• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

After the SDCC tournament yesterday... I'm having doubts Smash 4 will be a good competitive game.

SamuraiPanda

Smash Hero
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
6,924
Disclaimer: Let me say off the bat that I was a competitive Brawl player. I never had the technical skill required to play Melee at a competitive level. I have no desire for a "Melee 2.0", and I'd personally prefer Smash 4 to develop its own unique and interesting metagame.

The Smash 4 tournament was a lot of fun to watch thats for sure. But a couple matches by the Bowser player Damien made me realize that Smash 4 may not be a very good competitive game because the defensive options are so incredibly strong. Shield dropping is the fastest its ever been and shield stun is the lowest we've ever seen in any Smash to date. Even the commentators were shocked at how quick shield dropping is now . Again, Sakurai has made defensive play even stronger in this iteration of Smash which has been the trend in each Smash game.

In Smash 64, the shield was a horrible option. Shield stun was so long and shield dropping took so much time that by blocking attacks you were actually vulnerable to follow ups! Clearly this didn't make for a very good balance between offense and defense.

Melee's shield (the goldilocks of them all) was just slow enough that you had a few options of punishing out of shield but (with a few exceptions) those were mostly limited to punishing an attacker who poorly spaced their attacks on you. Shielding couldn't be punished and attacking a shield wasn't punishing unless you used the wrong attack/spacing. It was the best shield timing of all the Smash games because it made defense viable but not ideal. It forced players to get better and understand their characters better in order to not get punished on block.

Brawl's shield was so fast that many moves, even when spaced perfectly, were incredibly unsafe on block. Shield grabbing and dropping in Brawl was so strong that defensive play became ideal very early in the game's life. The scales of offense vs defense tipped severely into defense and the gameplay suffered greatly. In fact, over any other single change made from Melee to Brawl, the change of the shield timing had the most impact on making Brawl a defensive game. Why attack someone when they can shield it and punish you even if you space it right? The best characters in the game were able to beat this through various options like range, speed, a solid grab game or projectiles. It limited the viable cast from the huge roster we started with to a select few.

Now we come to Smash 4. This has the absolute fastest shield drop and lowest shield stun we have ever seen. Running up and shielding is extremely effective. A Bowser player completely shut down a Shiek and a Toon Link because nearly everything they did on his shield could be punished by dropping it and using one of his (compared to the rest of the cast) slow attacks. Bowser was punishing Shiek for too much lag. Let that sink in for a second. Now throw in increased landing lag on aerials... Okay, now add on spotdodging being even better and rolls being faster than ever.

Every single defensive tactic in Smash 4 has been buffed from Brawl. The scales of offense vs defense will very easily shift to defense unless characters have ways of beating shields. With shield breaking being slightly more viable (damaging shields seems easier now with certain attacks), that could add an additional way of dealing with shields. But if a character doesn't have range, a good grab game, speed, decent projectiles, or options of breaking the shield... then they may not be very viable. Even though I think he was a lot of fun when I played him, Villager is a good example of a character like that.

Unless Sakurai makes some changes (fingers are crossed here) from the E3 build that was being played at the San Diego Comic Con... then Smash 4 may end up being another title that the community forces to be competitive but won't actually be a very good game. No matter what happens, Smash 4 will have an even better run than Brawl did competitively. Lets just hope our concerns and constructive criticism are heard by the right people so this new game can become a worthy successor to the Smash title.

EDIT:

In response to many people saying "wait until release", I feel like I should put my answer on the first post to make it more visible
Why does everyone assume that the release of the game will fix all inherent problems with it? Yes it is not the final build. We are discussing this point because if it DOES make the final build then it may be a large detriment to the future of the game.

"Wait until release" is a cop out thats playing to extreme optimism. I choose to believe the game will not be drastically different from the build we're seeing here. If you think Sakurai will recant and spend the rest of the remaining dev time making the game more competitively viable then thats fine. We have no evidence the game will be MORE competitive in later builds.
 
Last edited:

TheGoldMan

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
428
Location
Texas
NNID
TheGoldMan
3DS FC
1950-8066-7015
I say we wait until it actually releases.
 

Senario

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
699
The Smash 4 tournament was a lot of fun to watch thats for sure. But a couple matches by the Bowser player Damien made me realize that Smash 4 may not be a very good competitive game because the defensive options are so incredibly strong. Shield dropping is the fastest its ever been and shield stun is the lowest we've ever seen in any Smash to date. Even the commentators were shocked at how quick shield dropping is now . Again, Sakurai has made defensive play even stronger in this iteration of Smash which has been the trend in each Smash game.

In Smash 64, the shield was a horrible option. Shield stun was so long and shield dropping took so much time that by blocking attacks you were actually vulnerable to follow ups! Clearly this didn't make for a very good balance between offense and defense.

