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

[pizzapie7]

I think the existance of SF X Tekken and the fact that people still bought into Ultra despite it being released AFTER SF X Tekken makes this kinda moot, although Ultra is more of an expansion pack. Still, even SF has its bad games. There was even an example before this, Super Street Fighter 2. This was the game that came right before Super Turbo, and it removed the Turbo option.....yeahhh, Super Turbo got released shortly after and was much better received.

[/quote]
SFxT was more of a spin off though. If Brawl was a spin off I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now.

 

[pickle962]

The negative nancys dissing on Sm4sh just cuz REALLY need to start being infracted for I am SICK AND ****ING TIRED of coming on to smashboards and seeing [X] person being nasty towards 4 because of bias, it supposedly being brawl 2.0 (Im pretty damn sure a lack of tripping, defensive play being trimmed like a fat turkey, returning characters like bowser for example being better than they have been in the past, AND the build being used for the demoes we have had up to this point all using the same outdated build from early spring doesn't make Smash 4 a brawl clone!), or automatically assuming **** such as Sakurai giving us competitive folk the finger once more while going off yet again AN OUTDATED DEMO BUILD for their pitifully ignorant arguments acting like the demo and the final build will be the EXACT SAME GAME WITH NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER!

Yeah I had get that off my chest! Too bad if you don't like what I have to say

 

[Deleted member 245254]

The negative nancys dissing on Sm4sh just cuz REALLY need to start being infracted for I am SICK AND ****ING TIRED of coming on to smashboards and seeing [X] person being nasty towards 4 because of bias, it supposedly being brawl 2.0 (Im pretty damn sure a lack of tripping, defensive play being trimmed like a fat turkey, returning characters like bowser for example being better than they have been in the past, AND the build being used for the demoes we have had up to this point all using the same outdated build from early spring doesn't make Smash 4 a brawl clone!), or automatically assuming **** such as Sakurai giving us competitive folk the finger once more while going off yet again AN OUTDATED DEMO BUILD for their pitifully ignorant arguments acting like the demo and the final build will be the EXACT SAME GAME WITH NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER!

Yeah I had get that off my chest! Too bad if you don't like what I have to say

To be fair, changes that you have no idea will even happen, nor even the specifics of those changes don't make for a great arguing point either.

 

[Renji64]

The negative nancys dissing on Sm4sh just cuz REALLY need to start being infracted for I am SICK AND ****ING TIRED of coming on to smashboards and seeing [X] person being nasty towards 4 because of bias, it supposedly being brawl 2.0 (Im pretty damn sure a lack of tripping, defensive play being trimmed like a fat turkey, returning characters like bowser for example being better than they have been in the past, AND the build being used for the demoes we have had up to this point all using the same outdated build from early spring doesn't make Smash 4 a brawl clone!), or automatically assuming **** such as Sakurai giving us competitive folk the finger once more while going off yet again AN OUTDATED DEMO BUILD for their pitifully ignorant arguments acting like the demo and the final build will be the EXACT SAME GAME WITH NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER!

Yeah I had get that off my chest! Too bad if you don't like what I have to say

lol

 

[Cassio]

I actually dont think theres that many people being negative about it from what Ive seen, they just post more frequently cause they have personal criticisms and the most to say on the matter.

 

[Black Mantis]

Have you seen Renji post?

 

[Saikyoshi]

FD =/= competitive. FD doesn't have any hazards to get in the way of lag. Items get turned off, again, because they're mostly a hindrance with lag. And if these people really wanted to be competitive, they'd probably join Smashboards and look for FCs instead of fighting MKs that IDC or dealing with Temple and taunt spamers.

This post bothered me so much I had to make an account to reply to it.

Let's say for a second that competitive players play on final destination all the time, which they obviously don't. This stat in no way proves or even implies what you stated. This is a breakdown of matches, not players. Some players play more matches than others. You know who plays the most matches? Competitive players or players who are trying to become competitive. This is probably even more true of online play, given that most casual players treat Smash as a party game that they play with friends in the same room. The casual players are also more likely to abandon a games online play earlier than competitive players (this is certainly the case in most online games, at least), so in the years that Brawl's online multiplayer was active, it would have become more and more heavily skewed towards people trying to play competitively.

