Neon Genesis Evangelion

The Core The Anime Forum
#37

You’re a few words short of homogenizing all gaming. That is my point.

They do. They provide non-interactive entertainment, in which one watches an animated plot unfold. One provides this entertainment through terror, the other through humour. There’s a bigger difference than 2D-3D fighters, maybe, but the fact is, it all depends on how far you take the concept of purpose and concept of execution. It’s meaningless semantics.

I’d argue all games have the same fundamental purpose, if we’re breaking it down that far, and no two games have the exact same purpose, if you want to look at it more narrowly. The scope with which it should be viewed, like everything else, is a matter of opinion.

You try to defeat an opponent in all video games I’ve ever played, it’s just whether you do it with an army or with one martial artist who can throw fireballs that’s the difference. A few games face you off against an abstract concept, rather than an opponent, but they’re the exceptions and not characteristic of any one genre enough to argue they create a difference between genres.

It’s not so ridiculous, at all, in my view. I can quite easily say I prefer Waiting for Godot to Murder on the Orient express. Part of the reasoning behind this is that I prefer absurdism to a run-of-the-mill mystery, yes, but I can still take the two, and out of the two, state which I think is the best book.

To be fair, you said to do what SG did with 2D and 3D, which was compare the genres. I can quite easily compare Tekken to Age of Empires II. Which features are relevant, though largely genre based, will have a role in my comparison. So, yeah, my comparison of those two things will have a base in genre, but if I like one genre better, how does that make the comparison invalid. If I am to decide whether I like an apple or orange is better, and I have a horrible citrus allergy, guess which fruit I’m picking? The apple. Maybe it’s a bad apple and a damn good orange, but I’d prefer bad fruit that doesn’t make me suffocate. Apple wins. For me, it’s better. I don’t have a citrus allergy, thank god.
The idea that I cannot say I believe Metal Gear Solid to be the best videogame ever because it is different than Chrono Trigger is absurd. Of course it is fucking different. If it were not different, I would like them equally, as they would be the same thing. Presumably, the differences between them are what cause my preference for MGS, yes? I like some genres more than others, therefore, I will often like a game in that genre better. If you argue that preferring a genre makes my opinion as to which game is “the best” biased, I’d like to warn you of something, all opinions are biased. That’s how they work. All matters relating to what is “the best” of something, are pure opinion. There is no factual best video game or best anime. There is the best video game and anime in my opinion.

Name one show that doesn’t have some form of philosophical message. Absurdism and nihilism count.
Don’t try, you can’t. There isn’t one.

Yes. You can. I still want a good story in a tragedy. I still want characters I care about in a tragedy. I still want a sensical, non-bullshit ending from a tragedy (Yeah, you hear that Dostoefsky? Fuck you.), I want interesting turn-of-phrase, I want varying and realistic dialogue, I want some form of emotional connection (sadness, in a tragedy, happiness/humour from a comedy). I want all those things from both genres. The specific emotion to get out of them is all that’s different. If I like tearjerkers better, I’ll pick a tragedy over a comedy, all other things being equal.

Yeah. Since it’s entirely a matter of opinion, any two genres may be compared. The opinion on genre will factour in, but even the most opposite of genres may be compared.

Yes, to repeat it again. Well, um, no, since this is the internet. I’m looking my screen dead on, though. You’ll have to take my word for it. Really, though, there will be genre preference factored in to the comparison, of course, but they’re all opinion anyway. SG likes Street Fighter, while I prefer King of Fighters, because we place value in different things within even the same genre.

#38

Well, okay…you asked for it. But, don’t ask me to do another one - writing up this shit actually takes time.

Honestly, there are quite a lot of similarities to Fighters (let’s stick to 2D fighters for this discussion) and RTS games.

  1. For starters, the most obvious similarity, in both genres, the best games are geared specifically towards competitive play. If you disagree, then I think you completely miss the point of both genres, because the full potential of either genre doesn’t even come close to being fully realized in single player, versus the computer.