Melee's shield (the goldilocks of them all) was just slow enough that you had a few options of punishing out of shield but (with a few exceptions) those were mostly limited to punishing an attacker who poorly spaced their attacks on you. Shielding couldn't be punished and attacking a shield wasn't punishing unless you used the wrong attack/spacing. It was the best shield timing of all the Smash games because it made defense viable but not ideal. It forced players to get better and understand their characters better in order to not get punished on block.

Brawl's shield was so fast that many moves, even when spaced perfectly, were incredibly unsafe on block. Shield grabbing and dropping in Brawl was so strong that defensive play became ideal very early in the game's life. The scales of offense vs defense tipped severely into defense and the gameplay suffered greatly. In fact, over any other single change made from Melee to Brawl, the change of the shield timing had the most impact on making Brawl a defensive game. Why attack someone when they can shield it and punish you even if you space it right? The best characters in the game were able to beat this through various options like range, speed, a solid grab game or projectiles. It limited the viable cast from the huge roster we started with to a select few.

Now we come to Smash 4. This has the absolute fastest shield drop and lowest shield stun we have ever seen. Running up and shielding is extremely effective. A Bowser player completely shut down a Shiek and a Toon Link because nearly everything they did on his shield could be punished by dropping it and using one of his (compared to the rest of the cast) slow attacks. Bowser was punishing Shiek for too much lag. Let that sink in for a second. Now throw in increased landing lag on aerials... Okay, now add on spotdodging being even better and rolls being faster than ever.

Every single defensive tactic in Smash 4 has been buffed from Brawl. The scales of offense vs defense will very easily shift to defense unless characters have ways of beating shields. With shield breaking being slightly more viable (damaging shields seems easier now with certain attacks), that could add an additional way of dealing with shields. But if a character doesn't have range, a good grab game, speed, decent projectiles, or options of breaking the shield... then they may not be very viable. Even though I think he was a lot of fun when I played him, Villager is a good example of a character like that.

Unless Sakurai makes some changes (fingers are crossed here) from the E3 build that was being played at the San Diego Comic Con... then Smash 4 may end up being another title that the community forces to be competitive but won't actually be a very good game. No matter what happens, Smash 4 will have an even better run than Brawl did competitively. Lets just hope our concerns and constructive criticism are heard by the right people so this new game can become a worthy successor to the Smash title.
I would like to agree that the shield is problematic though I think the best way to solve this is to buff combo potential and shield stun so shields can be witted down through pressure options. Shield can be broken much easier in this game and if pressure options and shield stun is long enough you won't have it where the opponent can throw out a shield grab. Think melee and falco. If you play fast enough shield grabs did not work because of pressure options. Proper spacing also helped.
 

Xermo

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
afk
NNID
SSBFC-Xerom
3DS FC
4425-1998-0670
Not every smash has to last as long as Melee did. The game will run it's own lifespan.
 

pickle962

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,337
Location
Louisiana
The Smash 4 tournament was a lot of fun to watch thats for sure. But a couple matches by the Bowser player Damien made me realize that Smash 4 may not be a very good competitive game because the defensive options are so incredibly strong. Shield dropping is the fastest its ever been and shield stun is the lowest we've ever seen in any Smash to date. Even the commentators were shocked at how quick shield dropping is now . Again, Sakurai has made defensive play even stronger in this iteration of Smash which has been the trend in each Smash game.

In Smash 64, the shield was a horrible option. Shield stun was so long and shield dropping took so much time that by blocking attacks you were actually vulnerable to follow ups! Clearly this didn't make for a very good balance between offense and defense.

Melee's shield (the goldilocks of them all) was just slow enough that you had a few options of punishing out of shield but (with a few exceptions) those were mostly limited to punishing an attacker who poorly spaced their attacks on you. Shielding couldn't be punished and attacking a shield wasn't punishing unless you used the wrong attack/spacing. It was the best shield timing of all the Smash games because it made defense viable but not ideal. It forced players to get better and understand their characters better in order to not get punished on block.

Brawl's shield was so fast that many moves, even when spaced perfectly, were incredibly unsafe on block. Shield grabbing and dropping in Brawl was so strong that defensive play became ideal very early in the game's life. The scales of offense vs defense tipped severely into defense and the gameplay suffered greatly. In fact, over any other single change made from Melee to Brawl, the change of the shield timing had the most impact on making Brawl a defensive game. Why attack someone when they can shield it and punish you even if you space it right? The best characters in the game were able to beat this through various options like range, speed, a solid grab game or projectiles. It limited the viable cast from the huge roster we started with to a select few.

Now we come to Smash 4. This has the absolute fastest shield drop and lowest shield stun we have ever seen. Running up and shielding is extremely effective. A Bowser player completely shut down a Shiek and a Toon Link because nearly everything they did on his shield could be punished by dropping it and using one of his (compared to the rest of the cast) slow attacks. Bowser was punishing Shiek for too much lag. Let that sink in for a second. Now throw in increased landing lag on aerials... Okay, now add on spotdodging being even better and rolls being faster than ever.

