That’s not really my point, my point is that people make blanket statements about anime and comics and such treating the entire medium like a solitary thing. My point is that the medium is so large and varied that just like anything else it’s practically impossible to make claims as what is the best or worst ever, because the comparison really can’t be made. It’s like saying oranges are the best fruit ever.
Plenty of people make those claims, and the best movie ever, best television series ever, best game ever, et ceteras. There are vast, faux-intellectual debates about what the best book ever is, if one should decide there is a best book ever, and, hell, while we’re at it, why not make a numbered list of them? We’re talking the DBZ of literati, here; whole worlds are consumed by their Canon-Cannon-Kameha blasts.
What it comes down to is that, in every medium, someone is going to have a favourite, or a few favourites that stick out. “My favourite” often becomes “the best,” especially in American slang. There is, as our dear Hades is want to point, and implicit opinion carried on any such weigh-in, “the best in my opinion.” Although, given Sil’s statement here (I believe he directly stated it to be a fact), it’s not a simple statement of his opinion, phrased strangely. It’s still his opinion, and only his. To him, it is a fact; once can say this is because of his overblown ego (Sil, don’t take that an insult; first, I said one could take it in such a manner, second you’re well read enough to know you’re in good company in that department), or a simple, joking, melodramatic way of making his point through hyperbole. The “hipster denials” and other such words do lend a humorous tone to the opening remark.
Either way, anime and comics are the same as everybody else when it comes to the overuse of “the best.” They do have other stigmas to deal with that many mediums don’t; the childish stereotype you mentioned, and the growing cliche to overturn that notion, of a melodrama with a dark hero who carries a big sword or some similar display of “badassery” while he angsts himself into a pit, banters to add episodes of filler to the show, and does awesome things in fights, started by Dragonball Z (which, for sheer camp, I would nominate as the greatest anything ever. I mean, fuck, they had like, ten episodes that covered five minutes of real time.) , and continued on by a lot of things, in various forms, since then. Naruto, FMA, et ceteras, all the same show giving the same new stereotype about anime.
For the record, I don’t think I have a favourite anime. Some of the best ones ended up fucking up the worst somewhere, while some good, but less stellar, shows/films didn’t make that mistake.
Your infantile intellect is clearly incapable of comprehending the clear superiority of apples over oranges. Come, let us compare them further.
I’m partial to pears myself.
Grapes, people, grapes.
As Arac points out, people declare the best (game/book/movie/comic/french cheese) all the time. I’m sure this site has had a lot of instances of “Is Chrono Trigger the best rpg ever?”. The consensus being that sliced bread is the best thing, generally speaking.
Still, RPGs are a bit more niched then video games as a whole. What can you really compare as a justification that Chrono Trigger is better or worse then Super Mario World? Or Goldeneye? Or Street Fighter?
No, not really, but people still do it all the time.
Well, yes. That’s why every time a top 100 list comes out everyone disagrees. It’s a matter of preference and mood.
Never seen Eva, don’t really want to.
I’m getting less and less enthralled with anime as time goes on. I simply don’t find it anywhere near as entertaining as Western series - as Americans get more involved in their storytelling, Japanese storytelling starts to lose its appeal and feel cliched and boring. Not to say there aren’t great shows out there, but I haven’t really been moved by anime in a while.
And as Arac mentioned, almost every awesome anime I’ve seen somehow manages, either at the halfway mark or a few episodes before the end, to degenerate into nonsensical idiocy. (Pani Poni Dash and Paranoia Agent managed to do that three seconds in, though.)
Yeah, the difference though is that there’s not much comparison to be made when comparing two fruits. Like, what is there? Flavor, Nutrition Facts, and possible allergic reaction. Whoopdee-Doo. But, it’s not hard to take two different things and compare them. Watch:
2D fighters are better than 3D fighters. Here’s why:
- 3D Fighters lack fireball attacks and beam attacks (what few projectile attacks exist in 3D fighters are retarded, because you can just sidestep them). This degenerates 3D fighters into a really lame game of close range combat, in which you simply wait outside of your opponent’s max range trying to bait them into whiffing a move, so that you can beat the crap out of them.
and,
- A given of 2D fighters is that normals are safe on block; if they’re not, the character probably sucks, or you’re playing Street Fighter 3, where most characters’ footsweep attacks are unsafe on block. This is not the case in 3D fighters, where there are plenty of moves that are unsafe on block. For this reason, when both characters are in attack range, the game then boils down to memorizing what attacks or strings your opponent has that leaves them open to attack afterwards.