  2. Both games tend to have specific ‘characters’, ‘armies’, ‘races’, etc. that have their own strengths and weaknesses.

  3. TOO many elements of competitive play between Fighters and RTS are shared. Let’s break it down into the most general things:

a. Controlling space. In a 2D fighter, the main object of the game is to use everything in your repetoire to control the playing field. If you control the playing field, you control what happens in a match; hell, you control the entire pace of the match unless your opponent can do something about it. In an RTS, it’s very similar, but you’re controlling a map, as well as resources. It’s more complicated, overall; however, my personal preference lies in 2D fighters, because there isn’t much of a comeback factor in RTS games - if you do something stupid and screw yourself, that’s pretty much it. At least, in 2D fighters, the comeback factor is there, albeit pretty low.

b. The ways of controlling space, beyond game-specific features (for example, fireballs control the entire set of space in their trajectory, while in RTS games, you can divide your forces to control space, provided you do it well enough), boil down to three things:

- Game-Specific Knowledge (know what moves beat what moves, knowing what your army will do well against in several hypothetical situations)

- Yomi, the ability to outthink your opponent (This should be obvious enough?)

- Technical Mastery (The ability to perform complex combos and cancels, the ability to micromanage efficiently).

In this case, I still favor 2D fighters for two reasons:

  • Yomi is more intense in 2D fighters, because of your need to try and anticipate an opponent within the timespan of less than one second, and

  • Technical Mastery plays far too important of a role in RTS games. Without much of an ability to micromanage effectively, you’re not going anywhere in an RTS game; however, if you are very good at outsmarting your opponent in a 2D fighter, you can bring that intensity to virtually any game and already be reasonably dangerous.

Now, just for the purpose of showing a few, more specific similarities and differences, allow me to take Sinistral’s “Sinistralian Princples” - a list of specific rules that he plays RTSes, specifically Starcraft, by - and compare them to fighting games:

1-Never build anything you can’t defend

  • In 2D Fighters, every action you take is time that you can not guard yourself from an attack; you have to assess the risk of every action you take. In 2D fighters, this is more of a case-to-case thing, as you can take advantage of risky tactics and use them to easily dominate people who can’t combat them properly (i.e, excessive jump-in combos against people who don’t consistently use anti-air, using tough-to-escape tick throws versus people who cannot reversal consistently).

In both types of games, you want to conceal these weaknesses (or tactically employ them), and smash your opponent for leaving such openings.

2-Buildings don’t fight; units fight (a cannon wall won’t grow legs and magically walk over to the enemy base)

This is simply true; you can not block an opponent to death. While blocking (or, establishing some level of defense in your base) is likely imperative to victory, blocking will not bring you victory…or, in 2D fighters, since there is a time limit, blocking will not bring you victory unless you have ATTACKED, and have a lead by the time the clock runs out.

I personally enjoy this better aspect better in 2D Fighters, because I think that it leads to more diversity in strategy. It may not be ‘honorable’ to get a lead and wait out the clock, but there’s no honor in competition - there’s a winner and a loser. Within the confines of ‘not cheating’, I prefer to have the most options available to me.

3-Expand, expand, expand (more money=more units=win)

This is a fundamental to controlling space in RTS games. In fighting games, the likeness is to have favorable positioning. What’s my reasoning behind likening these two things?

In an RTS, when you make expands, you’re grabbing another territory that allows you to produce more units, and faster, while simultaneously occupying another large piece of the map, and making it harder for your opponent to produce more units more quickly.

In a fighter, when you gain favorable positioning, this means that your opponent is in a rough position where they have to choose from one of several risky, bad positions to escape or deal damage.

In almost every instance of this in BOTH genres, getting yourself OUT of these shitty situations doesn’t automatically reverse them and gain you the advantage - it just simply gets you out of a severe DISadvantage.

4-Money is meant to be spent (you aren’t sending your probes to harvard are you?)

This DEFINITELY makes more sense in 2D fighters than 3D - Super Meter is meant to be spent. The only difference is, in RTS games, when money is meant to be spent, it means that if you have a certain amount of money, you’ve done something seriously wrong.

