Is the skill gap in Smash 4 too small?

[Fatmanonice]

All the brawl players are the top guys mostly in this game because the game is pretty much brawl with less options. Smash 4 has the lowest skill ceiling but it is demanding in it's own way to be really good.

Or because they're good at Smash games in general. Most of the top Brawl players are also leaders in the Melee and Project M communities too.

 

[Kodystri]

All the brawl players are the top guys mostly in this game because the game is pretty much brawl with less options. Smash 4 has the lowest skill ceiling but it is demanding in it's own way to be really good.

Best Zero and then tell me that Smash 4 has a low skill cieling.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

All the brawl players are the top guys mostly in this game because the game is pretty much brawl with less options. Smash 4 has the lowest skill ceiling but it is demanding in it's own way to be really good.

Not really, you can do most of what you did in Brawl in this game and some you couldn't.

 

[S_B]

I'm pretty sure ZeRo has run a number of video events where he plays people for charity over wifi.

Has he EVER lost one of these?

 

[Flamecircle]

I'm pretty sure ZeRo has run a number of video events where he plays people for charity over wifi.

Has he EVER lost one of these?

He's definitely lost on WiFi.

Not that indicates a lack of skill gap, because it's WiFi.

 

[S_B]

He's definitely lost on WiFi.

Not that indicates a lack of skill gap, because it's WiFi.

But how often?

I mean, if he were losing every other game (like it was a coin toss), I'd be inclined to agree with the OP but it's clearly not the case.

 

[Flamecircle]

But how often?

I mean, if he were losing every other game (like it was a coin toss), I'd be inclined to agree with the OP but it's clearly not the case.

Not often. And you should consider he's also not trying his hardest.
Consider in actual tourney how often he drops a game. He dropped like, one, two games in Sandstorm?

 

[Phan7om]

The WiFi skill gap is noticeably smaller than it is offline, that is fact. The greater the lag or delay the smaller ths skill gap. But there is still a skill gap. But thats wifi it really doesnt matter that much, but i can kind of sympathize with the OP since I know where he is coming from.

[And i posted something else here but nvm, it is irrelevant.]

 

[Seagull Joe]

Perhaps because of For Glory, the recent support of Nintendo and other major companies, and just the newest of the game, Smash 4 has the biggest population of lower mid to mid level players out of any Smash game. As even you noticed, this "lack of skill gap" only exists outside of the top, which is partly true. Since there is a lower skill floor, all a player needs is basic fundamentals or a gimmick and can compete with a majority of players. Why it may seem like this trend is so pronounce in Smash 4 is because the pool mid-level players is huge while the pool of top level players hasn't really grown yet or maybe even decreased.

If you look at any region, it's the same 3-5 people winning tournaments and taking the top 3 spots.
*MD/VA- Seagull Joe, Boss, Pink Fresh
*Socal- Tyrant, DEFH, Xzax
*NY/NJ- Nario, Nakat, Jtails, Dabuz, Vinnie
*Florida- Esam, MVD, Nick Riddle, Master Raven
*Europe- Mr. R, Leffen, Cyve, J. Miller
plus people like Zero and M2K who travel so much.

What you'll notice is not only is the pool of top players is small, but it mainly consists of people who were already top level players in other Smash games, mainly Brawl. There have been some players like Jtails and Da Puffster who have leveled up, but mainly no one new is winning tournaments. If the skill gap were small, there would be a large pool of tournament winners full of volatile results and new players, but that isn't the case.

Pink Fresh is not someone I would list as he has entered 1 smash 4 tournament in like 3 months. The first two people would suffice.

 

[S_B]

IIRC, Salem came from purely wifi in Brawl before he entered the tourney scene.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Pink Fresh is not someone I would list as he has entered 1 smash 4 tournament in like 3 months. The first two people would suffice.

You're missing the point.

 

[Zorai]

You're missing the point.

He believes he's good for winning Xanadus in MDVA.

Probably didn't bother reading anything in this thread either.

 

[Seagull Joe]

He believes he's good for winning Xanadus in MDVA.

Probably didn't bother reading anything in this thread either.

I just name searched to get here. I didn't read a thing.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

I just name searched to get here. I didn't read a thing.

If you didn't read the thread, then why bother contributing at all?

 

[Swagkage]

While Smash 4 is certainly more welcoming than most fighting games, I don't think its skill gap is too small. I doubt I'm putting anything new on the table by saying this, but the skill floor being higher doesn't mean that the skill gap is too low.

