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

[Azule07]

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.

Look, if i'm not going to call your arguement stupid, don't call mine stupid. We're both adults, and we can debate and talk like adults. However, if you want to roll with the insults, I think that you're being pretty spoilt and idiotic to judge an early build of this game, which is so incomplete it's even been commented on by the people playing it, and claim that it's really bad and won't be competitive.

Yes, Melee did a lot right. It must of it's still being played now. Brawl also did a lot right. However, Melee also did things wrong. Brawl also did things wrong. We can't pick and chose what aspects get carried over to a sequel, we have to accept that each sequel is new and different. Melee got a lot of treatment that most fighting game franchises don't get, and that's what Project M is. It's time to move on and embrace the change, and start figuring out how to deal with a more defensive based game, or just go back to what already exists.

I'd like to ask a question. This game will go on to sell millions, make a ton of profit and be a huge success no matter how you look at it. So why does Sakurai and the developers care if, eight or so years down the line, people are still playing it? This very logic is the reason why they don't have to address any concerns, because game developers are all motivated by money and profits, and this game will turn a large profit regardless. Infact, they would actually see Melee as the inferior game, as it only sold 7.07 million copies, whilst Brawl sold 12.06 million. This would intice them to make the game more similiar to Brawl than it would to Melee.

 

[Cassio]

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.

No, Im saying if you actually think shields in Brawl are bad, then you dont have a full understanding of how shields work in the game. Because shields in Brawl are not bad. One statement leads into the other.

Also bad in the context of this thread that they promote defensive play.

 

[Snagrio]

This is the forth installment of the game series (plus the first portable/HD sequels as well) where Nintendo's finest gather to knock each other's lights out for our entertainment. I'm already automatically satisfied regardless of competitive mechanics.

 

[Cassio]

Sort of a tangent, but for the most part people seem more pleased with the game after yesterdays gameplay.

 

[Senario]

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.

If you try hard enough you can argue anything is defensive. To some extent they are but offensive options take over once defensive options run out. This is true for many games like marvel, blazblue, melee, 64, the key is that offensive options take over.

The differences in both type of game that street fighter is and what smash is makes the comparison more of an exception rather than the rule. Look at other competitive games where offense takes precedence in many fighting game tourneys. Blazblue, marvel, melee. And the offensive play styles of many other competitive games like league, dota, and others. Street fighter is just the exception to the rule possibly in part to it being known as the first fighting game that reached competitive viability.

All that said, poisoning the well argument. Attacking his credibility.

Smash is a type of game where offensive gameplay is more interesting to a vast majority of players who bother watching anything competitive. That is why melee is so popular. Defensive play styles in smash end with constant run away due to how well you can move around vertically for run away tactics. You can't get too far away in any fighting game and there are edges to the area so you can't keep backing up. Jumping away is always matched by approach options.

 

[κomıc]

In all honesty, if a Smash Bros game released 3 years after Melee and not the 7 year gap between it and Brawl, things would be a lot different today. I don't fully understand why people hold Melee to such high regards when objectively, the game was rushed out to launch alongside Gamecube and has wonky controls for today's standards and doesn't hold up well like other launch Gamecube titles. It's not a bad game but it isn't as perfect like most think it is. You had nothing to compare Smash Bros to in 2001. The downplaying of Brawl because it isn't like Melee is irksome. And it's annoying to see people automatically label Smash 4 as "Brawl's Direct Sequel" as if it was a bad thing.

All Smash games are going to have flaws just like any other video game out there. And even still, the build that was displayed at Comic-Con is the same one form E3 and Sakurai even said at the roundtable where Pac-Man was revealed that the build he was playing on that stage was most current than the one that attendees was playing at the convention center. Development is obviously wrapping up and it's coming down to refinements at this point. Smash for Wii U will go "GOLD" in September.

 

[Bladeviper]

If you try hard enough you can argue anything is defensive. To some extent they are but offensive options take over once defensive options run out. This is true for many games like marvel, blazblue, melee, 64, the key is that offensive options take over.