In fighters, you just have to be deliberate and smart about how you use it. It might be better to burn your meter as soon as you have enough; it might be better to get full meter and use it for a rad-balls custom combo. Some games require meter for several things - some of these things may be more useful or less useful depending on the character. There’s a variety of ways to manage your ‘resources’, as it were, just as long as you’re making good use of it.

5-If attacked and you have a substantial force left, retaliate (why not?)

I’ve never wholly agreed with this; this assumes that your opponent is completely left open to attack. They might have done it simply to bait you, so that they can come in with a different attack force afterwards, or simply just to bait your remaining troops into their base.

Likewise, in 2D fighters, sometimes, you can leave holes in your strings simply to try and bait your opponent into doing something that leaves them vulnerable to being attacked. In the highest level of play (I’d imagine this is true in RTS as well), people severely punish this philosophy. The trick is to have a better answer than “why not?”

6-2 probes per mineral spot, 4 per geyser (if you built as close as possible). I recomment a minimm of 12+ probes on minerals at all times. (SC Only - though know how to maximize ressource use)

This is pretty specific to SC, as Sin mentioned - it falls neatly in place with my commentary on principle #4 though.

7-Always know what your enemy is up to. Send cheap scouting units like a drone , a marine, an observer, etc… to see what he’s up to and be able to prepare yourself for his attacks.

  • This is also more specific to SC, but only because you actually have to go see what your opponent is doing; the idea is to have a battle plan, which is absolutely true in 2D Fighters. You should have a general plan for every specific matchup. Chun-Li versus Dee Jay: Turtle until you get meter, then you have a way of mounting an offense. Chun-li versus Balrog: You can keep him out with fireballs all day, but stop throwing them so liberally once he gets meter.

The big difference is that you don’t have to go find them to find out what they’re doing; from the outset of battle, you should ideally have an idea of what will work in the matchup you’re pitted against, and what doesn’t.

8-When you attack and the attack have substantial effects on the enemy base and you can send more, do so. In a street fight, if you had your mortal enemy into fetal position and you don’t stop, he’ll recover and get his revenge.

9-It is better to give than to receive (be aggressive)

Eight and Nine are both about the same thing - Pressing the advantage. There’s absolutely no need to change the words - that fits right about perfectly into a 2D Fighter.

The difference in 2D fighters is, though, that there are some characters where you might press the advantage by gaining a lead and keeping a character at a distance - that’s about the only thing, and even that is a case-to-case basis.

10- Upgrades are your friends

This is lastly, something pretty specific to the RTS genre; however, it’s obvious that you should take any measure that bolsters your advantage.

Conclusion:

In the end, the RTS and 2D Fighting genre are still about the same fundamental princples: Competitive play via controlling space on the play field, and pressing the advantage. However, the 2D Fighting genre boasts more variety, not only in selection of characters/armies, but in the strategies you can use to control space and press the advantage. Also, the pace of 2D Fighters tends to always be quick, whereas the RTS genre has a sort of up-and-down flow. For this reason, I claim that 2D Fighters are superior to RTS games in the scope of competitive play.

How’s that for ya?

#39

No I’m not. The extensive simulation of one-on-one personal combat including technical gameplay is the exclusive purpose of fighters. Brawlers never aim for technique and any other genre either has the control of combat presented in a vastly different manner (RPG) or doesn’t have it at all. Maybe a few adventure games might come close, but the focus given to combat techniques in fighters is unmatched by any other genre, and predictably so, as this is precisely the genre’s defining element.

It’s not, you’re just going to the other edge and taking it too far now. Like you said, the difference IS bigger than between 2D and 3D fighters, and that alone makes all the difference in the world. Entertainment is the master intent in any form of… well, entertainment, but by that logic you might say that all video games, anime, novels, etc are the exact same thing as they all aim to entertain. You might as well eliminate the word “Genre” altogether.

The way one might go about creating a thriller horror story differs considerably from how one might conceive a comedy because from the very beginning, the intent (To cause fear/laughter) is different. Once again, it’s possible to compare whether 2D or 3D does a better job at being a fighter, but if you try to compare whether Dracula or I, Claudius does a better job at being a horror story, you hit a dead end as once of them had no intention of being a horror story in the first place.