The key word in my post was trying. I know they didn't understand it at all, but they were trying. Or at least they thought they were trying.

And even if it's just competitive players or wannabe competitives playing more than anyone else, 70% is a damn huge margin for error.

And, Lancer, casual players and people who don't really understand the game hardly notice the lag. I know I didn't in my casual days.

 

[GLStephen]

The key word in my post was trying. I know they didn't understand it at all, but they were trying.

And even if it's just competitive players or wannabe competitives playing more than anyone else, 70% is a damn huge margin for error.

And, Lancer, casual players and people who don't really understand the game hardly notice the lag. I know I didn't in my casual days.

You completely misunderstood what I said. The number of matches played in that manner doesn't reflect the number of people playing that way.

 

[Saikyoshi]

You completely misunderstood what I said. The number of matches played in that manner doesn't reflect the number of people playing that way.

Okay... Let's assume 50 percentage points of those FD matches are the same few people playing over and over again. Which it clearly wasn't, because you know how many people played online? A lot.

The 20% left would still be a significant number. And it's obviously not just 20% of matches that have more than just a few players.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

My personal opinion on Smash 4, and I've stated it many times already, is that it will be much more competitive than Brawl because, even if defensive play is "insufficiently nerfed", getting a successful punish leads to a combo dealing significant damage. You make any tiny mistake around Smash 4 Bowser, you're eating at least 20% and Bowser gains a huge positional advantage on smaller stages. Compare to Brawl's Meta Knight, where a successful punish leads to the opponent taking 4-12% and a reset pretty much back to neutral due to the lack of knockback on MK's attacks and the general lack of hitstun overall.

As for shields, Smash 4's shield seems to be the weakest of any Smash game, and recovers extremely slowly compared to Brawl and Melee shields. Bring it to just below half size, and by 5 seconds later it's still just over half size.

Also, Smash 4 just plain looks better than Brawl. Why? Because in Smash 4, you attack to hit. If you attack, you frequently do so with the intent that either that hit connects, and/or the following hit connects. In Brawl, you attack with the intent that by three attacks later your foe will be in a position for you to get an actual hit on them. And if this is MK we're talking about, that one actual hit will deal somewhere from 4 to 12%.

 

[GLStephen]

Okay... Let's assume 50 percentage points of those FD matches are the same few people playing over and over again. Which it clearly wasn't, because you know how many people played online? A lot.

The 20% left would still be a significant number. And it's obviously not just 20% of matches that have more than just a few players.

You have no evidence of any of this at all. You are making assumptions that you can't logically make.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

You have no evidence of any of this at all. You are making assumptions that you can't logically make.

Does anyone in this thread have any evidence for anything? Even the OP has been argued down because all we have is a buggy out of date demo build with few characters and stages. Seriously, what more is there to say?

 

[Saikyoshi]

You have no evidence of any of this at all. You are making assumptions that you can't logically make.

Just like you're assuming that most online matches were the same few people over and over again. Which, if you ask me, is a ridiculous assumption because online play was a major draw for Brawl.

 

[GLStephen]

Just like you're assuming that most online matches were the same few people over and over again. Which, if you ask me, is a ridiculous assumption because online play was a major draw for Brawl.

I am not assuming that, because I can't. I'm not assuming anything. I'm just pointing out that you are drawing an illogical conclusion and giving an alternate explanation that I think is plausible.

And yes, online play was a major draw for Brawl... until it was released, and the online play was kind of awful. I played a grand total of like 10 matches online and then never played again out of frustration with the games poor online performance. This is despite the fact that I put HUNDREDS of hours into the game. I suspect that a lot of other people did the exact same thing. Unless you were seriously dedicated to playing the game and had few people to play with in person, there wasn't a lot of reason to play Brawl online in the weeks after it released when the novelty rapidly wore off.

Brawl's online play was so bad that I feel like it may as well not have existed. I think a lot of casual players probably came to the same conclusion.

For the record, it's still possible you're right about the percentage of people that tried to play Brawl competitively, but the evidence you are citing is literally not evidence in any way.

 

[Saikyoshi]

I am not assuming that, because I can't. I'm not assuming anything. I'm just pointing out that you are drawing an illogical conclusion and giving an alternate explanation that I think is plausible.

