• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Them's Fightin' Herds

SpaceCadetKeon said:
They disbanded.
I stopped having the patience to keep looking through the piles and piles of random image posts in Kitty's Tumblr, so I didn't know... Thanks so much for the find! I'm glad the TE crew's story has a true resolution.
 
Wow, so the history of the game is very interesting. I would watch a documentary about it, honestly.
I looked at some footage of the Tribute Edition, as well. It seemed pretty interesting.
When did they announce the project would be revamped into Them's Fighting Herds?
 
  • Like
Reactions: erkicman
They announced in March 2013 that they got Lauren Fausts' support, then later in March the Skullgirls campaign happened and they got the Z-Engine. There were snippets of news that featured Arizona's and Velvet's designs over the year, but it wasn't until Winter 2013 when they really formally dropped a bunch of info about their commitment to make a crowdfunded game.

I THINK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meow-Professor
Metafogos said:
People....

No ones thinks about the Predators? Probably we will get at last one (the boss) and probably this can be playable. I think all the Predators (at last in the beginning) will be males.

I need reply myself, because I state about males but the discussion are so hot then no one see or talk about.
 
Yeah, Kitty was extremely unprofessional directing people to his crappy Tumblr blog for actual information about the game. I realize that this was all on their free time, but it was still poorly handled.

I guess it is for the best though, makes Herds the only one left standing for this sort of game.
 
Then go play literally hundreds of other games with guys in them, oh my actual fuck.
There's games with all-male casts, I don't hear complaints about that so why complain about girls?
Meow-Professor said:
Why does doing something just because other games don't do something a valid argument for doing the thing? In this case the "thing" is a cast that is all one gender, and the "not doing something" examples are games with diversity in the genders of their cast.
What you quoted (not whatever you're arguing against) is valid because there are examples of all of those games and then some which means you have a choice of picking almost any of the games that fit your taste better instead of complaining that the creator's vision of this one game doesnt meet your specific needs. Not every game needs to fit your need, that's what I got from @WaterMystic277 's post. Even if your argument fit what WaterMystic was saying, there's no reason not to to make an all girl cast, because there's nothing actually wrong with it.


Meow-Professor said:
In this case, the example of the "thing" is racism, and the "not doing something" example are people not being racist. That is an equivalent example. So someone said that the difference is that racism is something actually wrong, and a game having no males is not wrong. That is true, but that isn't my point, once again.
With my post I was not talking about the game's roster anymore. All I was pointing out was that what the person I was replying to said was not a valid argument- in this case, he was saying a "thing" was fine because other games didn't do the "thing". This had nothing to do with the game's roster anymore, and was solely me saying that this was not a reason to do the "thing".
Again use better examples because that still doesnt make sense. Equivalency implies that the relationship between the arguments and subjects are very similar or equal. These subjects and arguments have exceptionally different reasons, connotations, and histories behind them. Using that logic, being racist(hate/fear/discrimination of other races) and not being racist is equivalent to having a specialty apple store and having a general fruit store that has a little of everything.

Apple store=one gender cast
variety of apples=variety of species/fighting styles etc

It's not one fruit because of hate for other fruit but simply because it's an interesting idea with a market behind it. (yes, specialty food stores exist, I've been to a store that only sold nuts)
If you dont like apples, the go to the other fruit store. You don't have to eat apples. The other store sells pineapples and fruit medleys....
 
Looking forward to seeing the Goat's design down the line.

Seems everyone wants to play Velvet including me, so many mirror matches.
 
Covenant said:
What you quoted (not whatever you're arguing against) is valid because there are examples of all of those games and then some which means you have a choice of picking almost any of the games that fit your taste better instead of complaining that the creator's vision of this one game doesnt meet your specific needs. Not every game needs to fit your need, that's what I got from @WaterMystic277 's post. Even if your argument fit what WaterMystic was saying, there's no reason not to to make an all girl cast, because there's nothing actually wrong with it.
There isn't anything wrong with it and I never said there was.
Covenant said:
Again use better examples because that still doesnt make sense. Equivalency implies that the relationship between the arguments and subjects are very similar or equal. These subjects and arguments have exceptionally different reasons, connotations, and histories behind them. Using that logic, being racist(hate/fear/discrimination of other races) and not being racist is equivalent to having a specialty apple store and having a general fruit store that has a little of everything.

Apple store=one gender cast
variety of apples=variety of species/fighting styles etc

It's not one fruit because of hate for other fruit but simply because it's an interesting idea with a market behind it. (yes, specialty food stores exist, I've been to a store that only sold nuts)
If you dont like apples, the go to the other fruit store. You don't have to eat apples. The other store sells pineapples and fruit medleys....
I know of stores that only sell oranges. At least nuts make sense, considering there are lots of different types...
Anyway, somewhat on topic- what is this referring to? I never claimed that the comparison was equivalent to Them's Fighting Herds' roster, just equivalent to the argument of "if the majority doesn't do something, it is okay to do".
Could we please stop the argument? This is too far off topic.

Sanger Zonvolt said:
Looking forward to seeing the Goat's design down the line.
I am too. I really hope the stretch goal gets funded, and I'd like to see its design and playstyle.
 
Last edited:
Wow with the sudden post traffic for this thread since I last checked thought it was more news. Disappointed.

Anyway another 5k donation just happened earlier which makes today earnings so far [Over 11k] already better then yesterdays [lower end of 8k].

Maybe that will help some of the pessimism here. Campaign is not even halfway to the halfway point yet and so far over 40% funded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shockdingo, Fumako, Spencer and 5 others
All these Velvets here and it's like, man, y'all don't even know who the top tier is.
 
