[quote=@Dynamo Frokane] [@Fabricant451] Yeah yeah, give me some functional ways in which Tekken and Soul Calibur have changed and innovated over the years. I'd love to hear them. Apart from adding super moves and characters because Smash has done that too.[/quote] Tekken literally innovated the 3D tag genre which also came with the combo tag mechanic that let you tag in the middle of combos to keep them going into new combos. DoA2 brought the notion of tag chemistry to the mix to innovate on top of that. Tekken 7 literally added new mechanics - and if you think it's just 'super moves' then congrats on not knowing what you're talking about. That's not even getting into the balance changes, new/different functions, characters don't just come to the game with the exact same moves. Unlike Smash Brothers where the demo literally showed that most characters change comes in their supers or their graphical detail. Tekken 7 also implements meter characters for the first time, making typically 2D mechanics work in the 3D environment, and they changed the way air combos work with the Screw Attack aspect. Tekken 3 literally third axis motion which went on to become a core mechanic of the series. Soul Calibur, by virtue of being developed in the same company as Tekken, is also a series that evolves its gameplay while also playing and feeling different as a 3D fighter. SC6 is adding reversals and parries to it, which is innovating upon and expanding the Guard Impacts. SC 5 added the Quick Step which allowed faster sidestepping and less reliance on the 8 way run, which SC was also the innovator of. There's a reason those two franchises are kind of the staple of 3D fighters, because they innovated the wheel and continued to improve upon and build upon the systems. [quote]Funny how you grand stand about judging a game on its own merits but make zero actual points about what the franchise is doing wrong and how it can improve. What standard does it fail on exactly? Being a Mascot Party Fighter filled to the brim with fanservice?[/quote] Smash Brothers won't ever improve because that's not what the series is about. It's not trying to be a serious fighting game despite the whinging from its community who only ever want the game to be as close to Melee as humanly possible. The most 'fundamental' changes are determined based on outside information; Mario throws Cappy instead of a cape, Link's bombs are remote, and if you think that's on any level similar to literally adding new mechanics then you're crazy. Smash Brothers Brawl's biggest change was 'sometimes characters just randomly trip and fall'. Smash Brothers is like the Mario Party of 'fighting games'. Inputs are the same. Animations are the same. The change to characters is in what comes out after the Smash Orb. It's a stale franchise that deals in nostalgia rather than any meaningful change in dynamic or mechanic. What is the franchise doing [i]right[/i] that it gets away with literally selling you the same game but this one has fucking Ridley in it. [quote]Guilty of fucking WHAT?[/quote] Guilty of being stale, which you accuse [i]better games[/i] of being despite Smash being staler than day old bread. Your entire argument is "WELL THESE OTHER GAMES DON'T INNOVATE SO SMASH DOESN'T HAVE TO EITHER!" when that's just blatantly untrue. So I ask you: What has Smash done to evolve the game in a meaningful way? Tripping? Smash players want the game to be taken seriously as a fighting game but it won't ever be with all the nothing it adds to the actual fighting mechanics, such as they are. [quote]Not being a game fabricant likes? Jesus christ you could fill a police state with games guilty of that.[/quote] Oh yeah because you're just Mr. Loves Video Games over here. [quote]Fighting games rarely innovate.[/quote] Oh, you're serious. Oh okay. [quote]They add characters and moves, if there is some Fabricant and Mara secret to making amazing games in that genre I'd love to hear them. If not then shut the fuck up.[/quote] I've got a secret: Don't make them like fucking Smash Brothers. Worked out well for Playstation All Stars. [quote]Smash is LITERALLY doing the opposite of being seen as legitimate fighting game, with direct quotes from the developers about how it was always supposed to be a party game and not alienate the casual crowd.[/quote] Yeah that's why they added Omega stages and the community bitched until Evo threw them bones because it got them money. [quote]And since when is game's worth based on it's standing in the competitive scene? You already consider Virtua Fighter to be high quality fighting game, how popular is it on the competitive scene right now? (or ever).[/quote] About as popular as any other dead franchise. VF5 was at EVO. It was absolutely popular in its time. Virtua Fighter 4 before that. If they ever made a VF6 it would be popular. Virtua Fighter is also quite niche. Given the nature of fighting games you'd have to be on some kind of other level of thought if you think a game's standing in the competitive scene doesn't play a factor in its popularity. Otherwise Marvel Infinite would still be relevant. Fighting games are not made for the casual audience first, outside of Netherrealm games and SFV. Smash is the ultimate casual friendly game and as a fighting game it is fucking lame. As a party game it's whatever, it's better than Mario Party. But Smash is a [i]fighting game[/i]. Smash wants to be taken seriously as a fighting game, it's subject to the same scrutiny as any serious fighting game. [quote]Yeah it is a shame, I guess I'll have to make do with your isometric cyberpunk 'Retraux' RPG where the edgy white protaganist says nigga along with the crappy low-fi hip hop soundtrack. Cant wait. [/quote] Throw some anime tits in there and you'll probably lap it up.