And yes, online play was a major draw for Brawl... until it was released, and the online play was kind of awful. I played a grand total of like 10 matches online and then never played again out of frustration with the games poor online performance. This is despite the fact that I put HUNDREDS of hours into the game. I suspect that a lot of other people did the exact same thing. Unless you were seriously dedicated to playing the game and had few people to play with in person, there wasn't a lot of reason to play Brawl online in the weeks after it released when the novelty rapidly wore off.

Brawl's online play was so bad that I feel like it may as well not have existed. I think a lot of casual players probably came to the same conclusion.

For the record, it's still possible you're right about the percentage of people that tried to play Brawl competitively, but the evidence you are citing is literally not evidence in any way.

It was one of the first games resurrected by Wiimmfi. I don't think it was nearly as hated as you think it was.

 

[LancerStaff]

The key word in my post was trying. I know they didn't understand it at all, but they were trying. Or at least they thought they were trying.

And even if it's just competitive players or wannabe competitives playing more than anyone else, 70% is a damn huge margin for error.

And, Lancer, casual players and people who don't really understand the game hardly notice the lag. I know I didn't in my casual days.

Here's a question...
How do we know the people picking the stage was for a competitive intent?
We don't.
Your entire argument hinges on a giant assumption. You can't even prove 1% was picking it to be competitive. People pick the same stage over-and-over because people pick the same stage over-and-over-again.

 

[GLStephen]

What portion of the Brawl audience do you you think knows about Wiimmfi. I can't really comment on this, because I have no idea what that is, despite being pretty well-informed on most matters like this.

 

[Saikyoshi]

Here's a question...
How do we know the people picking the stage was for a competitive intent?
We don't.
Your entire argument hinges on a giant assumption. You can't even prove 1% was picking it to be competitive. People pick the same stage over-and-over because people pick the same stage over-and-over-again.

Yes, I don't know. However, I do know that FD was one of the most visually unimpressive stages and everyone complained about how tired they were of seeing it. And "no items fox only final destination" pretty much singlehandedly guaranteed that hardly anybody would ever choose it for casual play again.

What portion of the Brawl audience do you you think knows about Wiimmfi. I can't really comment on this, because I have no idea what that is, despite being pretty well-informed on most matters like this.

The Wiimmfi Patcher is a Homebrew app that reroutes online play to a custom server. It only works with a few games, but there were two that they made sure to get running before all others; SSBB, and MK Wii.

 

[GLStephen]

Yes, I don't know. However, I do know that FD was one of the most visually I impressive stages and everyone complained about how tired they were of seeing it. And "no items fox only final destination" pretty much singlehandedly guaranteed that hardly anybody would ever choose it for casual play again.

See, now you even offer another alternative explanation for the stages ubiquity in your own post.

"FD was one of the most visually I impressive stages"

There are so many other ways to look at this stat.

(I'm pretty casual and picked FD frequently fyi.)

 

[Saikyoshi]

See, now you even offer another alternative explanation for the stages ubiquity in your own post.

"FD was one of the most visually I impressive stages"

There are so many other ways to look at this stat.

That was a typo. I meant "unimpressive", but my phone "corrected" me.

 

[LancerStaff]

Yes, I don't know. However, I do know that FD was one of the most visually I impressive stages and everyone complained about how tired they were of seeing it. And "no items fox only final destination" pretty much singlehandedly guaranteed that hardly anybody would ever choose it for casual play again.

But people do pick it for casual play. Almost every taunt party was on FD because they all spammed it, with Temple not far behind. I played Basic Brawl on a weekly basis for nearly a year, and I'd probably still be playing if the official servers were still up. You have absolutely no reason to justify your assumption.

 

[GLStephen]

That was a typo. I meant "unimpressive", but my phone "corrected" me.

Oh, well I totally disagree. Background was sexy and gorgeous.

sexygorgeous even

 

[Shawksta]

The Nintendo Treehouse representatives stressed very heavily that the E3 and Comic Con demoes were very old, even as far JANUARY.

Besides it really depends on how people adapt, you cant expect the full metagame in a simple demo, people need actual time with the game to learn every trick then see how it fares.