There’s a middle ground brought by common sense. What you say is true, but the fact that for centuries there’s been such a thing “romance novels”, “horror stories”, “comedies” and the like is pretty good evidence that I’m not the only one who thought of getting a bunch of works, listing underlying differences and creating groups to categorize them by. If you are going to accept genres “exist” to begin with, it’s your responsibility to place yourself into that middle ground, or come up with an argument by which we should stop using genres altogether.

There is not a single game ever whose design was based on the purpose of defeating someone or something, No development team ever has the prompt “let’s create the best system by which to defeat [Boss]”. Like a fighter is meant to be an extensive simulation of personal combat, RTSs are meant to simulate strategic management of armies, and Graphic Adventures are meant to be extended puzzle games. You are confusing the purpose in design with the final stretch of a storyline. That, and even if you look at as little at the story itself, the argument still falls for every game whose story is not meant to be an epic, but based on character development, in which the boss is merely another element and the real focus is in your party’s interaction.

You have GOT to be kidding me. This is EXACTLY what Epic said in the first place. If a person does not like a genre to begin with, no matter how spectacularly the work itself is pulled off, it will still not have a good effect on that person, therefore trying to proclaim that one anime is the best anime ever, when anime is merely a medium in which there are diverse genres, is useless. Why are different genres not comparable? Look above at all the rest.

It IS possible to analyze something in an objective fashion, provided you are rational enough. I can recognize that some things I hate are actually pretty well done, and some things I like are total crap. Granted, it’s a loose rope to walk through and you need to be very centered. The analysis of the execution can be done rationally to an extent even if it’s rather fruitless, but the argument between genres is not who does the better job at one thing, but which aim in design is the best, and THAT is entirely reliant on subjective opinion.

That actually wasn’t meant to get an answer, as I realize simply sitting the genre itself is useless. It’s what was below that I wanted you to compare.

Then do it. C’mon. Try to compare the execution of those three animes by the same standards, without putting weight on how the differing purpose will alter the design from the beginning. Do it while ignoring the genre barrier.

Then pay attention to what’s being asked. Arac did the exact same thing before you, it is not the genre which I ask to be compared, but specific works within them. Purpose is subjective, execution is partially objective.

Competitive Gameplay is still a far too broad criteria, as you might as well throw FPS, racing games, sport games, etc in the same saddle. It’s not competing, it’s what you’re competing AT.

In fact, your argument is the perfect example of why this analysis doesn’t work: You prefer how fighters work over how RTS’ work, so you’ll like fighters best. Well, here’s a comeback: I don’t. How do you come up with an effective objective answer to that?

#40

See, I don’t think you can include technical gameplay as part of the purpose, because, if you can, then why not include “technical gameplay in a realistic, 3-D environment” versus “technical gameplay within a strategic, 2-D playing field.”
Because, honestly, Tekken’s not very technical at all.

What genre, besides interactive fiction, gives no control of combat? It’s the combat that is, really, important. The level of control is much more “method” than “purpose” in my mind.

Yes, but the focus given to close combat versus varried and ranged combat, and frantic versus strategic gameplay, are defining traits of 3-D and 2-D fighters, respectively, and each is absent in the other genre.

Yes, but the difference between 3-D fighters and “Beat-em-up” games like Dynasty Warriors is smaller than the difference between Fighting Games and Turn-Based Strategy, yet Beat 'Em Up and Fighting are still different genres.

No, I simply disagree on what creates a genre. Genre is all in the method, whiel its overall, fundamental purpose is the same. Like I said, we are arguing on the semantics of our definitions here, and that is silly. However, also as I said, different genres may be easily compared with as much validity as any other opinion-based comparison.

No, you don’t run into any sort of a wall. Dracula does a much better job being a horror story. It has a huge advantage, sure, but it’s still true. I, Claudius isn’t frightening at all.
However, for a more “fair” comparison, you could simply compare which story is better. When I compared Fighting Games to RTS, I didn’t say which made betters fighting games, in my opinion, I said which made better games.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with categories, I’m saying there is something wrong with the idea that works of two different genres cannot be compared.

We, again, have different imagings of purpose and method, which are mere semantics.