Every single defensive tactic in Smash 4 has been buffed from Brawl. The scales of offense vs defense will very easily shift to defense unless characters have ways of beating shields. With shield breaking being slightly more viable (damaging shields seems easier now with certain attacks), that could add an additional way of dealing with shields. But if a character doesn't have range, a good grab game, speed, decent projectiles, or options of breaking the shield... then they may not be very viable. Even though I think he was a lot of fun when I played him, Villager is a good example of a character like that.

Unless Sakurai makes some changes (fingers are crossed here) from the E3 build that was being played at the San Diego Comic Con... then Smash 4 may end up being another title that the community forces to be competitive but won't actually be a very good game. No matter what happens, Smash 4 will have an even better run than Brawl did competitively. Lets just hope our concerns and constructive criticism are heard by the right people so this new game can become a worthy successor to the Smash title.
Complaining about an outdated demo wont do you much good bro! Wait till the final product is out before you start freaking out okay? ;)
 

Cap'nChreest

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
4,343
NNID
CapnChreest
I think it will be a good competitive game. All smash games are.
 

Amazing Ampharos

Balanced Brawl Designer
Writing Team
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
4,582
Location
Kansas City, MO
I didn't see all the matches, but most of what I saw involved lots of dash attack spam and Toon Links just loving that horrible, horrible dair (didn't see a lot of the 1v1s, don't interpret this as a call-out since ALL the Toon Links did this). That's basically a perfect environment for people who like to shield to win and probably win with a character like Bowser who has such heavy punishes. When the Bowsers were actually spacing stuff and finding the autocancels on their aerials, they seemed to be able to poke at each other safely even with Bowser, and they were using Bowser who is not exactly a speedy rushdown character. I imagine Sheik (who is a speedy rushdown character) and Toon Link (projectile/zoning character) have lots of ways to pressure a shield, probably best realized with some substantial time to practice the game.

I remain very optimistic about this game.
 
Last edited:

Bladeviper

Smash Ace
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
870
NNID
Bladeviper
i have to disagree with all defensive options being buffed as many have pointed out air dodges or punishable now if they hit the ground, i say this in almost every thread saying the game won't be competitive, give it time and see how everything works we did not know everything about the last 3 games with only a few hours of play and its the same here
 

Second Power

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
719
3DS FC
0774-5502-4430
Heavy emphasize on defense over offense doesn't make it noncompetitive. It makes it different.
 

TimeSmash

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,669
Location
Inside a cheesecake
NNID
nintend64
Like others I am going to be optimistic about the game. But some people are delivering their comments with a lot of unecessary snark. (Not everyone, mind you).

Just because someone likes Melee doesn't automatically tag them as a die-hard Melee fanboy. If someone is criticizing the game--even if it is speculative--in a polite way, there's no need to get so defensive. Thanks! :)
 

Bladeviper

Smash Ace
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
870
NNID
Bladeviper
Heavy emphasize on defense over offense doesn't make it noncompetitive. It makes it different.
i dont even think there is a heavy emphasize as they did nerf the defensive options from brawl like air dodging into the ground and shield strength
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
I think overall people are more pleased with the game after watching its gameplay yesterday.
In fact, over any other single change made from Melee to Brawl, the change of the shield timing had the most impact on making Brawl a defensive game.
Sup Panda! Good to see you around :)

While your analysis is greatly appreciated, I think theres a couple issues here.

First
I think the first issue I see is that you assume right off the bat that defensive play is bad or uncompetitive. I wonder do you still play any games competitively? I only ask cause I wonder if you check other fighting games, such as this USF4 EVO 2014 top 8 set, you would see its not that uncommon. Im sure I dont need to explain much, but in terms of fighting games its currently the most popular and most viewed and if you watch the rest of the top 8 the rest basically looks like this as well.

Secondly
While I get what you mean by shielding, I think you didnt pull the analysis all the way to its conclusion nor is it really the greatest contributing factor to Brawls defensive play. Bigger factors IMO include:

1. MUCH MORE DIFFICULT PUNISH GAME
2. Slower movement
3. More commited approaching options
4. Increased emphasis on spacing oriented characters
5. Other stuff Im probably forgetting

All of which seem to be improved in the way of offense for smash 4.

Finally
Going what I said earlier about taking shielding mechanics to its full conclusion, if anything the shield mechanics help promote aggressive play. Remember shields are not inherently defensive, it depends on the way theyre used. Based on how movement works in this game being able to approach with shield is a REALLY good option and more than offsets its defensive capabilities IMO. Its sort of like how at face value dash dancing might sound like a strong offensive option, but it actually provides more utility defensively overall.
 
Last edited:

Azule07

Smash Cadet
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
44
Why is an offensive playstyle better (healthier) anyway? Defensive playstyles and defensive games are just as good as games which are offensive-based. There's never a true balance between the two, as in these kind of games, it always leans one way or the other.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
By the way 64 is another perfect example. The games shield is absolutely terrible, but the game is almost as defensive as Brawl and will certainly be more defensive than smash 4 (if anyone legit follows top level 64). I actually think smash 4 will be fairly even or offensive.
 