The differences in both type of game that street fighter is and what smash is makes the comparison more of an exception rather than the rule. Look at other competitive games where offense takes precedence in many fighting game tourneys. Blazblue, marvel, melee. And the offensive play styles of many other competitive games like league, dota, and others. Street fighter is just the exception to the rule possibly in part to it being known as the first fighting game that reached competitive viability.

All that said, poisoning the well argument. Attacking his credibility.

Smash is a type of game where offensive gameplay is more interesting to a vast majority of players who bother watching anything competitive. That is why melee is so popular. Defensive play styles in smash end with constant run away due to how well you can move around vertically for run away tactics. You can't get too far away in any fighting game and there are edges to the area so you can't keep backing up. Jumping away is always matched by approach options.

which is why i can see smash 4 being more competitive than people think since there is more openings to punish the defensive options from brawl

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Sort of a tangent, but for the most part people seem more pleased with the game after yesterdays gameplay.

I know I am. Especially after this

 

[Ulevo]

Look, if i'm not going to call your arguement stupid, don't call mine stupid. We're both adults, and we can debate and talk like adults. However, if you want to roll with the insults, I think that you're being pretty spoilt and idiotic to judge an early build of this game, which is so incomplete it's even been commented on by the people playing it, and claim that it's really bad and won't be competitive.

You want to talk about how to be a proper adult? Alright. Learn how to accept criticism. I didn't call you stupid, I called the argument you presented stupid. There is a definitive difference. One assumes that you have poor intellect, and one assumes that you're either parroting a poorly thought out argument that isn't your own, or that you've come up with an argument that was poorly thought out. A mature adult would acknowledge this, and realize that they're not defined by every opinion they make, and that just because their opinion isn't accepted doesn't mean they aren't accepted. This is what children do.

Oh, and being a hypocrite half way in to your post isn't very adult like either.

Yes, Melee did a lot right. It must of it's still being played now. Brawl also did a lot right. However, Melee also did things wrong. Brawl also did things wrong. We can't pick and chose what aspects get carried over to a sequel, we have to accept that each sequel is new and different. Melee got a lot of treatment that most fighting game franchises don't get, and that's what Project M is. It's time to move on and embrace the change, and start figuring out how to deal with a more defensive based game, or just go back to what already exists.

And exactly why does this have to happen. Is there some important purpose behind this that no one told me about? Why is there this extreme necessity to move on from what Melee was, or what qualities it offered, and on to something completely foreign and new? Not that Brawl is even really new as it pertains to Melee; just watered down. Don't get me wrong here, I don't have a problem with new. I'm playing devil's advocate because I'm like 99% sure you're just talking out of your ass and saying what everyone else keeps saying without understanding the words they're typing or the implications they have.

There is no necessity to have a brand new Smash game, and I use the phrase brand new in the context you imply, which means an entirely foreign Smash game. The only necessity there is to change within this franchise is to keep it from becoming stale, because that will kill the series over time. Despite how amazing Melee is, people will eventually tire from it. That necessitates some change. But there isn't any argument I've heard or that you can probably present that implores the need for drastic changes in the Smash game. You know what people wanted pre-Brawl? New characters, new stages, new graphics, and a lot of the cool fun fluff stuff in 1P mode. No one was against new mechanics here and there either. And this was enough to put a shiny new coat of paint on to something familiar.

I'm not buying this need for change though, particularly when you don't have an argument for it.

I'd like to ask a question. This game will go on to sell millions, make a ton of profit and be a huge success no matter how you look at it. So why does Sakurai and the developers care if, eight or so years down the line, people are still playing it? This very logic is the reason why they don't have to address any concerns, because game developers are all motivated by money and profits, and this game will turn a large profit regardless. Infact, they would actually see Melee as the inferior game, as it only sold 7.07 million copies, whilst Brawl sold 12.06 million. This would intice them to make the game more similiar to Brawl than it would to Melee.