Yes, but that person has preferences within a genre, as well. If I’m a martial-arts anime freak, and so are you, but you like the discussion of martial arts philosophy, but I only care about the fight scenes, our opinions are going to be completely different. No-matter how amazing the writing, I’m gonna hate it without kick-ass fight scenes. So, am I now only allowed to analyze things in the same genre, but also in the same style?

Give objective defitions of “well done” and “crap.” You’re operating on biased, opinion-based precedents, such as “developing characters is good,” most likely, which is still a matter of opinion. There are people who don’t give a fuck about that. Their opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s. Besides, where you might see last-minute development, I may look at it as a literary Joycean revelation, thus giving totally different opinions on the development.

But my point is that who does the better job is entirely subjective, too. You can logically back it up, of course, but the logic will almost always work its way back to your personal preferences. For instance, SG’s reasons on 2-D/3-D are entirely subjective, as well-thought out and argued as they are, if I want the features he lists in a 3-D fighter, but he doesn’t like, I’m going to side with 3-D figters, because that is what a like. The same is true in individual games; I like King of Fighters because many of the special attacks require joystick moves as though they were weight-shifts, which makes them intuitive for me, who thinks of how I would do it in a real match then tries to replicate that on a much more skilled level with a little guy on screen; because I find the characters much more visually and personally interesting than those in Street Fighter (although, this was better in the Alpha series); I find the more varied attack combinations (In that it doesn’t have, like, four characters with the exact same moves to different effects, and half the combinations to produce attacks are the same character to character). You get what I’m saying. If I recall, SG doesn’t like KoF too much, at all; he prefers Street Fighter. This is because, within a single genre, and even two very similar games in the genre, we still want different things.

And I did. If you look, the only difference I want out of the two works is the emotional connection I have to them.

Never seem Saikano. You want me to just PM GaoGaoGaiGar versus Excel Saga, reviewing only what the both genres share, or simply reviewing them as though they were one genre that contains what both genres do?

Again, not really. See the bit earlier on rushed, last minute versus epiphony in character development.

Look earlier in this thread; within Evangelion, a single series, you and I have a difference of opinion on high and low points, and probably overall quality, based on my love of madness-tinged rantings put on film, a love you do not share. There’s no objective answer to that. Within the scope of Joyce, people fight over what was his best novel, because their criteria for a good James Joyce novel is different. Objective analysis is totally impossible, unless you want things you can quantify; number of words, length of words, amount of alliteration, number of characters, et ceteras. Just rating based on these things would lead to a pretty terrible idea of the greatest novel ever.

#41

I think the whole semantic “purpose” thing is getting tripped up, because “purpose” is just as tiered and layered as technique is. At a high level, yes, everything has the same purpose - to entertain. But once that’s done, most works have secondary purposes - to enlighten or to induce laughter or tears or just to waste time. Arac, I think, is concentrating on the higher purpose and uses that as a general way to compare things, while SE appears to be claiming that that higher purpose doesn’t provide enough impetus to compare things whose secondary purposes are so different.

I still see SE’s points better than Arac’s. It’s very difficult to say that, for example, Pirates of the Caribbean is a “better” movie than Schindler’s List. People say it, but I think such a statement is totally meaningless.

#42

But it is equally meaningless to say Pirates of the Carribean is a better movie than Pirates of the Carribean 2 or 3, even though they’re in the same series. It’s all opinion. My point is that there is no valid, objective way to critique something, since objective traits must be quantifiable, and those traits which are aren’t very meaningful, at least to me, in such analyses.

#43

It’s not meaningless at all to say that. I’m not talking about objectivity or quantifiability (not sure where those even came in). I’m talking about making sense. It makes no sense for me personally to say that Pirates is better than Schindler’s List, because I would then have to gauge whether the thrills I felt when watching Pirates were somehow “better” than the sadness I felt when watching Schindler, which is not something I can do. But I can very easily gauge how the thrills I felt when watching Pirates 1 compared to the thrills I felt when watching Pirates 2 or 3 - and I can also say whether one of those movies helped me feel things more than just thrills, which would also help to indicate if it was “better” or not.

