Well the question's simple, do you think fighting games are an interesting genre for video games to continue to explore, or what? I don't, I think that playing soul caliber 4, 3, or Mortal Kombat is all the same. You pretty much memorize a few good combo's for a character then proceed to annoy your friends who play it with you, rinse wash, and repeat for every fighting game in the HISTORY OF THE EVER-LOVIN' UNIVERSE!!! but thats just me, what do you think?

Well you could say that in the same way that you can say "You've played one FPS, you've played them all." or "If you'ev played one puzzle game, you've played them all."

If you boil any game down, it's exactly the same as others.

I dont like them. Maybe it is because I suck, but they feel too much like random button mashing.

Amnestic:
Well you could say that in the same way that you can say "You've played one FPS, you've played them all." or "If you'ev played one puzzle game, you've played them all."

If you boil any game down, it's exactly the same as others.

I'd have to disagree. While if you look at a game on paper they all look very silmilar it's the actual experience that counts. To me all fighting games FEEL the same, they all also have silmilar visual styles(the only difference is when they were made) and bugger all story or plot. I can't say the same thing about most FPS's. Thats purely opinion but im inclined to think most people would agree with me.

Amnestic:
If you boil any game down, it's exactly the same as others.

Not really. When you're playing Starcraft, you don't memorize a rigid 10-button sequence that will always destroy the enemy's expansion. There's a general guideline of building a certain combination of units and attacking in a certain way, but you have to change it a lot depending on what side the opponent picked, the map, the stage of the game, your relative economic and military strength and so on.

But combos don't really change, as far as I know. You either use combo X or pick another one.

I think a great example of this is AI. It's very easy to put in an unbeatable AI difficulty since it has perfect memory and reflexes. It's much harder to come up with a really good RTS AI that doesn't cheat (by getting free resources or better unit stats).

I used to own Tekken 2 and I thought that was the shit. I then tried Tekken 3 with the whole beating up loads of dudes Streets of Rage style mini game and thought... This is also this shit. However, I was like 11 and after playing the later Tekkens and other fighting games I realised they were all pretty much the same thing. When I am browsing games in shops and I see one that looks half decent only to turn it over and see that it is a fighting game, it's straight back on the shelf. If you ask me, fighting games have passed their prime. Saying that, I would still love to have another whirl on Tekken 2.

Not really. When you're playing Starcraft, you don't memorize a rigid 10-button sequence that will always destroy the enemy's expansion. There's a general guideline of building a certain combination of units and attacking in a certain way, but you have to change it a lot depending on what side the opponent picked, the map, the stage of the game, your relative economic and military strength and so on.

But combos don't really change, as far as I know. You either use combo X or pick another one.

I suppose I should have specified (check my goalpost moving here) that I meant boil any genre down, all games are the same. In effect, you're playing Starcraft and, just like any other RTS, there's resource management and destroying enemey units+buildings.

I was mostly responding to the title of the thread with my original post anyway, as opposed to the actual meat of the topic.

I'd have to disagree. While if you look at a game on paper they all look very silmilar it's the actual experience that counts. To me all fighting games FEEL the same, they all also have silmilar visual styles(the only difference is when they were made) and bugger all story or plot. I can't say the same thing about most FPS's. Thats purely opinion but im inclined to think most people would agree with me.

That's fair enough. Though I must ask how you would compare the visual styles of the DBZ fighting game series to say Soul Calibur or DOA. :P Personally DOA, while feeling similar to Tekken, felt vastly different to Soul Calibur in my opinion. Conversely, I found the Medal of Honor series and the CoD series (up to 3, anyway) very similar. Obviously this doesn't count for all series and it's subjective to hell and back, but I was just saying, if you boil a genre down to terms of "Fighting game" and "FPS" they're all the same. It's what's built on top which makes them different. Soul Calibur series had an entirely different fighting pace to DOA for me.

Not a Spy:
Well the question's simple, do you think fighting games are an interesting genre for video games to continue to explore, or what? I don't, I think that playing soul caliber 4, 3, or Mortal Kombat is all the same. You pretty much memorize a few good combo's for a character then proceed to annoy your friends who play it with you, rinse wash, and repeat for every fighting game in the HISTORY OF THE EVER-LOVIN' UNIVERSE!!! but thats just me, what do you think?