And this is a very poor way of conducting business for the long term. I for one am not going to buy this game until I am 100% certain I have come to a consensus on how I feel about it.

No, Im saying if you actually think shields in Brawl are bad, then you dont have a full understanding of how shields work in the game. Because shields in Brawl are not bad. One statement leads into the other.

Also bad in the context of this thread that they promote defensive play.

Shields in Brawl do promote defensive play. I find it silly to suggest otherwise.

 

[Exor]

I know I am. Especially after this

I leapt out of my chair when this happened.

If moments like this are commonplace in Smash 4's future you can bet your ass I'll be there

 

[κomıc]

I leapt out of my chair when this happened.

If moments like this are commonplace in Smash 4's future you can bet your *** I'll be there

I also love this.

Bowser got the buff he needed.

 

[Cassio]

If you try hard enough you can argue anything is defensive. To some extent they are but offensive options take over once defensive options run out. This is true for many games like marvel, blazblue, melee, 64, the key is that offensive options take over.

The differences in both type of game that street fighter is and what smash is makes the comparison more of an exception rather than the rule. Look at other competitive games where offense takes precedence in many fighting game tourneys. Blazblue, marvel, melee. And the offensive play styles of many other competitive games like league, dota, and others. Street fighter is just the exception to the rule possibly in part to it being known as the first fighting game that reached competitive viability.

All that said, poisoning the well argument. Attacking his credibility.

Smash is a type of game where offensive gameplay is more interesting to a vast majority of players who bother watching anything competitive. That is why melee is so popular. Defensive play styles in smash end with constant run away due to how well you can move around vertically for run away tactics. You can't get too far away in any fighting game and there are edges to the area so you can't keep backing up. Jumping away is always matched by approach options.

Not really following what youre saying entirely, but Ill try here. Marvel as mentioned earlier (UMVC3) is fairly defensive and its the second most popular. And you cant really compare other genres too well, but ive heard some of those you mentioned (like SC2) are kinda defensive too. Also the melee community seems to enjoy melee even when its defensive, and your analysis of how defensive play works in smash is not top level. That only really works at lower levels of play, because positioning is still really important in all smash games.

Also I made the claim based off of a statement he made on shields,I clarified later which you mightve not seen by the time you posted.

(If youre referencing that other thread from the other day, questioning credibility is ok if someone makes a statement with no argument. I only get annoyed if people do that several times not once or twice.)\

Shields in Brawl do promote defensive play.

Welp, youre incorrect. Read my other posts in here regarding shielding and smash.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

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.

You're assuming I'm not a good player and so I can't possibly understand Brawl. I was ranked top 8 in the Midwest when I played this game. In fact I'm rather surprised you haven't heard of me if you've been part of the Brawl scene near the beginning. While I may not have been the best player, I had a pretty decent impact on the scene back in the day. I quit roughly 5 years ago for school though. Your entire argument is essentially that I don't understand Brawl at a high level (I do) and that Brawl is more fun to watch than Melee for some people (the VAST minority).

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

Thank you for that! I actually mentioned this in my initial post that the only viable characters in Brawl are those who can OVERCOME the extremely strong shield. Every character you've mentioned there have excellent options vs shields. That is why they are so high on the tier list, among other reasons.

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.

????

Marvel is the least defensive game possibly ever created. Projectile spam is specific to a select few characters who are unfortunately fairly good characters and thus seen often at the competitive level.

This discussion again...

1. Shut up until release.

Let me address this point:

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.

 

[Manty]

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.

Street Fighter is just a slower game in general because of all the time spent in neutral and the heavy emphasis on footsies. Offense is still effective. There are more rushdown oriented characters like Ibuki or Sakura, and Yun (an all out rushdown character) was widely considered to be the best in Vanilla AE. The Zangief matchup isn't the best example because everybody has to play like that against him, you have to outspace/zone him the whole match unless you're looking to get command grabbed for 1/4 of your life.

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.

That's a gross over simplification.

