable with my mascuninity" and then ask you to play with me by sending you a message either verbally or by text (I would prefer the headphone/mic setup like Xbox has). You reply and confirm that you want to play. The level loads and we play a two player Death Match, or a 20 player death match with all kinds of TC peoples. And it's full screen for each person playing, and there's no lag, no jumpyness and everything is super smooth. If Nintendo can do that, then by God Nintendo needs to get their ass in gear. If they cant, they should, in my opinion, wait until the technology is there.
You should know lazy that we ARE at that level, except for the "no lag ever" part already! That's EXACTLY how it works right now! You just turn on teh game, select multiplayer mode, a list of games being played RIGHT NOW shows up, you select who you want to face, and the match starts RIGHT up! You can also create your own and just wait a few seconds for people to start joining up, and you can ALSO tell it to show your friends and see what they are doing, send them invites, with voice in XBox Live, and see if they show up, or just talk to them and get them to invite you.
Now for the BAD news. Human beings, unlike technology, can be complete jerks. Penny Arcade sorta emphasizes this in many of their comics. You join a random match, and you are INSTANTLY kicked and given no explanation. The least they could do is tell you why you are going to be kicked out first. You are ABOUT to win, and suddenly they just quit to avoid having that loss recorded.
On the technical side, in your efforts to dream of this setup, which so you know already exists and does work very well indeed, far better than what you have apparently last used (seriously, you need, NEED to play a current era online game, so you would KNOW what things are like now and THEN come up with a new brilliant way to solve the existing problems, as opposed to being perpetually stuck in the past when things sucked), you failed to see the weaknesses of it. However, it fits in with the idea that it's not nearly perfect yet. Often times, on older systems mainly, there is a delay between the matches it SAYS are there and what is ACTUALLY there, so you may join a game only to find that it's already started, or that it doesn't actually exist any more. Other technical flaws that happen in some setups result in not EVERY game even being shown on the list. Finally, due to current server limitations, very often they have to have multiple servers set up, so you may not see your friend ONLY because they aren't on your server. Indeed, this is likely the biggest flaw of all, and it's all due to how the internet currently works.
Also, the lag. While lag is MOSTLY gone from broadband, it DOES still show up now and again there. One reason is because very often broadband companies will give you LOTS of downwidth, but only a 10th of that speed in upwidth. If you are an online gamer, you are screwed because most of these companies just give you a blank look and then say "no" when you ask them if there's any way, even one that involes an additional payment, to boost the upwidth to the same as the downwidth. Most of the time, it's not an issue. Sometimes though, it is, and gets annoying. Also, sometimes someone with a pathetic connection will show up and ruin things.
Finally, sometimes stability will get so bad that it frustrates you into not even wanting to play for that day. You are certainly able to find your friend and start up a game with ease and intuition under OPTIMAL network conditions, but then some network conjestion occurs, and many stupid things start stacking up, like you inviting your friend, but the connection being dropped sometime into the match, or JUST before the match starts. Right after that, you don't even see your friend online, but they see you, and start yelling at you over the phone, which suddenly became needed ONLY because of these issues (in optimal conditions, the phone is obsolete).
In any case, your method IS in use, and works great when the network is working great. It's just that currently the internet is FAR too unstable for it to ever really be perfect. On the OTHER hand, there are SOME games I've played where the network has NEVER ONCE had ANY flaws and ALWAYS works optimally. Warcraft 3 for example has never screwed up on me in any of these ways.
Regarding that magical realm where you can walk around and talk rather than just use a chat room, you must have never used V-chat. MS created that long ago with JUST that purpose, and aside from the horrible lag of the era, it was indeed VERY fun. You used a 2d avatar (and by the way, thank all that is holy for the ability to block custom avatars on specific users), and just roamed around a virtual environment using the "local" chat option most of the time, which, as in real life, let your words only be "heard" by people nearby (about 10 digital meters), or "shout" so everyone had to hear you. I liked hanging around the virtual alien world and hiding in the moon. Or, the mountain lodge and hanging out in the rafters. Just casual talkin' style fun. Of course, the technology REALLY wasn't up to the task at the time, and due to lag that happened far too often, MS stopped the service. Some people to this day STILL have their own servers set up for it though (it used custom IRC channels).
Anyway, once they finally iron out the stability issues, making all online usage as reliable as picking up the phone or turning on the TV, then online gaming should meet even your standards. Truth be told, it's not yet up to my own standards either, but I'm willing to deal with the occasional super annoying network problems considering the absolute fun and ease of use I can get the REST of the time.
So, your ideal Metroid Prime 2 online play setup is already being used in other games, but it's not ACTUALLY perfectly ideal. Just tolerable. I'd still want it though :D.