#44

To be frank, I’m getting very tired of this but…

Yes, any sort of analysis of anything, particularly anything meant to entertain, will be charged with subjectivism. Even within a single genre, different people will like and dislike different.

But is it entirely so? I respect the value of personal opinion, and will not just bang on someone and try to force my views on them, but even if you can’t justly define what is “good”, you can sure as hell tell when something is very bad. There is such a thing as rushed development, lack of development, out-of-character behavior in writing that can’t simply be explained by “this is how the writer intended”. Shitty writing exists in a fairly analyzable manner. The same way a fighter game can be unbalanced allowing for a few cheap tricks to be used eternally, there ARE empirical quantifiable factors in any production. Subjectivism comes to play when the subject in question is over the grey line over which only opinion goes either way. You can tell me you prefer 2D fighter to 3D for so and so reason, but you can’t tell me that using Sub Zero’s freezing move+uppercut over and over in MK3U was an “intended feature” and “up to the player’s preference”. It was a blaring fuck up in design, period.

I loved BoF, one of my favorite games. It’s also among the worst RPGs I’ve ever played. It’s dry, lacks story, the characters barely even speak, the boss is one-dimensional and the gameplay has some very awful flaws (Fuck you, Second Wave). I loved it, but if I take an objective look at it and try to find it’s strong points, I’m left blank. There IS a fanbase to it, but I’ve yet to see anyone come up with any form of justification for it.

I’ve heard people speak wonders of Saikano as a tragedy. I’ve seen it and read it, and the narrative does a great job at showing the sadness of the situation. I also hate it with passion as I mostly watch this shit for amusement and don’t want to be left with my heart in pieces when I’m doing something for fun. It does it job wonderfuly, but it’s the polar opposite of what I like.

Recently, Gurren-Lagann is just about my favorite show. It’s awesome and very entertaining if you are into over-the-top stuff. It’s also tremendously silly and predictable. Seriously, you can tell what’s going to happen from a mile ago. It has absolutely zero redeeming value for anyone who might not be into Super Robots and Shönen.

You are saying that all analysis is subjective… then why are you even bothering to speak? Why would you even bother to talk about something with someone else, or why would any such discussion take place? Because there IS a level of objectivity present. The most common (civil) answer to these discussions is “yeah, I can see how that could be but I still like it” or “no, I don’t see it”. The first answer DOES occasionally occur, and that is because, even if they may not be determinant, there are some points which can be seen on an objective light, even if one’s opinion is still not swayed in any form.

Which brings me back to the one thing that matters in all this mess: If opinions might vary with a single genre, what do you expect in a crossover? If one person doesn’t like tragedies and loves comedies, you can get him the most masterfully created tragedy and he’ll still shove it aside. The vital point f all this: Saying Eva is “The Best Anime Ever” is a huge blunder, as not only you have to justify it being the “Best Sci-Fi/pshychological mindfuck Anime Ever”, but anyone whose not into that kind of story will ignore it completely regardless. “Anime” is not a genre, it’s a medium.

#45

Cid: See, you can’t judge that, but someone may definitely know they like thrills or sadness better. Maybe you can’t decide, but many people can.

Seraphim: Yeah, but I bet a lot of people who weren’t very good at games otherwise really, really liked that fuck up and thought MK3 was a great game. Even if it was a mistake, they’re equally valid liking it as you are not liking it.
As for BoF, even without justification, if you love it, that’s equally valid as people who can write a term paper on why they loved Chrono Trigger. Maybe it’s a “bad” game, but you evidently love something in it.

Finally, I agree that calling anything the best is a titanic mistake; I reject canon in literature, too. However, I don’t think calling something your favourite is a mistake, and I just think “the best” is synonymous with it, in many places, nowadays.

#46

The uselesness of calling something “The Best” is precisely what started all this. So I guess we pretty much agree on that.

And for the record, whenever me and my friends started to play, it was a rule that more than two successive executions of that move would warrant a beat up. Like, real life beat up.