 

[Senario]

I know I am. Especially after this

That is more of a read than a combo but it should be noted that shields break easier which is good. Get pressure options to prevent a shield grab often on approach and it could be good. That isn't that hype though. Years of melee and a good amount of dabbling in blazblue and marvel makes that more of "oh he broke his shield, that's cool".

 

[Octillus]

I'm having doubts about everyone's commitment to Sparkle Motion

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Regardless of how "OP" the shield might look right now, I think quite a few characters have good approach options vs. shield as-is. Shield-dropping may be crazy fast, but that won't help you against auto-cancelling aerials. In particular, Link has an auto-cancelling Forward Aerial coupled with a ranged grab. If they shield FAir, they get grabbed. If they don't shield FAir, they get grabbed. Either way, Link's approach wins. I'm sure there are other characters who can use similar tactics to break your shield or grab you out of shield without you having any ability to punish. Fox's FAir into grab comes to mind, and apparently Sonic's FAir has an auto-cancel window as well and is multi-hitting, so it should be able to do the same.

 

[Ulevo]

Welp, youre incorrect. Read my other posts in here regarding shielding and smash.

I did. I'm not impressed. Just because you can use a defensive mechanic offensively doesn't mean you can suddenly absolve it of its defensive characteristics or problems. Approaching with a shield is only an offensive tool because shields are so strong defensively, and they still don't give the opponent who is faced with the shield adequate tools to get past those defensive options, which further exacerbates the problem that approaching and offensive options are not favoured, are easy to punish, and are discouraged.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Let me address this point:

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 (why do you think shields will be different when the game is released) 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.

A like was not sufficient enough to express my agreement with this statement. I must follow up with the inevitable.

This.

 

[Cassio]

That's a gross over simplification.

Yeah apologies, it was an oversimplification. But I didnt want to dwell on it.

Thank you for that! I actually mentioned this in my initial post that the only viable characters in Brawl are those who can OVERCOME the extremely strong shield. Every character you've mentioned there have excellent options vs shields. That is why they are so high on the tier list, among other reasons.

Yup! No worries. I think we arent seeing entirely eye to eye on how shields affect brawl/will affect smash 4. But it seems a bit too chaotic in this thread atm to have a legit discussion on just that, lol.

????

Marvel is the least defensive game possibly ever created. Projectile spam is specific to a select few characters who are unfortunately fairly good characters and thus seen often at the competitive level.

Hmm Ill admit I dont follow UMVC3 much, but I was at EVO and people seemed to really dislike Chris G's style of play and how successful that sort of strategy is in Marvel, and some even called the game bad and toxic. It was weird because I knew people had issues on the game but I didnt realize it was that controversial.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

This is the forth installment of the game series (plus the first portable/HD sequels as well) where Nintendo's finest gather to knock each other's lights out for our entertainment. I'm already automatically satisfied regardless of competitive mechanics.

If I could give you a medal I would.

 

[Lozjam]

Dude, first this is a game that hasn't come out.
Second, were we watching the same tournament? The semifinals-finals were a blast to watch.
Third, Turn Cancelling, enough said
Fourth, shield pressure is much more of a thing, they break easier. Also having faster shielding would make the game more aggressive. We can see some fantastic feats, like how Bowser shield grabbed Bowser between jabs.
Fifth, Each character is different, there is no way you can get a verdict without seeing all of the characters.

 

[Cassio]

a defensive mechanic offensively

Approaching with a shield is only an offensive tool because shields are so strong defensively

These are the problem with your argument. They are the crux of your argument but makes no sense. As in, its not a real argument and attempts to be self-evident but is completely counter to actual Brawl gameplay. Also, spacing and projectiles completely wreck defensive shields. Grabbing beats shield in general (offensive and defensive).

 

[Bladeviper]

I think its about time to leave this thread since we are getting no where but ill leave with this.

I think this game will be competitive as all the smash games so far have been to at least some degree and I also think it will last longer than brawls scene did due to the fact tripping is gone and the defensive options are now punishable or nerfed in some way. The rest is gonna really be up to us in what we can find/do with what we are given.