Last edited:

Bladeviper

Smash Ace
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
870
NNID
Bladeviper
Why is an offensive playstyle better (healthier) anyway? Defensive playstyles and defensive games are just as good as games which are offensive-based. There's never a true balance between the two, as in these kind of games, it always leans one way or the other.
a true balance would be awesome though. I think people just like seeing the way combos and stuff work in melee and want that to continue.
 

Veggi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,590
Location
I'm gonna wreck it! (Fort Myers)
Some of the information you have about Brawl is wrong. I play Mario as my main in Brawl and I have played against many power ranked players in Florida with him. I can tell you with a lot of confidence that Mario is one of the easiest characters in the game to shield grab because of his low range. However, I only get grabbed when I screw up or my opponent gets a read on where I'm going. If you think that shielding ruins all of the approaches in Brawl, then you need to work on your spacing. The shield in Brawl is a powerful option and because of the lower amount of shield stun it can be used as an approach tool. A game striking balance between offense and defense does not make a game more competitive. However, it does give more appeal because everyone can find something that they like. If the argument is that top level play is won by stalling, then I will provide you with links to the grand finals of the last three APEX grand finals.

I'm going to compare this game to Street Fighter 4 and Marvel vs. Capcom 3 because it's so easy to understand. Street Fighter 4 is a defensive game. Much of top level play consists of forcing the opponent to approach either through a superior projectile game (Ryu), a superior spacing game (Rufus), or a life lead. Top level play doesn't have many devastating combos. Most of the damage gets tacked on through outplaying the opponent in a neutral game or ruining the opponent's approach. Characters that are forced to approach like Zangief will spend a lot of the match walking slowly forward and blocking until they can get close enough to tear apart their opponent. This can be exciting to watch because watching Zangief work his way through hell can allow the viewer to both see into the mind of the approaching player and the defensive player. Then when the Zangief player gets in, it's exciting because Zangief finally got to the end of his long journey and he's ready to destroy. Street Fighter is a lot of mental work and an experienced player can appreciate that. It's super slow and campy, but that doesn't mean that it requires less skill. It has consistent players winning.

Marvel vs. Capcom 3 I feel is the Melee to Street Fighter being Brawl. Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is a super fast game with action constantly happening. There are teleports, assists, super fast attacks, extremely fast and devastating combos, and the offensive options far outweigh the defensive options. This is like the opposite of Street Fighter 4. However, it's laughable to say that Street Fighter isn't a competitive game considering its massive amounts of players and consistent winners. A lot of people say that Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is more exciting to watch because it's more flashy. I would almost agree with that. Even though I don't like Marvel as much as Street Fighter, it is fun to watch.

I think that people that enjoy watching Brawl more than Melee are people that understand Brawl very well and can get excited about the creative ways that players can consistently win at the neutral game. I don't get excited watching Melee because I find the neutral game to be by far the most skill based and intense of any position in fighting games. However, it is much harder to understand than a character being hit while in hitstun.

For an example of what I mean, watch Will's Donkey Kong. In Brawl, players have to be creative and make best use of psychology to land every single hit. That to me, is much more exciting than combos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9TSId6HhQ&list=UUthbFg5wym9kr07jkymY0wA
 
Last edited:

Ulevo

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,496
Location
Unlimited Blade Works
Why is an offensive playstyle better (healthier) anyway? Defensive playstyles and defensive games are just as good as games which are offensive-based. There's never a true balance between the two, as in these kind of games, it always leans one way or the other.
Games that orient and tilt themselves to the offensive spectrum are more successful games from a spectator and tournament point of view, and they are more fun to play based on a majority consensus. Popular appeal is important to a games success.

There is an innumerable amount of problems with Brawl that doesn't just boil down to the shields and defensive mechanics, but people seeing that Smash 4's shields are just as bad or worse then Brawl's is very disappointing to see because it essentially tells us that Sakurai and the development team are ignoring our criticisms and not listening to our opinions.
 

SamuraiPanda

Smash Hero
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
6,924
Sup Panda! Good to see you around :)
Haha Smash 4 is making me take off my lurking hat and contribute a bit more. The hype is hitting hard!

I think the first issue I see is that you assume right off the bad that defensive play is bad. I wonder do you still play any games competitively? I only ask cause I wonder if you check other fighting games, such as this USF4 EVO 2014 top 8 set, you would see its not that uncommon. Im sure I dont need to explain much, but in terms of fighting games its currently the most popular and most viewed and if you watch the rest of the top 8 the rest basically looks like this as well.
Yup, I watch all fighting games. In fact, my "second job" of sorts is creating a fighting game. League of Fighters is the game where I am the lead designer and director for, and let me tell you that making a fighting game is way harder than it looks!