There. I just took two similar things and gave a subjective opinion, while making a logical argument about why I hold the opinion. Not very difficult. Very interesting discussion piece for anyone who actually gives a crap.
THAT is precisely why I believe it’s perfectly fine to say “Eva is the best anime ever,” although I agree that if Sil hasn’t watched any other anime, then it doesn’t hold much weight.
That’s a very, VERY bad comparison. Whatever differences are between 2D and 3D fighters are only in the manner of individual execution. Concept, purpose and basic system still remains the same, so you can make a comparison between which medium is better at executing whatever it is that a fighter is meant to do. You are still talking about a single genre.
Comedies, tragedies, parodies, etc will all use different literary elements to generate the intended response. Put a funny whacky character in a comedy and that’s good, but put the same, still funny whacky character in a tragedy and he’ll look completely out of place. Judging different genres with different purposes under a single standard is pretty much worthless.
Of course, there are constant elements. A comedy and a tragedy might both have great stories, but the relevance of each of this elements will vary, so that in some cases one of them being lackluster will not matter much, or at all. Realism in a serious real war story is a must if you want a good execution, but realism in a stereotypical fighting shönen is not only unneeded, but might even be detrimental.
If you want to make a video game comparison, try making a comparison between Fighters and RTS’, for example.
That’s so far from true I don’t even know where to begin, but in staying on the point of bringing it up in the first place (showing that you can compare two different things), 3D fighters are completely different in the way they play out, given their own individual strengths and features (full range of movement, little-to-no emphasis on jumping, block button or neutral guard imperative). They are really not the same genre, and, even when their potential is fully realized, they will still be fundamentally different from 2D fighters. Thus, they are not the same genre.
In short, elements relevant to execution, not purpose. The intent when designing any kind of fighter is always the same: Creating a balanced, entertaining simulation of personal combat. Whatever way you go about it, be it 3D, 2D, close combat, ranged combat, allowing blocking, including weapons, additional moves, finishers, multiplayer or whatever else, you are still working with the same basic premise and intent in mind. It’s still a Fighter and you are still talking about which method of execution does the best Fighter.
Comedy is meant to be funny, tragedy is meant to be sad. Super Robot animes are by definition over-the-top and usually hold fantastic morals, Real Robot shows are meant to be “realistic” (within reason) and hold a more crude ideal. Horror thrillers, action movies, romance stories, Shönen, Shoujo, Seinen, RTS, FPS, RPG, Graphic Adventures, Visual Novels, detective stories, whatever the fuck you’d categorize Haruhi as, etc. These are all fundamentally different in that the purpose and intent present when planning their respective executions (Aside from “be entertaining”) are particular to each genre, so what works for one will be completely inappropriate for another.
Seriously, give me a Fighter-RTS comparison and THEN tell me different genres can somehow be equally analyzed
The same may be said of anything; all anime have the same purpose, really, and the same basic system of animation that proceeds to tell some, even if it is nonsensical, story, usually through dialogue, applies to all anime.
Put Ryu in a 3-D fighter, as he is, and tell me he’s not just as silly. He can only move two-dimensionally, is in an entirely different system of graphics, and has vastly unsuited attacks and movements.
As for different genres and purposes, those aren’t safely identifiable. I don’t think Science Fiction has that much of a different goal to it than Mystery does, in terms of fiction. The detailed specifics get different, but what this comes down to is you’re over-generalizing fighting games to invalidate SG’s argument, but not applying the same view to any counter-examples.
The same is true of 2-D and 3-D fighters. What is a crippling omission in a 3-D fighter (effective sidestepping), has no place at all in a 2-D fighter, and vice versa (as SG said, with projectiles).
All right, sir, here you are.