About the Virtual Boy, there were enough problems with that to really make it a stinker in all senses, but yes I agree the idea of a 3D system as opposed to current 2D displays really is a goal that needs to be fully examined. The VB was very bad, but not TOO many changes need be made. First off, if it's going to be portable, it should BE portable. That means letting you SEE WHERE YOU ARE. I think the solution there would be imax style glasses. The less of the "grey" you see while playing, the better. In the case of home systems, people like letting others see what they are doing, or some people like just watching (honestly, I find it boring to watch others play games, it's why I'm not a sports fan), but anyway, a 3D system others can watch is needed. Also, in those cases, everyone should share the SAME view, normally. So, once again an imax style 3D glasses solution is nice. It's just not something most people like the idea of, having to equip something whereas before they just DID. So, EYE SURGERY! :D Well, I'd do it because I'm all for ditching the human body in favor of a GIANT MECHA DEATH CANNON that can't really move around much and is really a sitting duck, but it LOOKS cool, but others wouldn't obviously :D. So, there's another "washing machince" style 3d system. It's got a giant screw, like a waching machine, that makes one, just one, full rotation that stretches from top to bottom around the center. Light, perfectly timed to the spinning, bounces off the super reflective screw at just the right time to produce a 3D image. Currently, last I checked, it has a very low resolution (measured in "voxels" on this device), and a very noticable flicker at that, but it's at least usable for military purposes. That COULD work for a TV of the future, set in the center. However, there would be things some people could see that others couldn't. That could be a good thing or a bad thing. As a bad side, you would have to watch it many times to see everything about a scene. As a good side... you would have to watch it many times to see everything about a scene :D. It would also make for a much more communicative experience when watching it with many people. Someone may ask "why did that guy die?" and someone else could say "oh, on my side I saw him get hit with a poison dart".
Virtua Fighter 4 features a long series of in-depth tutorials, and even though there are plenty of complex button combos in the game, it's not what the fighting system is about and you can easily beat someone without super fancy button combos.
If you don't like fighting games that's fine, but saying that a game should be shallow just because you don't want to learn how to play it well in a tutorial or wherever is pretty dumb. SSB is good in a four-person pillow fight sort of way. SSB is Mario Kart while Virtua Fighter is Gran Turismo (if GT were a bit better :) ).
Well that's fine for people who enjoy 'simulator' type software. But it's a pretty far cry from a 'video game' where the point is 'ease of interaction and playability for the purposes of fun'. The fun in Virtua Fighter for example is learning the complex moves and then being able to pull them off. The fun in SSB:M is that you get to fight Dragonball style with such perfect interaction that a newbie player can think "I want to throw them over there and then kick them" can easily pull it off, while a master player can do some insane things to you before you can move.
I mean most of the time which would you rather play, Mario Kart, F-Zero, etc or Gran Turismo, flight sims, or one of those incredibly detailed spec games where there's a billion ways to win or lose? I like simple in racing games: Go faster than everyone else OR be a dirty bastard and use weapons and shortcuts to piss off the better players. :D And simple fighting games: Strategize your attack patterns and K.O. your opponent. I dont want to lose just because I forgot the 13th button input in the 14 button combo move. There's no skill there nor is there skill in the game's programing. If I want to do a major combo on you, it should (IMO) be intuitive and seamless from my hands to the screen in a logical translation of controller moves to character actions, memorization should play only a small part. Just like real fighting - You have to think on your toes and change up your attacks and defenses.
Exactly my thoughts. While complexity can be a real bonus often times, I don't think it should be in that I need to memorize complicated controls. Put the complexity into some really neat RPG battle system instead.
Complex games reward those who work the hardest [usually], so by mastering the game you show your video game prowess. Something like that, I guess.
Always? Nope, there are plenty of fighting games where button-mashing will win almost as well as lots of practice will... Virtua Fighter 4 is of course the opposite of such games. :)
I like both. In general, that is... over genres. In fighting games... I don't know. SSB does have depth, it's just a different kind from CvS2. I think both games are fun. I don't dislike CvS2 for having special moves you have to memorize... sure you have to memorize, but at least it lists them in the game, and anyway... practice SHOULD make you better at games. They shouldn't have impossible difficulty curves, but you should get better with practice...
In racing games... yeah, I like simple. But in strategy games, I like complex... simple isn't awful, but it's not as good. Though, there is a limit... The Settlers is just tedious, for instance. A balance, like the perfect balance Blizzard hits, is best. Oh, and if it must be slow, make it really fun... see, Civilization... (I think Age of Empires is a somewhat dissapointing series, BTW, despite how good it is, because it's a super slow paced RTS that is trying to be more like Civ but just doesn't quite make it... it ends up being just very slow paced. Fun, yes, but not as good as either Warcraft or Civilization...)