You raise a great point that defensive play isn't inherently a bad thing. I would argue though that the defensive play I was talking about in Brawl is a different beast from the defensive play in USF4. In USF4, defensive play is defined by a poking style, being reserved in your offense overall. There is still action and things going on. The defensive play in Brawl however does not include poking, it is simply waiting or using projectiles to lock down your opponent. They are different beasts here where offense is LIMITED in one versus being a DISADVANTAGE in the other.

Why is this a bad thing though? Several reasons.
a) Less fun to watch. Leads to less spectators, less hype, less entrants, and overall makes the game die slowly.
b) Less fun to play. Some players enjoy a defensive playstyle but the majority of players do not. It will become a niche game that appeals to the few who enjoy slow gameplay, which isn't necessarily a bad thing you could argue.

While I get what you mean by shielding, I think you didnt pull the analysis all the way to its conclusion nor is it really the greatest contributing factor to Brawls defensive play. Bigger factors IMO include:

1. MUCH MORE DIFFICULT PUNISH GAME
2. Slower movement
3. More commited approaching options
4. Increased emphasis on spacing oriented characters
5. Other stuff Im probablyg forgeting

All of which seem to either be improved in the way of offense for smash 4.
You're right that I didn't go into detail about why Brawl suffered offensively. I felt like people don't really want to read an essay lol.

I completely agree with your points 1-3. Punish game was not as effective due to lack of combos. Movement in the air was far slower as well. And approach options were definitely limited.

I disagree on 4 though. Even if this were true (which I do not believe it is), that simply means the game would have a higher barrier to entry. #4 wouldn't matter for high level play.

I would argue though that the shield options are actually a more important factor than any of the other points you've listed here which is why I didn't include them. If you'd like we can get into details as to why having such strong defensive options were the biggest factor in slowing Brawl's gameplay.

Going what I said earlier about taking shielding mechanics to its full conclusion, if anything the shield mechanics help promote aggressive play. Based on how movement works in this game being able to approach with shield is a REALLY good option and more than offsets its defensive capabilities IMO. Its sort of like how at face value dash dancing might sound like a strong offensive option, but its actually provides more utility defensively overall.
My counter argument to this is that if faster shield mechanics would actually make offense better, then why was this not true in Brawl? There are no new movement options in Smash 4 that would make the shield gameplay significantly different from Brawl so I'm not sure how you're drawing this conclusion.
 

κomıc

Highly Offensive
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,854
Location
Wh✪relando
NNID
komicturtle
I don't think the game is "defensive". Players dictate that. You can play offensively. Aren't there like 3 general playstyles in fighting games anyways? Personally, I mix it up and adapt to my opponents playstyle. It's the only way to be successful. Just as @ Cassio Cassio pointed out, may fighting games require you to play defensive or at least consider it.

On the other hand, I am getting the impression that OP wants it to be more like Melee or rather, less like Brawl. It's too early to draw conclusions and at the end of the day, enjoy the game for what it is and not what you want it to be. I think you're being a bit too panicky over a game that is still months away from release. But your concerns are still viable. Just don't let it worry you too much.
 

Cap'nChreest

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
4,343
NNID
CapnChreest
Why is an offensive playstyle better (healthier) anyway? Defensive playstyles and defensive games are just as good as games which are offensive-based. There's never a true balance between the two, as in these kind of games, it always leans one way or the other.
More people like to watch an offensive game. Running away from an opponent and ledge camping isn't the funnest thing to watch. A more offensive game can have more viewers. More viewers = more competitors/money. More money = a thriving scene. I like Brawl but sometimes it can be a bore to watch.
 
Last edited:

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
More people like to watch an offensive game. Running away from an opponent and ledge camping isn't the funnest thing to watch. A more offensive game can has more viewers. More viewers = more competitors/money. More money = a thriving scene. I like Brawl but sometimes it can be a bore to watch.
Games that orient and tilt themselves to the offensive spectrum are more successful games from a spectator and tournament point of view, and they are more fun to play based on a majority consensus. Popular appeal is important to a games success.

There is an innumerable amount of problems with Brawl that doesn't just boil down to the shields and defensive mechanics, but people seeing that Smash 4's shields are just as bad or worse then Brawl's is very disappointing to see because it essentially tells us that Sakurai and the development team are ignoring our criticisms and not listening to our opinions.
Dont just ignore the whole thread, lol. USF4 is more successful than melee even though its defensive. You also dont seem to understand how shielding works throughout the smash games, which I also explained above.
 
Last edited:

pickle962

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,337
Location
Louisiana
Games that orient and tilt themselves to the offensive spectrum are more successful games from a spectator and tournament point of view, and they are more fun to play based on a majority consensus. Popular appeal is important to a games success.