Well, because I can.... ^ Pretty Much This!

Different fighting games feel different. You simply can't compare a Guilty Gear match to a Virtua Fighter bout, and Soul Calibur is in no way the same thing as King of Fighters.

As with many games, what you get out of it is largely dependent on what you put into it, and your particular skill level. If you never get past button mashing, or simply pick one character, memorize a few combos, and only play against people who do the same, then yes, you're going to have a very flat experience. Put two people who truly understand the game up against each other, and it's a joy to behold.

Of course, not everyone is going to enjoy fighting games enough to want to put in that kind of effort, much the same way not everyone enjoys FPSes enough to learn the maps and suchlike.

Most fighting games (while we're at it, most insert genre here games) always feel the same. The fun comes when the developer can throw a curve ball at you, and show you something you haven't seen before. (Ex: Hybrid Heaven for the N64. Great fighting game.)

I disagree. Gran Turismo is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY different than Need For Speed, and just as different from Enthusia, even though both Gran Turismo and Enthusia are racing games that focus purely on realism...

But fighting games all feel the same to me...

Gran Turismo is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY different than Need For Speed, and just as different from Enthusia, even though both Gran Turismo and Enthusia are racing games that focus purely on realism...

But fighting games all feel the same to me...

Well see, that's your opinion. That's fine. I find all racing games the same, whereas fighting games I can find drastically different from each other. Probably has something to do with what Susan Arendt said. I never get into racing games deep enough to notice a major difference between them, whereas I can sink myself into fightings games. It's not a problem, I was just raising the point that labling all fighting games the same wouldn't technically be correct. It'd just be ones opinion.

Oh, I KNOW that all games are different, even if just in controller setup, but they all FEEL the same as far as characters and lack of development in them...

Darth Mobius:
I disagree. Gran Turismo is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY different than Need For Speed, and just as different from Enthusia, even though both Gran Turismo and Enthusia are racing games that focus purely on realism...

But fighting games all feel the same to me...

I'd say that racing games are even more similar to each other than fighting games. Because if your REALLY good at fighting games you don't lose to people who just mash buttons(except if they happen to perfectly block everything and do massive combos).
And racing games have more similar controls.
Edit: Also fighting games have more character development than racing games(mostly).

i guess different gamers feel the impact of changes in a genre more or less depending on thier tastes. Ie: an Fps fan is sure to feel that Halo 1 and 3 were dramitically different but might see virtua fighter and street fighter as the same. The inverse is true (i guess) about fighting game fans, they see the differences between soul caliber and Tekken as mountainous. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

To the untrained eye all fighting games are the same however..

VF5 is nothing like Tekken, Tekken is nothing like Soul Caliber ect ect.

Tekken is more of an arcade, fast action button mash-er where you gotta keep up the attack while watching out for counters and vise versa

VF (I havnt played too much of this one) is a lot more detailed, slower and focuses on hitting at the right time and the right spot .. Kinda like a shit advance rock papper sissors.. Pretty realistic compared to the others

Soul calliber is about the character, some have a long reach, some a fast, some a great and getting in close. Makes you think

MK is focuses on combos, gore and special moves

Street fighter (starting with SF II) first introduced individual characters having diffrent stats. When MK was king it had diffrent characters with the same stats but diffrent special moves (freezing people, using lightning ect). With street fighter all the characters had pros and cons (aside form there moves) some had lots of health but were slow, other were all rounders.

So yeah.. Thats my take on it all

That's why there is a thing called "Genres". FPS. Point, shoot, kill, move on. Unless they have added some innovative new feature, like bullet time, I've never had to read the manual or instructions for an FPS.

As for Fighting Games, I almost always have to. Most people cry "button mash" and those people lose to me.

Also, for those who like it. Who remembers one of the best, and probably most realistic fighting game ever... Bushido Blade?

I think one of the factors that can show how fighting games differentiate is how your skill in one game may not match up in any other.

