| >> |
No. 176766
>>176761
I'm not offended by your tone, I'm just noting that you're getting worked up over a simple disagreement, while at the same time implying that others being angry at you is evidence that you are saying a simple truth. I'm also not >>176755 though, I'm actually >>176750. I in fact agree that the developers of Smash Brothers should not have to think of their game as a traditional fighting game, which I think is what we're arguing about, but do in fact believe tone is important in that being intentionally inflammatory often makes a stance appear less credible, a phenomena that I believe contributes greatly to the way fighting games have become such a divisive subject to begin with. One should seek to make a convincing argument, not a cheap and dismissive excuse. Speaking of which, sorry about >>176753, it was late and night and I just figured your argument seemed too vulnerable to such a simple wry jab for it to go unused against you. And looking back at who you've been arguing with (>>176726 ), I do think I ought to take another look at it, so thank you for that.
>>176726
>>176757
The only thing it means anything about is how the game is developed, and specifically how fan reaction is taken into account. If you simply want to call Smash Bros a fighting game, Sakurai wasn't talking about that. He clearly meant that he doesn't think of it as a fighting game from a development perspective, and that he works under the presumption that more visible fighting game players aren't necessarily representative of his audience. What genre the game is classified as once it's released is entirely beside the point.
|