I prefer Fighting Games to Real Time Strategy, for the following reasons:
- As a longtime martial artist, I have a more personal connection to fighting games. This is a subject that I have enough interest in to spent about a decade on it, but also a subject I know. The characters’ training, pride, and many rivalries I can understand and identify with. The gameplay seems more intuitive to me, as it is something with which I am experienced in real life (although, this sometimes gets me into trouble; I have a terrible problem with forgetting projectile moves exist, since I can’t throw a Hadoken), allowing me a level of strategic skill at the genre even if my twitch and technical gameplay is inferior.
- Similarly, I’m generally not too fond of government, and as such, the skill of running a kingdom, army, hive, or what-have-you doesn’t come so naturally to me, or hold that much interest. My focus on individuals, who I like to care about regardless of how well-developed they are, makes me useless at the game; I won’t sacrifice people for strategy, and even try not to ever allow my units to die, because they’re people with families.
- I find waiting and micromanaging to often be tedious, and simply watching battles in which I have no part beyond ordering guys to attack a building very dull; if I wanted to witness that, I’d watch a much more visually entertaining movie, than a bird’s-eye-view of a bunch of guys hitting a building with swords, or just hitting each-other without trying to parry or anything. I like excitement from my games, and I don’t find giving orders to be exciting. Conversely, in fighting games, you have to be in the moment, every moment; I’ve lost matches when my opponent was down so much life you couldn’t even see any of the bar left, because I thought I won and lost focus. You’ve got to keep concentration, even when it’s the final round and one more hit will take you out, because if you don’t, you’ll mess up the combination and surely lose. Fighting games, in short, give me much more personal excitement.
There you are, Mr. Ephyon. I believe that is the requested comparison?
Similarly, when making anime, one is making an animated film, with the goal of entertainment, character attachment and development, visual appeal in animation style, overall conflict resolution, and at least some degree of philosophical importance. The degree to which each is involved, as well as the length of the film and the series of other films surrounding it, varries, as does the way in which this entertainment is provided, and the philosophical point being argued. If you generalize enough, you can do this to anything.
That statement is not only off the mark, but would pretty much be homogenizing every instance of storytelling in anything ever if you would just extend dialogue to narration as well.
On the contrary, I think you are both looking far too close to the picture. Yes, some genres blend, some can be compared when they hold similar construction. Keyword: Some. Now get me a murder horror story and a slice-of-life lighthearted comedy and tell me they do the same.
Once again: PURPOSE as opposed to EXECUTION. Within a single genre, with a common purpose, you can compare and contrast how the execution is carried out as they are held to equal standards. How complex a fighter can become and how different the system can be between instances is irrelevant to this argument when they are all aiming at the same goal. It is when the fundamental purpose in construction is different that the execution becomes impossible to justly compare, as the standards in each case will be different.
The problem with the argument is that 2D and 3D fighters try to do the same thing, just with differences in the construction, so you can compare which does a better job at it. That is not the case between literary genres. You can compare The Hound of the Baskervilles with Murder on the Orient Express, but try to justly compare either in their entirety to Waiting for Godot and… well, if you’ve read Waiting for Godot, the ridiculousness of this statement should be evident enough already.
No, it’s not. This started precisely because of what Epic said: Comparing two works of different genres is useless. You just compared the genres themselves, not any specific work in them. The point is, if you take say, Street Fighter [Insert Version] and Age of Empires II and try to make a serious thorough comparison of everything they are intended to do, what they do and how they do it… well, the result is laughable, particularly as you try to find something to compare that might hold equal relevance in both.
First, the philosophical part is far from being any sort of constant value.
Second, I go back to what I said at first, would you then be saying that all genres of storytelling hold the same values and intent, and that you can somehow draw a serious parallelism between them? Can you really analyze a comedy and a tragedy by the same logic? Are you denying the possibility of genres being so opposite between themselves in what they are meant to produce, and that is the most vital part of the argument, that they can’t be justly compared to each other?
For fuck’s sake, can you look at someone straight in the eye and compare GaoGaiGar, Saikano and Excel Saga with straight face?
However, I do not believe I’m overstepping the point at which the generalization becomes excessive.
My two cents: I’m totally with SE on this one. Comparisons can only be made intelligently when there’s enough in common to compare. He’s already put it much better than I could, so I’ll leave my remarks at that.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Both games tend to have specific ‘characters’, ‘armies’, ‘races’, etc. that have their own strengths and weaknesses.
-
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?
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?
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.