Example: Virtua Fighter is probably the most technical fighting game series around. It is very obvious when you go up against somebody way above your skill level in VF because you get decimated. But as mentioned before, VF is a little bit on the slower side of fighting games. Then there is what I consider to be the greatest fighting game series, Guilty Gear. Though still very technical, it isn't VF. But on the other hand, Guilty Gear games have an almost unmatched speed. A player very good at one my find him/herself terrible at the other.

Turbine2k5:
Most fighting games (while we're at it, most insert genre here games) always feel the same. The fun comes when the developer can throw a curve ball at you, and show you something you haven't seen before.

Or when your character throws a train at the opponent.

They're fun, but very, very similiar. Of course, Guility Gear has its special bullshit, Mortal Kombat has its Fatalities, Soul Calibur has its weapons, but it all limits to hardcore button mashing.

Which is not bad, but gets tiring after a while.

Not a Spy:
i guess different gamers feel the impact of changes in a genre more or less depending on thier tastes. Ie: an Fps fan is sure to feel that Halo 1 and 3 were dramitically different but might see virtua fighter and street fighter as the same. The inverse is true (i guess) about fighting game fans, they see the differences between soul caliber and Tekken as mountainous. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

yes ^^

I voted 'fun but a bit similar'. I think all genres suffer from this, but it depends on how much variety there is in playing the game...

Fighting: there is only really basic movement actions (attacking, blocking, combos) so they suffer a lot from being the same because they have nothing else than the core gameplay
Shooter: there is the core, aim&shoot, but then the game can gravitate to different things. NPC interaction, level design, RPG-like skill-ups, puzzles, platforming... shooters can be more 'not-alike' than fighters because they can go in different directions
RPG: here's even more variety I think. Battles can be real-time or turn-based, in isolated battle screens or the world itself, the overworld can play a gameplay role or not, it can be a single person or a party, there can be minigames...

So basically, while fighters of course differ, it's easier to see them all alike. They have less parameters to tweak and make unique

IMO, its only people who think they're all the same from the gitgo will be the ones who'll never take the time to look at differences.

Do you guys really think they're all the same??
As a fighting game enthusiast i cant believe you people say that, i mean look at Mortal Kombat Gold then at Street Fighter 3: Third Strike. Totally different artwork styles.
I can honestly say I suck at Mortal Kombat but i'm one of the best 3S players in my city...and yes i've looked at moves lists and everything and i still suck at MK

Well of course all fighting games are going to be similar unless they are on the Wii, as there's only so much deviation you can introduce to a game system that revolves solely around punching the other person in the face. But the devil is in the detail with fighting games and the best comparison I can think of is between Dead Or Alive 4 and Soul Calibur 4.

Dead Or Alive 4 was a game which required a lot of skill and strategy to play well, as my friends repeatedly illustrated to me online by beating me into a pulp consistently for about a year over Xbox live. The blocking, moves and countering system was very finely tuned and balanced to make a very intricate and entertaining fight if both people knew what they were doing. Also fairly intuitive and innovative combo building was a big feather in DOA4's hat I felt as you could lash out a vicious 9 or 10 hit combo fairly easily with a lot of characters as opposed to a lot of games where the most hits you seem to be able to get in a combo is 4 or 5. Bigger combos = bigger fun for the most part in my books, but there was also a way to counter any combo thrown at you as well so you could not just be move whored into submission.

Soul Calibur 4 on the other hand is a whole different kettle of fish. Possibly the least finely tuned game I have ever played. As Yahtzee points out, the near omnipotence of the throw button rules out any and all challenge against the computer opponent. The actual attack buttons are confusing and massively un-intuitive, then half the time don't respond in the way you wished anyway, and the max combo I got while playing it was 4. Online or with multiplayer the problems are exaggerated tenfold when you soon realise that everybody can beat you by picking the guy with the katana who's name escapes me, and hammering Y until you die. There is no defence against this, the critical finish feature (which had good intentions but is ultimately pointless, annoying and stupid) stops you from just blocking and its at just the right speed so you cannot get a hit in without getting a blade through your face, so there is no way to get out of it and you have to resign yourself to defeat or hope the other person stops being a dick.

These two games have exactly the same objective and yet play so very differently. I would liken it to in a hospital operating theatre, DOA4 similar to a scalpel and Soul Calibur 4 would be a large sledgehammer wielded by a retarded rhinoceros.