 

[Deleted member]

Second, were we watching the same tournament? The semifinals-finals were a blast to watch.

This. The tournament really put a lot of hope into the game for me, where the 2 aggressive Bowser players were able to react to and punish campy play well. Sure, there was some skill gap, but just looking at the finals it's hard for me to take anyone who says this game has little or no competitive viability seriously.

 

[BelowZer0]

I completely agree with the OP. It's looks pretty slow, with a lot of landing lag, and the shield looks to drop kind of fast. My hopes for this game being competitive have lowered sadly.

 

[micstar615]

From a spectator's POV, I think this game has a future after watching that 3DS tournament. Defensive play is not a bad thing, as long as it's not overly defensive to the point where offensive play is punished and defensive play isn't at all. This game has actually nerfed air dodges (you get a landing lag) + shields break much faster. Hell, just watching Larry and Damien play showed that the game is particularly offensive. That Shiek player tried to camp but got demolished because of it. That was because of the shields being faster, but it actually lead to offensive play; shielding allows you to approach and punish campy tactics, however since shields break faster and grabbing exists, it also isn't likely to be overpowered. The new ledge mechanics shake things up and allow for more offensive pressure on and off the stage. This game seems like a good mix of offence and defence, from what I've seen, I'll surely enjoy it. Now we just have to wait till it actually comes out (that's kind of important).

 

[Veggi]

I don't even get where this idea that everyone stalls in Brawl came from.

You're assuming I'm not a good player and so I can't possibly understand Brawl. I was ranked top 8 in the Midwest when I played this game. In fact I'm rather surprised you haven't heard of me if you've been part of the Brawl scene near the beginning. While I may not have been the best player, I had an pretty decent impact on the scene back in the day. I quit roughly 5 years ago for school though. Your entire argument is essentially that I don't understand Brawl at a high level (I do) and that Brawl is more fun to watch than Melee for some people (the VAST minority).

I have heard of you because you translated something, it's just irrelevant. Your argument was that the game was too defensive so it looked like it was going to be a poor competitive game and mine, like many others, was that you were wrong and a game's competitive value isn't based on how offensive it is. You didn't reply to that and you stated that the part of my post that had to deal with viewer entertainment value was the entire thing, which it wasn't. You also just stated that you quit 5 years ago when Brawl has only been out since 2008, which means that you have not played very long. Regardless, I explained exactly why I believed the people who liked watching Brawl liked it. I also explained that Melee was a more flashy game like Marvel and that doesn't make it a better competitive game.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Dude, first this is a game that hasn't come out.
Second, were we watching the same tournament? The semifinals-finals were a blast to watch.
Third, Turn Cancelling, enough said
Fourth, shield pressure is much more of a thing, they break easier. Also having faster shielding would make the game more aggressive. We can see some fantastic feats, like how Bowser shield grabbed Bowser between jabs.
Fifth, Each character is different, there is no way you can get a verdict without seeing all of the characters.

1. Please refer to the bottom of this comment
2. They were fun to watch but this thread is deriving how the gameplay will become
3. How does this impact any argument here?
4. Holy **** I must have missed that. Shield grabbing Bowser BETWEEN JABS??? That is a horrible, horrible thing. That means things are worse than I thought. Do you realize this makes Bowser's jab an incredibly bad attack to use unless they can't defend it? If grabbing him between jabs is free on block, even when properly spaced, then that just goes to show you that defensive options are too strong. Why would I use the attack then? Simply put, I wouldn't. You see it as a good thing, I see it as something that will promote defensive play even more because the risk of attacking is so high.

At least we haven't seen the other Brawl staple of bad attacks where you get punished for hitting them because hitstun is so low (or at least we haven't seen it yet).

I also think it will last longer than brawls scene did due to the fact tripping is gone and the defensive options are now punishable or nerfed in some way. The rest is gonna really be up to us in what we can find/do with what we are given.

Tripping was incredibly annoying but had no significant impact on Brawl competitively.