Still, I like what i see so far, much better balanced and much more closer to Skill than Brawl. Not everything needs to be compared to Melee, which %80 of everybody tends to do, while ignoring the improvements to Brawl, sheesh.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I read a bunch of this, and I just want to clarify that I played Brawl competitively for 2 years. My preference for Melee does not equate to inexperience with Brawl. I simply did not prefer it.

Good idea about the disclaimer. I added it to the OP because it makes sense.

Honestly Hugs, your points are salient and very solid. Also pretty depressing because outside of figuring out new advanced techniques, there aren't many viable solutions for the points you bring up.

1) Aerial lag -- The only solution I see here is for Sakurai to have mercy on some characters and give them aerials that have little landing lag. In Brawl SHFFL was already greatly weakened because fastfalling most aerials added lag if you landed in the middle of them. From what I've seen, that trend has continued for Smash 4 of increasing landing lag if landing in the middle of attacks. So the hard coded landing lag is all we have to go with.... Most likely the viable characters in the game will have good options that are autocancelable in short hops, just like the top tiers in Brawl had. And unfortunately that means characters who don't have this option have an uphill battle most likely.

2) Ground mobility limitation -- I don't know what possible solution there could be for this. Wavedashing, crouch cancels, and dash dancing were the additional mobility options of Melee that weren't really sufficient. I have no idea what could make ground approaches more viable. I know in Smash 4 it seems like whiffed grabs have less lag on them (or at least the extended grabs do) so that could help a bit. Pivot canceling also doesn't hurt thats for sure.

EDIT: I should also mention that dash attacks seem massively buffed now so they could be potentially used as an approach option occasionally. Unfortunately the decreased shield lag almost guarantees that they are still extremely punishable, so I'm probably wrong that they could be used as an approach.

 

[Mensrea]

Good idea about the disclaimer. I added it to the OP because it makes sense.

Honestly Hugs, your points are salient and very solid. Also pretty depressing because outside of figuring out new advanced techniques, there aren't many viable solutions for the points you bring up.

1) Aerial lag -- The only solution I see here is for Sakurai to have mercy on some characters and give them aerials that have little landing lag. In Brawl SHFFL was already greatly weakened because fastfalling most aerials added lag if you landed in the middle of them. From what I've seen, that trend has continued for Smash 4 of increasing landing lag if landing in the middle of attacks. So the hard coded landing lag is all we have to go with.... Most likely the viable characters in the game will have good options that are autocancelable in short hops, just like the top tiers in Brawl had. And unfortunately that means characters who don't have this option have an uphill battle most likely.

2) Ground mobility limitation -- I don't know what possible solution there could be for this. Wavedashing, crouch cancels, and dash dancing were the additional mobility options of Melee that weren't really sufficient. I have no idea what could make ground approaches more viable. I know in Smash 4 it seems like whiffed grabs have less lag on them (or at least the tethers do) so that could help a bit. Pivot tilts also don't hurt thats for sure.

It depresses me as well. I've never wanted a game to be good as badly as I've wanted this game to be, and first glances are looking pretty ominous. It's really kinda deflating to see something you have a lot of stock in, appear to be so underwhelming.

 

[Black Mantis]

The Nintendo Treehouse representatives stressed very heavily that the E3 and Comic Con demoes were very old, even as far JANUARY.

source on this? link?

 

[Senario]

It depresses me as well. I've never wanted a game to be good as badly as I've wanted this game to be, and first glances are looking pretty ominous. It's really kinda deflating to see something you have a lot of stock in, appear to be so underwhelming.

Tell me about it, I was feeling that way about Fire Emblem during the Radiant Dawn/Shadow dragon games...Currently about Paper Mario as a series and maybe one or two other games...Devil may cry is looking this way, some may argue Resident Evil though I'm on the fence on that one...feels bad man.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

lol

I laughed too.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

source on this? link?

It had to have been at least a month considering distribution.

 

[Big-Cat]

The quicker shield drop does not mean the game will be harmfully defensive. Every other fighting game has no cooldown when it comes to blocking. If Smash 4 or any game becomes harmfully defensive, it will not be because of fast shield drops. It will be other aspects of the game that will bring that about. So far, we have no planking, random tripping, or hitstun cancelling. So far, Smash 4 has fixed some of the key issues with Brawl's design. Seriously, Brawl killed the reputation of defensive play. The way people praise offensive play makes me wonder if they would be happier playing Marvel.