There is an innumerable amount of problems with Brawl that doesn't just boil down to the shields and defensive mechanics, but people seeing that Smash 4's shields are just as bad or worse then Brawl's is very disappointing to see because it essentially tells us that Sakurai and the development team are ignoring our criticisms and not listening to our opinions.
May I REMIND you good sir that the build used for the demo dates as far back as possibly a bit BEFORE the April Nintendo Direct. Complaining about an outdated build of a game and trying to somehow use it as "proof" that your criticisms are being ignored is just laughable all in all! ;)
 

Azule07

Smash Cadet
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
44
Games that orient and tilt themselves to the offensive spectrum are more successful games from a spectator and tournament point of view, and they are more fun to play based on a majority consensus. Popular appeal is important to a games success.

There is an innumerable amount of problems with Brawl that doesn't just boil down to the shields and defensive mechanics, but people seeing that Smash 4's shields are just as bad or worse then Brawl's is very disappointing to see because it essentially tells us that Sakurai and the development team are ignoring our criticisms and not listening to our opinions.
I understand that, but the criticism is essentially telling Sakurai not to create an entirely new game, but just to make another version of Melee, isn't it? Above, an example was given of a defensive-focused fighting game, and that's one of the top ones which is played and watched. The sheer existence of these games proves that it's not bad, it's just different.
 

Ulevo

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,496
Location
Unlimited Blade Works
I don't think the game is "defensive". Players dictate that. You can play offensively. Aren't there like 3 general playstyles in fighting games anyways? Personally, I mix it up and adapt to my opponents playstyle. It's the only way to be successful. Just as @ Cassio Cassio pointed out, may fighting games require you to play defensive or at least consider it.

On the other hand, I am getting the impression that OP wants it to be more like Melee or rather, less like Brawl. It's too early to draw conclusions and at the end of the day, enjoy the game for what it is and not what you want it to be. I think you're being a bit too panicky over a game that is still months away from release. But your concerns are still viable. Just don't let it worry you too much.
You sound like one of those people that say tiers don't exist.

The game and character strengths dictate the play styles. Sure, if a character is flexible and can accommodate a players ability to play a specific style, that's wonderful. But if a characters strengths or the games orientation rewards one style over another, you can't just play however you want with repercussion and expect to remain competitive.
 

Bladeviper

Smash Ace
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
870
NNID
Bladeviper
Games that orient and tilt themselves to the offensive spectrum are more successful games from a spectator and tournament point of view, and they are more fun to play based on a majority consensus. Popular appeal is important to a games success.

There is an innumerable amount of problems with Brawl that doesn't just boil down to the shields and defensive mechanics, but people seeing that Smash 4's shields are just as bad or worse then Brawl's is very disappointing to see because it essentially tells us that Sakurai and the development team are ignoring our criticisms and not listening to our opinions.
? street fighter is one of the biggest fighting games ever and its primarily defensive. Also the shields seem fine in this game not useless and not so strong its a problem
 

Terotrous

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
2,419
Location
Ontario
3DS FC
1762-2767-5898
Every single defensive tactic in Smash 4 has been buffed from Brawl. The scales of offense vs defense will very easily shift to defense unless characters have ways of beating shields.
I don't know about that. The Bowser player who was wrecking everyone was actually being super aggressive. Shield Drop is so fast now that you can actually use your shield as a form of dash cancel. That whole pivot cancel mechanic may be basically valueless because you can just run up shield drop for the same effect at seemingly about the same speed.

With shield being so strong, damaging people's shields is definitely going to be important, because it takes out a huge component of their game. Even if you take a small punish in exchange for some heavy shield damage it might well be worth it.


Of course, this all assumes that this won't change between now and release, and we already know this is an old build.
 

Chimera

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
316
Location
Bossier City, LA
NNID
cmChimera
This thread is just what the forum needs. Yet another thread complaining about the viability of competition for a game that no one has had a chance to even play. Bravo.
 

Ulevo

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,496
Location
Unlimited Blade Works
? street fighter is one of the biggest fighting games ever and its primarily defensive. Also the shields seem fine in this game not useless and not so strong its a problem
I'm generalizing. The exception doesn't dictate the rule. Street Fighter IV is quite defensive, but it doesn't discourage offensive play when a player has the ability to capitalize on the opponents mistake. Brawl does, and Smash Wii U will if it trends the same way.

May I REMIND you good sir that the build used for the demo dates as far back as possibly a bit BEFORE the April Nintendo Direct. Complaining about an outdated build of a game and trying to somehow use it as "proof" that your criticisms are being ignored is just laughable all in all! ;)
I didn't issue a complaint about the games current build. I'm expressing an opinion based on observations. Now can you go somewhere else to find an excuse to act conceited?

Dont just ignore the whole thread, lol. USF4 is more successful than melee even though its defensive. You also dont seem to understand how shielding works throughout the smash games, which I also explained above.
Again, I'll repeat that the exception doesn't dictate the rule. And on that note, exactly what did I say that implies to you that I don't know how shields in Smash games function? That's rather presumptuous on your end.

