>>303918
>first post
Your first post does not say what you just claimed it said. You said your point has been the same the whole thread. That party game has never had a consistent definition. You argued that fighting games are by definition party games because group size is the criteria. That is not "party game is a meaningless descriptor." You've a specific positive definition of what a party game is.
>Smash is a fighting game because it meets the definitions.
Calling Smash a fighting game requires lowering the bar so far that almost anything qualifies. By that logic, Call of Duty could also be labeled a fighting game. Let’s test the claim against what actually defines traditional fighting games. Let's actually test that against what traditional fighting games fundamentally are. Traditional fighters are built around a shared plane of movement, health bars, special move inputs, frame data mastery, and winning by depleting your opponent's health to zero. Street Fighter, Tekken, BlazBlue, Guilty Gear. These games share that DNA completely.
Smash has none of it.
>No health bars.
>No shared movement plane.
>No special move inputs.
>Victory by knocking opponents off a stage with momentum based knockback that scales with a percentage system that exists in no other fighter.
>The screen moves with the players.
>The camera zooms out.
>Items fall from the sky.
>Stage hazards actively interfere with matches.
These are fundamental mechanical departures from every single defining characteristic of the genre you're claiming Smash belongs to. But somehow Smash is close to this definition. You wouldn't call a motorcycle a car because both have wheels and an engine. Sakurai didn't call it something different because he was embarrassed or wrong. He called it something different because he built something different which is the point you and the other retard are missing besides chromosomes.
> If I say party games don't have a concrete definition, claim stuff like fighting games as a whole are party games because lots of people can play them because party implies a group of people.
It inconveniences you because you've been using it as a weapon in one specific direction this entire thread. You've been arguing party game is meaningless specifically to invalidate its application to Smash. But meaningless cuts both ways. If party game is too imprecise to meaningfully describe Smash then it's also too imprecise to meaningfully exclude Smash. First that fighting game is a meaningful descriptor with real criteria that Smash definitively meets. Second that party game is a meaningless descriptor with no real criteria. You're applying rigorous standards to one label and no standards to the other purely based on which conclusion you want to reach. If you want to argue genre labels are all imprecise and fluid then fine, that's a consistent position. But then fighting game becomes just as slippery as party game and your entire foundational claim that Smash definitively is one collapses alongside it. Either definitions matter or they don't.
>Clubhouse again
>misses the point again
Clubhouse Games 51 is called a party game because of how it's packaged, marketed and intended to be used socially. Not because collections are inherently party games. Those individual games, Chess, Shogi, Mahjong, are not party games on their own. They become associated with the label through social context and marketing intent. Which means you've spent this entire post demonstrating that intent and framing determine genre classification rather than raw mechanics alone. Wii Sports is the same story. It's not a party game because it contains multiple games. It's a party game because every single title was deliberately built around immediate accessibility and social play. The collection aspect is completely incidental. So every example you've thrown out here follows the same pattern. Classification follows intent and context, not just mechanics. Which is precisely the argument being made about Smash.
>Demon souls
No shit Demon Souls acts as an action RPG, dumbass. The issue here is that you've still have yet to prove that SMASH CAN BE CALLED A FIGHTING GAME.
>>303921
>After people trash Brawl having worse gameplay than Melee.
>https://shmuplations.com/smashbros/
<Well, I wanted to offer an alternative to the two-dimensional fighting games that were crowding out the market. I also wanted to see if it was possible to make an interesting 4-player game that offered a new experience every time you play. Simply put, I was aiming to design a 4-player battle royal.
>Someone cannot handle the fact that it's being pointed out that he is an alien element on a site with an extremely noticeable posting pattern that is in no way reflects how normal people talk.
Says the faggot who cannot accept the creator and designer's clear and obvious intentions to make something you believed never was?
>Xbox shill
If you start crying boogeyman like little bitch, then you're a gigantic faggot. No, I'm not, because I never owned an Xbone.
>So it's still a fighting game, just an alternate take on the format at most. Why does it bother you so much that people refer to Smash as a fighting game, as it was developed as a fighting game
He didn't make an "alternate take on a fighting game." He explicitly said he wanted an alternative to fighting games, not an alternative fighting game. Those are two completely different things and the distinction matters. It's no longer funny on how retarded you are.
>Are you doing so with the intention of selling steak burgers and other steak sandwiches?
Retarded analogy.
>Yes it was
Boy you sure convinced me.
>Actually, it's the reverse
Sakurai tried to chase the competitive crowd with Smash 4 and Ultimate. He added mechanics, rebalanced characters, tweaked systems specifically with tournament play in consideration. And the competitive community looked at both of those games and went back to a 2001 GameCube title with no official support, no rollback netcode, and a developer actively hostile to its scene. That's what happens when you design for fans instead of designing a good game and letting the fans find it. Melee's competitive depth wasn't engineered. It emerged accidentally from a tight physics engine that Sakurai built while trying to make a fun party game. The wavedash, the L-cancel, the entire technical meta, none of it was intentional.
>It's not about the "competitive" nature of the game
Nobody said multiplayer games only operate in competitive environments. That's a strawman you built and then got mad at.
>By changing what the core of the game was.
No. By attempting to refine what the core of the game always was. Brawl didn't change the core of Smash. It doubled down on it. Slower gameplay, reduced technical ceiling, random tripping, more emphasis on items and stage hazards. Every single one of those decisions points in the same direction Sakurai was already pointing in 1999 when he called Smash the antithesis of hardcore gaming. He wasn't pivoting away from something. He was pushing further toward something he'd been building from day one. You keep making up shit up.
>Yes, and people hate him for it.
Wow, I-I don't give a shit what smashtards think....
>AM I TALKING TO A FUCKING AI?!?
TROON RAGE
>a-argument that disgarees with me?! A-AI!
>Using AI to get my info getting stolen and sold to Israel
No thanks. You're still a faggot.