When I was watching the matches, I found nothing really strange in regards to frame data. The main thing is that everyone was spamming roll dodges for movement and playing it like previous games. The SDCC featured a lot of low level play with only Raikou being a decent player. As for Bowser punishing out of shield, the moves he was able to punish were probably unsafe on block to begin with.

 

[Senario]

The SDCC featured a lot of low level play with only Raikou being a decent player.

*points to DEHF* Wellllll he won and it was a win from losers with a bracket reset sooooo....Just saying.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

I should make a big post later but something I'd like to throw in: Part of our defense viewing, in my opinion, is that Smash works a bit differently than every other fighting game (Or just about) because of movement and other options. I have some friends who *love* watching fighting games yet don't care for Smash, in-which there's nothing wrong with that, but most of it boils down to moving. Defensive play can look a lot more boring than actually playing the game.

I'm not saying for us to drop these arguments but this is something to consider as a variable that I can elaborate a lot more if needed.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

To be fair Kuma, a lot of these players were being thrown into an alien environment and having to learn fast. Like clearly Raikou and DEHF were on another level from the other players (and even then, DEHF was really starting to separate himself from Raikou as it went on), but I think some of these other players could be pretty good with some more time put in. Like that Luigi player clearly had potential and would probably have been solid with a few days in the lab, but he wasn't able to figure out the punish game in time to save himself in the tournament. I do, however, agree with your broader point. The immaturity of the metagame was deifnitely the biggest gameplay problem in those matches, and time will fix that.

 

[pickle962]

It depresses me as well. I've never wanted a game to be good as badly as I've wanted this game to be, and first glances are looking pretty ominous. It's really kinda deflating to see something you have a lot of stock in, appear to be so underwhelming.

ENOUGH with the melodrama dude! First glances to me look pretty solid considering the outdated build the demo used

 

[Mensrea]

ENOUGH with the melodrama dude! First glances to me look pretty solid considering the outdated build the demo used

Hey man, you are seriously attacking everyone who has a different opinion than you. Not everyone thinks it looks solid. I don't go posting :"ENOUGH with your optimism! Clearly doesn't look good!"

Just staaaahp.

 

[Big-Cat]

I do, however, agree with your broader point. The immaturity of the metagame was deifnitely the biggest gameplay problem in those matches, and time will fix that.

So what explains Toon Links spamming DAir? That's Brawl's Thunderbolt lol.

*points to DEHF* Wellllll he won and it was a win from losers with a bracket reset sooooo....Just saying.

Whoops. I stand corrected. My memory's a bit fuzzy right now.

 

[TTTTTsd]

SFxT was more of a spin off though. If Brawl was a spin off I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now.

Fair enough, but my comparison for Super Street Fighter 2(Pre-Super Turbo update) still stands.

 

[HeavyLobster]

As for shields, Smash 4's shield seems to be the weakest of any Smash game, and recovers extremely slowly compared to Brawl and Melee shields. Bring it to just below half size, and by 5 seconds later it's still just over half size.

Smash 4's shield is nowhere near the weakest in any Smash game. It's definitely stronger than Smash 64's and Melee's, and actually drops faster than even Brawl's. It seems to be weaker overall than Brawl's due to the weaknesses you mentioned, but shielding is definitely a highly useful tool. Hopefully it'll be properly balanced so as not to be too restrictive towards offense.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

So what explains Toon Links spamming DAir? That's Brawl's Thunderbolt lol.

Whoops. I stand corrected. My memory's a bit fuzzy right now.

I won't disagree that the spam of TL's dair and dash attack on every character was pretty bad. I can only presume against the really weak players in the early rounds it was working, and we were seeing these players stuck in the trap of never having learned the new game right and having to win against players who had learned something useful. I'm trying really hard to be charitable about that one, but yeah, TL dair spam was definitely a pretty bad look from that tournament.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I hope that you can take shield damage from a power shield, but stun is still negated. I feel like that will help a lot, especially if you are constantly trying to run a punish game. You can power shield my shield breaker, but the deterioration on the shield would put players in a bad spot. This would make grounded attacks a good stand alone option and teach the opponent why he should just try to bait out moves.