I understand that, but the criticism is essentially telling Sakurai not to create an entirely new game, but just to make another version of Melee, isn't it? Above, an example was given of a defensive-focused fighting game, and that's one of the top ones which is played and watched. The sheer existence of these games proves that it's not bad, it's just different.
This argument is so stupid.

People have this problem with the idea that because Melee did several things right, that if you insist on trying to utilizing what that game did right in a sequel and build on its good qualities that you're on your way to Melee 2.0 and that's a horrible thing. It's pretty mind numbing.

On top of that, I don't see where I alluded to even that. I simply said the community has criticisms about both Brawl and with the way the build at E3 played, and failing to adhere to our concerns about that and with the concerns we've had in the past is a large problem.
 
Last edited:

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
Haha Smash 4 is making me take off my lurking hat and contribute a bit more. The hype is hitting hard!
Awesome :)
Yup, I watch all fighting games. In fact, my "second job" of sorts is creating a fighting game. League of Fighters is the game where I am the lead designer and director for, and let me tell you that making a fighting game is way harder than it looks!

You raise a great point that defensive play isn't inherently a bad thing. I would argue though that the defensive play I was talking about in Brawl is a different beast from the defensive play in USF4. In USF4, defensive play is defined by a poking style, being reserved in your offense overall. There is still action and things going on. The defensive play in Brawl however does not include poking, it is simply waiting or using projectiles to lock down your opponent. They are different beasts here where offense is LIMITED in one versus being a DISADVANTAGE in the other.

Why is this a bad thing though? Several reasons.
a) Less fun to watch. Leads to less spectators, less hype, less entrants, and overall makes the game die slowly.
b) Less fun to play. Some players enjoy a defensive playstyle but the majority of players do not. It will become a niche game that appeals to the few who enjoy slow gameplay, which isn't necessarily a bad thing you could argue.
I agree about USF4! But I disagree with the assessment in regards to Brawl sort of. Its kind of true most of the time vs ICs unfortunately. However, the Brawl metagame definitely did rely more on lockdown and waiting, but I think around 2012 when the Japanese came and kicked our rear-ends our players realized this wasnt working. It changed things a lot actually. The neutral game forsure takes a VERY LONG TIME, but if you watch top level play theres definitely a drive to open up the opponents even if it takes a long time.

You're right that I didn't go into detail about why Brawl suffered offensively. I felt like people don't really want to read an essay lol.

I completely agree with your points 1-3. Punish game was not as effective due to lack of combos. Movement in the air was far slower as well. And approach options were definitely limited.

I disagree on 4 though. Even if this were true (which I do not believe it is), that simply means the game would have a higher barrier to entry. #4 wouldn't matter for high level play.

I would argue though that the shield options are actually a more important factor than any of the other points you've listed here which is why I didn't include them. If you'd like we can get into details as to why having such strong defensive options were the biggest factor in slowing Brawl's gameplay.
Well I understand why defensive options slow down gameplay, I just dont agree that shielding is the biggest factor. For instance as I mentioned earlier, 64 has a terrible shield which I believe CONTRIBUTES to its slower pace. We can disagree on point 4 since I dont think its that important, but as I mentioned theres other things to consider too, for instance in this time I remembered that projectiles have been overall nerfed as well. I also think the improvements in these areas are what will make the game more offensive overall in Smash 4.

My counter argument to this is that if faster shield mechanics would actually make offense better, then why was this not true in Brawl? There are no new movement options in Smash 4 that would make the shield gameplay significantly different from Brawl so I'm not sure how you're drawing this conclusion.
I think its definitely true in Brawl, I just think the other factors I mentioned are very overbearing. Consider the best characters.

1. MK - his spacing just overall made approaching him very difficult among other things (this is where 4 came from btw)
2. ICs- mentioned earlier
3. Diddy - Projectile gameplay with bananas (no more glide tossing)
4. Olimar - projectiles
5. Falco - projectiles

I know theres A LOT more too it then that, but I wouldnt say any of these characters were strong defensively because of shielding.

Also as a sort of addendum example, dash shield is my best approach on MK as a Pika player. If shield were as bad as they are in melee or 64 this MU would be completely unfair and Id never want to approach him (second best option is dash spot dodge)
 
Last edited:

κomıc

Highly Offensive
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,854
Location
Wh✪relando
NNID
komicturtle
You sound like one of those people that say tiers don't exist.

The game and character strengths dictate the play styles. Sure, if a character is flexible and can accommodate a players ability to play a specific style, that's wonderful. But if a characters strengths or the games orientation rewards one style over another, you can't just play however you want with repercussion and expect to remain competitive.

Well, I disagree with this sentiment. As for tiers, I don't think they play a huge role in anything other than seeing "What character is being used the most."

I personally don't follow tiers and I don't care. I hold my own using my favorite characters and I disregard tiers.