And the entire point of this thread is that defensive options are BUFFED in this game, not nerfed. The only defensive option that was nerfed is airdodging into the ground.

 

[Cassio]

These are the problem with your argument. They are the crux of your argument but makes no sense. As in, its not a real argument and attempts to be self-evident but is completely counter to actual Brawl gameplay. Also, spacing and projectiles completely wreck defensive shields. Grabbing beats shield in general (offensive and defensive).

Eh, gonna elaborate on this a little more. Basically the statement implies that if I dash at someone, shield an oncoming attack, then apply a guaranteed punish; that this interaction was defensive just because a shield was involved.

This is something more likely to work if I dash at someone because I move into their attack or projectile. But pretty much any halfway decent character can space an attack or projectile on my shield if use it without any movement.

 

[Bladeviper]

1. Please refer to the bottom of this comment
2. They were fun to watch but this thread is deriving how the gameplay will become
3. How does this impact any argument here?
4. Holy **** I must have missed that. Shield grabbing Bowser BETWEEN JABS??? That is a horrible, horrible thing. That means things are worse than I thought. Do you realize this makes Bowser's jab an incredibly bad attack to use unless they can't defend it? If grabbing him between jabs is free on block, even when properly spaced, then that just goes to show you that defensive options are too strong. Why would I use the attack then? Simply put, I wouldn't. You see it as a good thing, I see it as something that will promote defensive play even more because the risk of attacking is so high.

At least we haven't seen the other Brawl staple of bad attacks where you get punished for hitting them because hitstun is so low (or at least we haven't seen it yet).



Tripping was incredibly annoying but had no significant impact on Brawl competitively.

And the entire point of this thread is that defensive options are BUFFED in this game, not nerfed. The only defensive option that was nerfed is airdodging into the ground.

shields breaking faster is a buff? ok then

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

Okay, I'm just going to skip the debate. OP, I disagree. We'll see what happens when the game comes out though. The E3 and SDCC tourneys were good competitions but, hey, there's still time for that to change right?

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

Threads like these... this is awful.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Threads like these... this is awful.

This one is different. I haven't seen a lot of flaming this time around as in past threads. Just honest discussion. Its more productive than not.

 

[Lozjam]

1. Please refer to the bottom of this comment
2. They were fun to watch but this thread is deriving how the gameplay will become
3. How does this impact any argument here?
4. Holy **** I must have missed that. Shield grabbing Bowser BETWEEN JABS??? That is a horrible, horrible thing. That means things are worse than I thought. Do you realize this makes Bowser's jab an incredibly bad attack to use unless they can't defend it? If grabbing him between jabs is free on block, even when properly spaced, then that just goes to show you that defensive options are too strong. Why would I use the attack then? Simply put, I wouldn't. You see it as a good thing, I see it as something that will promote defensive play even more because the risk of attacking is so high.

At least we haven't seen the other Brawl staple of bad attacks where you get punished for hitting them because hitstun is so low (or at least we haven't seen it yet).



Tripping was incredibly annoying but had no significant impact on Brawl competitively.

And the entire point of this thread is that defensive options are BUFFED in this game, not nerfed. The only defensive option that was nerfed is airdodging into the ground.

1. It is confirmed that there will be more combos in smash 4 in later builds by Bill Trinten.
2. This game was being played by top level players, Larry got a very good feel of how to play the game.
3. Turn cancelling, where you can slide into your attacks, making it more offensive
http://smashboards.com/threads/smas...-turndashing-a-new-movement-technique.361665/
4. Except you are forgetting the fact there are no other options he could have done. Yes it punished him, but it will be great because you can't just wait for shield, and you can't just throw one out there, you need spot on timing and a good read, else your shield will break, or you will be grabbed. This makes the game very much risk vs. reward. Which is very, very exciting for competitive play. You can't camp in Smash 4 like a very certain Sheik player found out in the tournament, nor can you go in kamikaze like a very certain Tink player found out. They seemed to have reached a perfect balance here. Play smart, you will win, don't adapt, you lose. This makes for a very competitive game. As we have all seen in the stream.