Well the fact is that you DO get better with practise. The beginner has a chance, but the pro really does still have an advantage even in SSB. They are on even footing though because the beginner can easily learn all the moves the pro knows, and it's just the strategies, how to use the moves, and timing, and things like that, where the difference shows up, not in who remembers the passwords the best.
Even footing? I wouldn't say so. The pro will win, a lot more. Sure, they don't have the memorization skill curve, but SSB has a skill curve... better players will win.
That's what I just said, almost word for word.
it should also be noted that Virtua Fighter has a ceiling as far as how well the game can be played. For example, once you master the counter and block moves the only person that could beat you is someone who mastered block and counter breakers. Now if someone mastered the block and counter moves, AND the counter breaker moves they are completely unstoppable. Nothing can take them down. If a person with the same abilities versed him, it would be a long fight of seeing who can get a hit or grab in.
In SSB:M there is no ceiling. I could completely master Meteor attacks. But Meteor attacks take time to charge, not to mention how slow they are once they come out. I could master Smash attacks but then again, they're still slow and easy to block. I could master the swift attacks but then what do I do when a player comes at me with projectiles? What about grabbing and throwing? if I could master that i'm invincible right? Hell no. No matter what, no matter how good you are, there will be times where you left open for attack and you must take this in to consideration when strategizing your pattern. Because there's no "Learning limit" you can play against a human player in SSB:M for YEARS and never learn everything there is to do against a particular player since everyone who plays SS:B plays it uniquely; There is no "best way".
With Virtua Fighter, within 6 months I would be industructible to CPU or human players simply because I was able to memorize what moves I need at the right time I need them. Once you reach that apex; the gameplay is dead and quickly becomes stale. You've become so good, there is nothing more to do or learn. SSB:M will never have that problem - even the intermediate players can combat a master because the master will always be changing up his strat and techniques on the fly to combat the player's style, making limitless playability and still maintaining an order of what makes a player a good player, and what makes them bad.
A master SSB:M player though, will have reflexes like you've never seen before. I dont have it, i've only seen it at public challenges at comic shops and the like. But it's incredible, and is true gaming skill at its finest.
I wouldn't call reflexes the primary skill of gaming, so much as adaptability, but I kinda think that's what you were getting at. Indeed, as a kid I started thinking about enemies and why my character would be able to beat them. At the time, I simply came to the conclusion that mobility is the absolute key to any character's superiority, and in a way that's true, but the truth is that it's the adaptibility. While the computer is flying around in patterns, the human is learning and developing their own patterns. They may not have extremely sharp reflexes like the computer does, but they have the ability to develop methods to get AROUND that. For example, facing against dark sims in Perfect Dark, it's obvious that in pure reflex time and speed, the computer wins hands down and always will. One must develop techniques, methods that exploit the complete static nature of the AI's programming, in order to win. Once one adapts to that, they will be able to defeat the enemy DESPITE the superior reflex speed, and eventually it will be a repeatable performance as the human adapts further and further until all the weaknesses are uncovered and exploited. Facing humans is different, but the key is that the game has to give the player the freedom to ALLOW adaptability. If the game limits the ways the player can race, or fight, or shoot, then the replay value against other humans is killed. Just about every FPS my friends and I ever called "teh suck" had the same flaw, not enough freedom. They might have cool weapons with nice abilities, or a neat battle system in THEORY, but if the gameplay in the end only allows ONE style of fighting, there's no adaptability, and the match goes to the one who targetted the other's head first. While that's SOMETHING, it's not enough.
Yeah lazy, I think we pretty much agree here too.
You're right, it is adaptability. That's a really good point. Reflexes are the byproduct of adaptability since you're reacting to a pattern in animation or action. Master SSB:M players have amazing reflexes and that has everything to do with adapting to the characters fighting styles, speed, timing and other changing factors like what item you have, or might be used against you at any given time and of course what mode you're playing in.
Good point, DJ. I would say the underlining concept of adapting the player to ideals in interaction or story rhythm is one of the major pieces to the game development core. Adapting the audience to a particular style of storytelling is also important in film.
VF isn't about pulling off super long and complex button combos. You can use them, but you can just as easily beat someone with very simple button combos if you know how to parry, counter, dodge, etc. It's much more like real fighting than Street Fighter is. I'm really bad at memorizing long combos which is why I've never been a hardcore Street Fighter fan, but with VF where fighting is much more like real life fighting than any other game is, I am much better at it. The focus of real fighting is countering your opponent's moves, finding their weakness and striking where appropriate. It's true that you can usually find a pattern to easily beat the CPU or people who use pattern of their own, but if you fight against someone who knows how the game should be played, you can have a very fun, unpredictable match. Now of course, no video game could be just like fighting in real life as there is simply no control device available that can simulate it, but Virtua Fighter is as close as video games have gotten. It's much easier to recreate driving than fighting.