Can we get unicorns?

Like, unicorn wizards.
 
Number 13 said:
Wow with the sudden post traffic for this thread since I last checked thought it was more news. Disappointed.

Anyway another 5k donation just happened earlier which makes today earnings so far [Over 11k] already better then yesterdays [lower end of 8k].

Maybe that will help some of the pessimism here. Campaign is not even halfway to the halfway point yet and so far over 40% funded.

@Number 13 I go to market and back and the counter gets 5k. But no 5k and 2.5k pledges go up. Probably we get a chunk of high pledges.

Sotherius said:
Can we get unicorns?

Like, unicorn wizards.

We already has a Unicomancer Unicorn :P
 
Backed. Best of luck, Mane6!

(Also I'd love to see a reference or two to Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends somewhere in the game!)
 
Some Person said:
The correct answer is everyone that isn't Velvet, so you would be correct
Oleander is cool too...
 
Some Person said:
The correct answer is everyone that isn't Velvet, so you would be correct

Poor Velvet. She is nice too :(
 
If you went to Jurassic Park, you would probably say, "wow, they have a huge variety of dinosaurs." I don't think the thought "I can't identify with the dinosaurs because they're not male" would cross your mind. It's really weird that adults want to identify with cute animals and their enjoyment of a game relies on whether they can identify with a reindeer's gender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fumako, Zidiane, dead and 2 others
You dirtied my perfectly clean pun.

9.-Pom-Wonderful.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fumako, KaboomKid, erkicman and 1 other person
Let me tell a thing: them the goat character are revealed, im fell a bit sad for she is a female. But is because the females ones not has horns, and a female goat is so "common" whiteout horns, im my opinion (to me, a female goat is almost a sheep without the fur). But then i see a lot of goat subspecies the female has horns, im became (more) happy with the character.
 
Am I really going to be the only dragon main? Time to teach you all the pain that a dragon can inflict.
 
hey guys i just got back from my cousin's wedding what's going on?

*sees pages of missed conversation*

ah... uh... not going to read all of that, but i'm guessing things are good? aye?
 
Prince of Dragons said:
Am I really going to be the only dragon main? Time to teach you all the pain that a dragon can inflict.

Im normally an "All User", but I love all dragons types (even if my prefered pokémon is Snorlax, my prefered type is Dragon). Tianhuo is my prefered character (until a dragon Predator dont show :P)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chip Blaster
Covenant said:
Marvel 2 only had 6 characters

Marvel 2 has at least 8-10 viable characters IMO, not to mention countless team combinations that strongly effect your playstyle and options.

Grangach said:
You can't really equate the two. Modern fighters are held to a higher standard.

Ironic because modern fighters (with one or two notable exceptions, see the game this forum is about) are overwhelmingly worse IMO. Vampire Savior alone is better than everything Capcom and Arcsys have put out since sf4 and Blazblue combined IMO.

Skullgirls original 8 character roster was kind of slim, but Blazblue CT had 10, which isn't much better.
 
I never understood the point of people complaining about lack of diversity in works of fiction.
I guess the writer and designers original vision is stupid, eh?
 
If I may add something about "SG fans bringing up early SG complaints:" There seems legit cause for concern that things that brought trouble to Skullgirls could also hurt Fightin' Herds. IE "Don't sign with Konami PLEASE DON'T SIGN WITH KONAMI."
 
I say one thing: this one seems better structured and with more future than Beast's Fury, and that's already a good thing in itself
 
Super Milk Chan said:
I never understood the point of people complaining about lack of diversity in works of fiction.
I guess the writer and designers original vision is stupid, eh?

I think diversity, or maybe more accurately, variety is generally cool from an aesthetic standpoint. Just as it is from a gameplay perspective.

Like if every character was a ninja, just with a different colored hood, that would be kinda boring. Even if it's a feudal Japan themed game, you could have fun putting other Japanese-y things in it, like samurais and monks and shit. You could even just say "screw it" and put in a french knight girl with a rapier. It's cooler when everyone has a distinctive personality, appearance, and style, etc.

Same applies to gameplay. If every level plays the same, that's kind of boring. Why the best action games strive to have a new gimmick each stage.

Probably doesn't apply as much to writing/story telling though. Like if you had something where all the characters being the same in some way was a plot or thematic element.
 
But there are an infinite number of things that create "variety". Gender, race, whatever are just some of them. Some movies only star human beings. A ton of movies only star men. Most aren't worse off for it.
 
Spencer said:
Some movies only star human beings. A ton of movies only star men. Most aren't worse off for it.
I dunno, I'm getting bored of anime related stuff where every boy and girl looks like they were built from the same template (not just in their own series but every other series too).

Then again, creativity is pretty hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KaboomKid
I don't need to identify with a character as long as I identify with the characters gameplay. Honestly I think that if you're complaining about not identifying with a character because of gender or anything else, you've got the wrong mindset about fighting games.

Squire Grooktook said:
Ironic because modern fighters (with one or two notable exceptions, see the game this forum is about) are overwhelmingly worse IMO..

Yes vsav is flawless, I wonder why we ever drifted away from probability based pushblocks.
 
Grangach said:
Yes vsav is flawless, I wonder why we ever drifted away from probability based pushblocks.
The chance climbs to 100% if you do a perfect piano input, actually.

I'd take the impeccable pace and unique playstyle of the game over SF4 or Blazblue's any day of the week though. It's roster is also ridiculously well balanced, with low tiers winning JP tournaments against top tiers to this day.

Point is, if you think "a higher standard of quality" exists today compared to yesterday, you're pretty drastically mistaken IMO. Especially if we're talking about the influential, big name titles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back