 

[Senario]

Threads like these... this is awful.

I'd say he has a right to voice his ideas as he makes them well thought out. This isn't simply a "this is bad because I say so"

Though to be honest it'll attract people who say we should accept the game as is and provide no input till release. If this was capcom I'd agree because then they can just release an ultimate version or extra version with the proper changes. But this is smash and we only get one iteration every few YEARS, let him speak his mind. He has valid points about being skeptical about competitive play due to how good defensive options are. Even the commentators noted how fast shields were able to be put up.

 

[Cassio]

For the record, the consensus amongst most higher level competitive players is that the game is certainly more offensive oriented for various reasons.

In fact this is the first time ive heard anyone mention shield mechanics in smash 4 as something thatd cause the game to be more defensive oriented.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

This one is different. I haven't seen a lot of flaming this time around as in past threads. Just honest discussion. Its more productive than not.

I'm mainly referring to the name calling and people being told they're stupid and idiotic, but I agree with you.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

shields breaking faster is a buff? ok then

Can someone elaborate on this please? Bowser bomb breaks a shield (good luck landing that on shield against a good player) and Marth's neutral B chunks a shield more than it did before. Is this the only evidence we have of shields breaking faster or did I miss something?

1. It is confirmed that there will be more combos in smash 4 in later builds by Bill Trinten.
2. This game was being played by top level players, Larry got a very good feel of how to play the game.
3. Turn cancelling, where you can slide into your attacks, making it more offensive
http://smashboards.com/threads/smas...-turndashing-a-new-movement-technique.361665/
4. Except you are forgetting the fact there are no other options he could have done. Yes it punished him, but it will be great. Because you can't just wait for shield, you need spot on timing, else your shield will break. Or you will be grabbed. This makes the game very much risk vs. reward. Which is very, very exciting for competitive play. You can't camp in Smash 4 like a very certain Sheik player found out in the tournament, nor can you go in kamikaze like a very certain Tink player found out. They seemed to have reached a perfect balance here. Play smart, you will win, don't adapt, you lose. This makes for a very competitive game. As we have all seen in the stream.

1. Really? That's awesome! If you have a link I'd love to see the reference here. I didn't catch that yesterday and its great to hear.
2. Okay.
3. I am aware of it; I simply don't think it affects the points raised here that defensive options are too strong. Even with this offensive option, they are just as strong.
4. First, please do note that shield grabbing between hits of the grab is BAD offensively because it discourages hitting players when they are able to shield, making offense less viable. Second, the Toon Link and Shiek were really bad at camping.

 

[Ulevo]

These are the problem with your argument. They are the crux of your argument but makes no sense. As in, its not a real argument and attempts to be self-evident but is completely counter to actual Brawl gameplay. Also, spacing and projectiles completely wreck defensive shields. Grabbing beats shield in general (offensive and defensive).

You tell me that projectiles and spacing, which are both incredibly defensively oriented tactics in Brawl, are ways to counteract shields. How does this help your position exactly? I'm resorting to defensive tactics to beat out other defensive tactics? Right.

All you manage to do here is tell me my argument is self rationalizing without actually telling me why I'm wrong. Can you not waste my time, please.

Eh, gonna elaborate on this a little more. Basically the statement implies that if I dash at someone, shield an oncoming attack, then apply a guaranteed punish; that this interaction was defensive just because a shield was involved.

This is something more likely to work if I dash at someone because I move into their attack or projectile. But pretty much any halfway decent character can space an attack or projectile on my shield if use it without any movement.

No, that wasn't the implication of the statement. I was stating that just because a defensive mechanic can be used in an offensive manner, it doesn't make that mechanic offensive. It just means that a defensive mechanic can have offensive characteristics. That's all it means. Just because shields can be used this way doesn't mean the defensive characteristics of shields aren't completely overpowered (which they are) and centralizing to what tactics can and cannot be effectively used.