You can remain competitive regardless and it shouldn't be dependent on being rewarded because the game accommodates one style over the other. I don't believe that has an overall impact on a player's competitiveness.
 

Cap'nChreest

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
4,343
NNID
CapnChreest
Dont just ignore the whole thread, lol. USF4 is more successful than melee even though its defensive. You also dont seem to understand how shielding works throughout the smash games, which I also explained above.
USF4 is also a different kind of game than Smash Bros in general. There's a lot more space to camp in Smash Bros. I honestly don't know much about this USF4. Are there a lot of combos? Is there a good punish game? Maybe I was interchanging defensive with combos/punish game. Brawl lacks this. and theres a lot of stigma against Brawl. That kind of constantly kills its competitive scene too.
 

GamerGuy09

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
3,090
Location
Iowa
Switch FC
SW-3742-4712-6319


This discussion again...

1. Shut up until release.
2. If poeple like to watch people play, it is competitively viable. End of discussion.
 

Ulevo

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,496
Location
Unlimited Blade Works
Well, I disagree with this sentiment. As for tiers, I don't think they play a huge role in anything other than seeing "What character is being used the most."

I personally don't follow tiers and I don't care. I hold my own using my favorite characters and I disregard tiers.

You can remain competitive regardless and it shouldn't be dependent on being rewarded because the game accommodates one style over the other. I don't believe that has an overall impact on a player's competitiveness.
I rest my case.
 

GrownCannoli

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
79
Personally I am very happy with the footage. My imagination was rolling and I was thinking of a lot of different things to try. It does need a little more hit stun and a little less knockback but I was very hyped watching it.

I have a lot more hope for the game today than before the tournament.
 

pickle962

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,337
Location
Louisiana
There is an innumerable amount of problems with Brawl that doesn't just boil down to the shields and defensive mechanics, but people seeing that Smash 4's shields are just as bad or worse then Brawl's is very disappointing to see because it essentially tells us that Sakurai and the development team are ignoring our criticisms and not listening to our opinions.
Didn't express a complaint about the build being used for the demoes huh? sounds like complaining to me dude :) Again, trying to use an outdated build of Sm4sh as fuel for your complaints about the dev team supposedly ignoring your criticisms is just silly!
 

Ulevo

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,496
Location
Unlimited Blade Works
Didn't express a complaint about the build being used for the demoes huh? sounds like complaining to me dude :) Again, trying to use an outdated build of Sm4sh as fuel for your complaints about the dev team supposedly ignoring your criticisms is just silly!
I'm not complaining about it because I don't have the game in front of me to verify the validity of observations made. This is mere conjecture. Though if I wanted to make legitimate complaints, I'm confident I could. I think you're incredibly naive in thinking that the final product will look very different from what we are seeing now.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
USF4 is also a different kind of game than Smash Bros in general. There's a lot more space to camp in Smash Bros. I honestly don't know much about this USF4. Are there a lot of combos? Is there a good punish game? Maybe I was interchanging defensive with combos/punish game. Brawl lacks this. and theres a lot of stigma against Brawl. That kind of constantly kills its competitive scene too.
Just look at the match I linked. Its very interesting IMO. But not worries, by bigger point is that defense specifically isnt bad.

Again, I'll repeat that the exception doesn't dictate the rule. And on that note, exactly what did I say that implies to you that I don't know how shields in Smash games function? That's rather presumptuous on your end.
Second most popular fighting game: UMVC3. Game is nothing but projectile spam and then a zero death once someone actually gets hit. Game is arguably as defensive as Brawl.

And this:
but people seeing that Smash 4's shields are just as bad or worse then Brawl's is very disappointing to see because it essentially tells us that Sakurai and the development team are ignoring our criticisms and not listening to our opinions.
is what implies you dont know much about how shield functions in smash in general. Maybe you understand melees, but you dont seem to understand it in Brawl if this is your statement about Brawl shields. Also responding quick so I didnt go into detail until you asked.
 
Last edited:

pickle962

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,337
Location
Louisiana
I think you're incredibly naive in thinking that the final product will look very different from what we are seeing now.
And just like that, I win the argument! Seriously though, im not expecting anything drastic like the Wii Fit Trainer being cut! Just a more fluid build with an even mix of offense and defense which isn't too much to ask for. That and reduce lag where needed.
 

Ulevo

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,496
Location
Unlimited Blade Works
Just look at the match I linked. Its very interesting IMO. But not worries, by bigger point is that defense specifically isnt bad.


Second most popular fighting game: UMVC3. Game is nothing but projectile spam and then a zero death once someone actually gets hit. Game is arguably as defensive as Brawl.

And this:

is what implies you dont know much about how shield functions in smash in general. Maybe you understand melees, but you dont seem to understand it in Brawl if this is your statement about Brawl shields. Also responding quick so I didnt go into detail until you asked.
And you're basing this off of a statement of conjecture? It seems you are presumptuous. I'm very aware with how shields function in Brawl.
 
Top Bottom