whats better street fighter or smash bros

Post Reply New Topic

I know this is a stupid question, like is chocolate ice cream better than vanilla? I've played every iteration of smash bros and owned a few noobs in online matches. But then I picked up street fighter and holy cow! So much better. It feels more intense and awesome.

I would go with Street Fighter. More "rules"= more tactics/strategy.

I'd go with Smash, myself.

Alot of the time when I watch Street Fighter, what I see isnt a fight, it's a badly done dance. And these are high-level matches, mind you, not casuals I'm talking about. I say this as a *very* high-level fighting game fan myself (I mostly play games like Guilty Gear, Arc's other games, or anything similar, as I like complexity and speed). Too often, the characters sorta just wobble back and forth, occaisionally sticking out a foot vaguely in the direction of their opponent almost sort of kinda maybe, usually with great reluctance. It ends up being a poke-fest most of the time, or in the case of projectile users, a big pile of spamming if the opponent isnt close. Not ALWAYS, mind you, but much of the time, that's what happens. In addition, the game is *slow*. Now, granted, I have a pretty warped sense of what is slow and what is fast; to me, damn near everything is slow. Even games that are considered very fast-paced and aggressive like Guilty Gear are kinda slow by my standards. But THAT one is alot slower than most of the others. For some players, that's fine. For me, that's boring. And yes, I know alot of players ramble on about "oh it's about mind games", but that's gibberish to me. Though, it's hard for me to judge that one since my mind tends to work very differently than most, and even against very high level players, in the games that I play all I've ever needed to win is to simply go completely berserk.

In the end though, what it REALLY comes down to is personal preference. Most players arent like me, and dont find SF *or* Smash to at all be slow, and it can hold their attention well. It also depends on how strong your opponent is and how balanced the game is. For Smash, I find Melee to be really dull. Sure, it's kinda fast in it's way, but holy heck, it's an unbalanced mess that may as well have a roster of exactly 5 characters, because that's about as many that actually get used. And if your opponent just isnt very strong, you dont need to use much of the depth of the fighting game in question regardless of which game it is. I find there's *alot* fewer strong opponents in Smash than in SF or any other fighting game, so much of the time, I dont really have to do a whole lot to win in that one. SF is easier to learn than most fighting games IMHO, and even low level players can get the feeling of playing "technical". As opposed to something like Smash, where low-level matches are dramatically less interesting, or something like Guilty Gear, with a nearly vertical learning curve where newer players get downright erased.

I dont actually think SF is a bad game or anything, mind you, so dont take that from what I've said here. I just get bored with it quickly, and in the end, it's just an opinion.

That guilty gear looks very tempting

The most recent Guilty Gear I cannot speak for. They took out my favorite character (who was also my main), and then took out about half of the cast as well... yeah, no. Dont like, dont want, didnt buy. And the only real difference between that game and the rest is "ZOMG it's in 3D!! !!11" despite that 95% of the time, it still LOOKS completely 2D. So yeah, I dont like that one. I was not one bit happy when that game released, particularly considering how long it's been since the last one.

Not to mention that GG is possibly the most difficult series of all to learn. If you've not played that sort before (very, very different from SF or Smash).... then I'd suggest one of Arc's other games instead, either Blazblue, or Persona. That sort of game is extremely combo-heavy, technical, and very aggressive, tactics used in Street Fighter will not work there (for example, with straightforward projectiles, you could fire one from a full screen away, and I can still be on top of you before you recover from the animation due to the extreme mobility in the game; projectile spamming simply doesnt work most of the time like it does in SF). Blazblue and Persona are dramatically easier to learn, but they still retain all of those qualities.

Street Fighter is technical fighter that requires you to learn all the techniques and technicalities to fully play the game (Same goes for Tekken).
This is good if you want to learn the game inside and out, while being forced to memorize long button based combos.
Beware though, people to regularly play Street Fighter take the game very seriously

It's main competitor is Tekken.

Smash Bros according to Sakurai the co-creator and the developer of the last three games (he was co-head developer on the first game), is a party game and platformer with fighting moves.

This is good if you want a quirky game based on Nintendo characters with the occasional 3rd party character, with items from those games.
Has simple fighting mechanics, while relying on item and plaftorm physics to determine character movements.
Smash is meant to be easy to play for everyone, while being quite havoc ridden.

There is no real competition to Smash, though there is the ill fated Sony attempt.

Both franchises are literally too different and thus not comparable in any real sense.

If you think smash isn't competitive YouTube the brothers of smash

No one said you couldn't be competitive in Smash.

Smash isn't designed to be a competitive game in that sense, but some fans decided otherwise.

Either game can be played very casually or very hardcore. It's the nature of the genre. For either game, you can find ALOT of either type of player. It just depends on where you look. Though personally I think *any* fighting game is best with friends rather than playing competitively against strangers, but that's just me.


I personally love the absolute freaking chaos that Smash can provide, but as I'm also a hardcore fighting-game player, I will also play it in the "hardcore" style, 1vs1 on a flat stage and blah blah blah. I personally think it generally takes more skill to deal with an opponent (in a one on one match) when the stages are loopy (because you have to deal with those AND your opponent) and when you also have to contend with any items your opponent may get (I turn a couple of very specific items off though usually), but that's just me, the "hardcore" style of 1vs1 isnt as fun to me but it's still good. Whatever gets me a good match, really.

....unless I get a troll player, which happens every now and then. Had one Peach player that did pretty much nothing other than get knocked up into the air very high, and float down stupidly slowly with that umbrella, over and over and over and over. It was all she did. Didnt care to try to knock me out, nope, it was all about extending it stupidly long and wasting my time. Ugh.

But most of the time the matches are good online so long as the connection behaves.


EDIT: Also as Xenocity said if you're looking for another technical fighter that isnt the hyper-aggressive type, look to Tekken, it is indeed SF's competitor. It's quite different in how it plays to the point where it's very difficult to compare the two, but it has the same "feel" to it, if that makes sense.

ugh, Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale was TERRIBLE. I only own it because it was a PS+ freebie, but the mechanics of it just aren't remotely fun. I wanted to like it...I mean it has Parappa, Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, Cole McGrath, Raiden, Isaac Clark ( DLC ), Nathan Drake and Sir Daniel Fortesque in the same effing game! But requiring super moves to score, too many 3rd party entrants ( though all good ones... ) and the most awkward combo system ever killed it before it even began. Plus, they completely ignored classic Sony gems like Legend of Dragoon and Mark of Kri...

Smash Bros is more fun, but requires the most obnoxious bs to unlock collectibles ( seriously, it makes me suicidal ) but Street Fighter and similar fighting games have more technical fighting systems and tend to require more skill ( not that Smash doesn't reward skill, it just has a larger luck aspect to it due to items and stage hazards ). I've actually been tempted to get Killer Instinct for Xbox One, as I loved the original game ( got the SNES version factory sealed off eBay for $15! That Killer Cuts CD was beyond worth it alone )...has anybody played it? Is it any good?

Yeah, that All-stars game didnt really go anywhere, did it. Just... ugh. It had the potential, too, but it's like the devs didnt quite understand the things that made that style of gameplay work.

As for Killer Instinct, I've heard it's good, but.... seen it so very, very rarely. A fighting game that only exists on ONE of the new-gen consoles has a hard time ahead of it. Smash gets away with it because it's freaking Smash, the characters are legendary, and it's available on a handheld as well. KI.... ehhhhh. My guess is that it's probably WAY more difficult to find opponents in that one than it is for most fighting games. As it's on the Xbone, it's one I'll never be getting. Had it also been on the PS4, I'd probably already have it.