I'm not sure. I've never really been able to get into a fighting game so deeply that I can say I've come close to attempting to master it, but even I (with my button-mashy ways) can sort of sense a difference between Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive.

Though I'm sure to those who have never actually played a fighting game, they can look pretty similar.

Fight games, to me, are just button mashing games with no strategy at all.
Or it's just basically pressing the same button to do an awesome move over and over.
The only fighting game I'm curious enough to play is that new
Mortal Combat meet DC character game.

DOA4 is one of the worst examples of Fighting games out there, side stepping is all but impossible it's a game that simply does not reward you for real defense. You are essentially forced to leave yourself opened to being hammered because you can't side step and your only real options are to block or attempt a risky reversal. Constrast this with Virtua Fighter 5 which actually allows you to defend yourself without having to take unnecessary risks.

As far as Fighting games being button mashers with no strategy at all................Play against people who are not noobs and then say that.

They are fun when people actually know the combos. Like if they are just hitting the buttons, or spamming one button, it gets annoying. OR if they only know one combo, and do that over and over again. and grab will and always will be an effective strategy, almost always.

shadow skill:
DOA4 is one of the worst examples of Fighting games out there, side stepping is all but impossible it's a game that simply does not reward you for real defense. You are essentially forced to leave yourself opened to being hammered because you can't side step and your only real options are to block or attempt a risky reversal.

Except the reversal windows are so lenient that you can even do them shortly after you get hit and you recover really really fast so that you can interrupt almost any combo with one. Virtua Fighter is still very much the better game, though, that much I agree, since it gives you a variety of options in turning the tides so long as you have a clue on what the opposing side is trying.

As for the theme of "learning combos is the only way to learn a fighting game", that much is pretty much false. Execution is part of it, but it's isn't and shouldn't be the only part. The other part comes from predicting what your opponent is going to do and punish them for being predictable. A player that can do that doesn't really even need combos and I know plenty of good players that don't have good execution, but are just really good at reading the game and adapting to it.

been playing them since i was 3 and still love um! back in 89 on SF2 good times but now its all 2.3D and still i love it i am happy i can still play them in the arcades i have been playing SF4 allot the past few weeks and i think its ok apart form the ken and ryu spamming "durp i cant do any other moves other the the quarter circle ones!" and i am loving abel hes allot of fun to play also another kick ass fighter is basara cross got a vid of it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAA7D1QVhQE

My friend reccomended to me Soul Calibur 3 on ps2. He said it was amazing. So I did. Its shit. The first problem I have encountered is there is no blood. But when someone jams a 300 foot sword in enemys torso I expect them to bleed goddamit. The second problem is every character looks like a pussy. The third is that idiot anouncer that speeks gibberish

I guess I don't blame the OP or Yahtzee for that matter for not understanding and liking fighting games. If anything it really is an acquired taste and there's a ton of problems that can occur to reduce your enjoyment of the game.

What the OP said is one of the biggest complaints against fighting games, similarity. He has a point because the genre is very nuanced. Even more so than racing games (the problem is that racing games don't really push the concepts to their limits.). But most of the differences are in the fighting systems and art style. Like Mortal Kombat banked on Fatalities, gore, "real sprites", and long combos, Street Fighter used balance, world characters, comic art style, and strategy. Marvel vs. Capcom showcases tag-team play, anime style, and easy controls. I think you get the deal.

Another problem people have is button mashing. This is sometimes at fault on the developers for making the game that way. But most of the time, if you can't handle button mashers you really do suck. For the most part, I can beat anybody who tries to button mash in Soul Calibur 4. I may lose at times, but I'll still beat them because I know counters to their moves. For all those games, knowing the combos, best defenses, supercombos, sidestepping, countering, parrying, whatever, gets you the win.

Another problem I tend to see for people who play fighting games is the one-on-one aspect. Unlike shooters, which are the most popular online games, fighting games don't have as many players fighting at the same time. This means there's no safety net for failure. You don't get a second, third, fourth place. You don't get to have your team save you ass or get lots of points, you just have one winner and one loser. That can be a major turnoff to some players.

I'm done, I'm getting breakfast.