#47

That is a totally warranted rule. The same rule should go for anyone who plays Rain in UMK3. Fuckin’ lightning attack. Whose idea was that? There was no way they didn’t know that was broken. I mean, one of the most damaging attacks, auto-hit, unlimited range, leaves them vulernable after you hit, but not really you. Ugh.

#48

ROFL! Dude, okay, pay attention to this:

  • For starters, I’m the person who made the claim that making such comparisons is valid in the FIRST place, so I sort of started this argument.

-Secondly, you claimed that my 2D fighters vs 3D fighters comparison wasn’t effective in proving my point, because the ‘purpose’ of the games is the same; but, as Cid said, the ‘purpose’ of virtually any TV show or video game is to entertain, so you can shove THAT crap. What I DO think you mean though, is their means of achieving that purpose. I think you’ve sort of gone in and out of calling that execution, but that’s neither here nor there now, cos check this out:

  • In my 2D versus 3D argument, I displayed how, while the purpose (as you admitted) was quite the same, the execution was different.

  • In Arac’s 2D Fighters vs. 3D argument, he didn’t really point out any similarities, which you have to do in order to compare something; he also didn’t talk very much about gameplay features. In other words, you are completely wrong in saying that my argument is anything like his;

  • Because, I’ve given you a DETAILED argument on how comparing 2D Fighters to 3D Fighters are the same thing as comparing 2D Fighters to RTS games: Different execution, EXACT SAME PURPOSE (i.e to have fun, BY MEANS OF competitive one on one play).

THIS, is exactly what you asked for from the moment you engaged in a debate with me, and I’ve given it to you, shown you the similarities AND differences, while presenting a rational, informed argument. And, to this, you’ve only said two things:

  1. “Competitive Gameplay is still a far too broad criteria, as you might as well throw FPS, racing games, sport games, etc in the same saddle. It’s not competing, it’s what you’re competing AT.”

Oh!!! Ohhhohohoho!!! I believe you cried foul when I compared where one competes at the same thing! You said “Same execution, what I’m talking about is PURPOSE!” And NOW, you’re saying “Same purpose, what I’m talking about is EXECUTION!” What the hell is that shit? Lol! Okay, dude. I achieved exactly what you asked for, and now you’re telling me I’m wrong? I started this tangent of the argument to begin with - you’re the one countering me, and I’ve ONLY paid much attention to you to begin with. I think have a pretty clear scope of what we’re talking about.

And, by the way, if you want to come in and say that I should have compared something with “similar execution AND purpose”…well, should you get that urge, don’t do it - the very fact that it’s possible and reasonable to judge, qualify, and compare something against completely different things was my argument in the first place.

Oh, you also said this:

“In fact, your argument is the perfect example of why this analysis doesn’t work: You prefer how fighters work over how RTS’ work, so you’ll like fighters best. Well, here’s a comeback: I don’t. How do you come up with an effective objective answer to that?”

I don’t; it doesn’t threaten my argument AT ALL. Why don’t you tell me why? Oh, you don’t have to be objective about it: In fact, the fun of arguing is that everyone has a BIAS. It’s just a matter of whether or not you have an unfair one. In my argument, I’ve made a completely subjective, biased argument; however, it wasn’t unfair. You haven’t made anything but a statement.

Oh, and lastly, just cos this is amusing (it’s kind of tangental, but I couldn’t help but notice it):

“You can tell me you prefer 2D fighter to 3D for so and so reason, but you can’t tell me that using Sub Zero’s freezing move+uppercut over and over in MK3U was an “intended feature” and “up to the player’s preference”. It was a blaring fuck up in design, period.”

If you get hit by this, you deserve it; just as I said…

"In 2D fighters, this is more of a case-to-case thing, as you can take advantage of risky tactics and use them to easily dominate people who can’t combat them properly (i.e, excessive jump-in combos against people who don’t consistently use anti-air, using tough-to-escape tick throws versus people who cannot reversal consistently). " Though, I guess you could add "Using the freeze uppercut shenanigans against someone who can’t jump or block properly…

“…but there’s no honor in competition - there’s a winner and a loser.”

If you can’t understand and accept these things, then you don’t have much of a basis to talk about any competitive genre of gaming.

#49

Cid: See, you can’t judge that, but someone may definitely know they like thrills or sadness better. Maybe you can’t decide, but many people can.

But in that case they’re just judging whether they like thrills better than sadness in general. I doubt there are many people who can judge that the thrills they got in a particular movie is better than the sadness they got in some other movie. There’s simply no frame of reference to compare the two.

but, as Cid said, the ‘purpose’ of virtually any TV show or video game is to entertain, so you can shove THAT crap.

Way to take me out of context. When I said that I accompanied it with the point that that was the “ultimate” purpose, but that every work also has a secondary or tertiary purpose, and those often can be compared. Comparing how well two different things entertain in general is, to my view, totally ridiculous. But when we narrow them down, it begins to get less ridiculous.

Comparing FF1 GBA and FF1 PSP is definitely fine. Comparing Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross? Also fine, though arguable. Comparing Street Fighter Alpha and Devil May Cry? Losing it. Comparing Excel Saga and Lord of the Rings? Not even in the same planet, man.

The question becomes how narrow you have to go to really be able to compare things. Can you compare just the feelings they evoke? Their goals in terms of presenting a particular method of gameplay? Their overall storylines? Styles? Themes? Perhaps - but when you get that vague the comparison starts losing all meaning.

#50

Heh, you people must have been typing all day. Some good points all around though.

*as a very short comment, the difference between objective and subjective factors brings all the fun into arguing. Re: comedy and tragedy, some people do both.

#51

Hey, sorry. I do admit that I only glanced at what you said. But still, as I even said in my last post, the purpose is to entertain, and it is achieved through a certain means. Either way, to put my simple answer to your query, all you need to do to make a comparison is to find some similarities. I think I’ve done that in this thread…twice.

If you can’t find a solid enough similarity, then sure, you can’t compare them; however, it’s still not hard to make an argument on why, say, myself or Sil would consider Evangelion the best anime series, period. When critiquing it or reviewing it, sure, I’d have to stack it up against pieces of work that are similar enough. This doesn’t mean I can’t explain in depth why I like it better than, say, Cowboy Bebop.

#52

Either way, to put my simple answer to your query, all you need to do to make a comparison is to find some similarities.

There are logical limits to that, and it can sound absurd. Elephants are wrinkly, and so are prunes. I think elephants are way better than prunes.

When critiquing it or reviewing it, sure, I’d have to stack it up against pieces of work that are similar enough. This doesn’t mean I can’t explain in depth why I like it better than, say, Cowboy Bebop.

This is the crux of the matter, though: if you don’t need to compare it against similar works to talk about its quality, why would you need to do so in a review? And if you do, how could you really say what causes you to like it “better” than something totally dissimilar?

#53

See below for my reasoning.

Because in reading a review about something, its genre is important. When I want to read a review of a game that is an RPG, I don’t care how it stacks up against Sim City. You’re evaluating only ONE thing, and within its own confines.

But, if I wanted to say why I enjoyed Street Fighter more than Devil May Cry, you’re going outside of the realm of critiquing one or the other, but comparing two things that you acknowledge to be different.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that people disagreeing with me are getting more caught up on the choice of wording; for example, if I were to say, “I like Evangelion better than Cowboy Bebop” as opposed to “Eva is better than Bebop”, there wouldn’t be much of a problem. We’re obviously talking about opinions, here. So, using my personal aesthetic, I can very easily determine what causes me to like something ‘better’ than something totally different.

#54

Perhaps it is a personal thing, then. shrug I know that the feelings I get with those two series are different enough to make them hard to compare. I can say that CB is a mediocre comedic space opera and Eva is an excellent serious sci-fi, but I can’t necessarily say that one is better than the other.

#55

Yeah, they are. I fail to see where there is anything wrong with that, as a basis of argument. If someone does not like sad movies, they’re going to think a thrill-ride better than a tragedy.

SG: I was comparing them in terms of my preference. There is no reason to list things that are the same; preferences are based upon differences.

#56

If someone does not like sad movies, they’re going to think a thrill-ride better than a tragedy.

Then, as SE said, that reverts to comparing genres rather than individual works.