If the skill gap was too low, you wouldn't see consistent online battle/tournament results. While I've certainly had more close matches online in Sm4sh than in other fighting games, I've played enough blowout matches to be sure that there is definitely a skill difference among players of the game. I think the answer really is that simple. The skill gap doesn't have to be as big as it was in Melee for it to be big enough imo and I don't think it should have to be that big either lol

 

[Donkeybutter]

Wait, wait wait.....so a game that was released about half a year ago has less of a skill gap than smash games that have had 7-15 years of metagame development??? Who would've thunk...

Of course Smash 4 doesn't have a huge skill gap like the other games yet, have people forgetten how new ssb4 is compared to the earlier games? Though the skill gap has definitely been establishing itself more as the top smash 4 players like Zero, Dabuz, Nairo, Vinnie, Mr. R, JTails, 6WX, Ally, Nientono, Abadango, Rain, etc. have been consistently beating most opponents (besides the few who are at their level).

Remember that the absolute best players in Smash 4 only have been playing for at most like 6 months, with only 6 months worth of game knowledge, strategy, and technical experience to go on. Compare that to the top Melee players who have probably been playing at least 6 or 7 years to push the game to the level it's at today. And even then, they had a base of years of game knowledge and competitive play to learn from when they started. It's literally just an issue of time, and of people expecting overnight maturity of the meta when it's just not realistic. We are still in the formative period of the game, where we have discovered actually a decent amount of strategies and tech (just look through the 30-something page long mechanics and techniques thread) but it hasn't had time to be implemented on a wide or consistent enough scale.

Example, the 1 frame ledge snap vulnerability punish is something that was discovered many months ago, yet still has barely been incorporated into anyone's play. Why not? Because it requires a level of precision that nobody (not even Zero) completely has yet, making players feel more comfortable with what they view as less risky (but usually less rewarding) edgeguarding tactics. But over time we will see top players pulling it off more and having success with it, and then more will catch on until it eventually becomes a standard way to edgeguard somebody. I mean stuff like wavelands and powershielding took many years to take off in Melee, and though yes we have a much bigger, more knowledgeable scene now, we're not gonna see an advanced, technical meta only like 6 months into a smash game no matter what it is....

Comparing Brawl/Melee's skill ceilings to Smash 4 is just not a fair comparison so early into the game. Remember how Brawl had a reputation early on for being dumbed down and untechnical? Now after years of devotion to the game, competitive Brawl has only pretty recently started to be praised and respected across the community for how difficult it could be in its own right.

Now the cycle starts again, and this time Smash 4 is the dumbed-down, untechnical game that gets pooped on...and then years from now when Smash 5 comes out everyone is gonna be complaining about how it's so simple and basic. Then the people plead: "Why oh why can't the game just be technical like Smash 4?"

 

[wannabe33]

Look

I don't think most players left Brawl because of the pace or lack of combos or whatever is normally said, they left because of metagame degeneration (poor character balance, infinites, planking etc.)

Seeing as Smash 4 has none of that, it's hard for me to think of it as a gateway game or something that will even "die" before the next Smash game comes out (assuming it's Smash 4 2.0). It's simply a quality game which ensures a long competitive life.

This isn't quite right. Brawl's scene deteriorated for many reasons- negative PR from the Smash documentary, waning viewership, Metaknight dominance and ruleset favoritism, increasingly slow pace, growing competition from Melee's revival- but what ultimately finished Brawl was the introduction of Smash 4.

I don't say that as a knock against Smash 4, mind. Typically, when a fighting game gets a sequel, the original game's scene is largely disbanded and players move on to the most recent installment. Exceptions are rare (Melee, SF2). And Smash 4 was certainly a sequel to Brawl, both chronologically and mechanically.

To put things another way: if Smash 4 never came to fruition, Brawl would still have a scene. Bigger than 64's scene, I imagine; not huge, but healthy.

---

That having been said, those qualities that deteriorated Brawl's scene are absolutely present in Smash 4's.

-Competition from Melee? We're in Melee's prime.
-Ruleset issues? International disagreement regarding customs will likely cause metagame fracturing.
-Slow, defensive mechanics? Of course. And with nerfs to Diddy, expect an era of Rosalina camp.
-Negative PR? Depends on how upcoming major tournaments go. I can't imagine EVO attendees will enjoy Smash 4 too much.

It's simply too early to say. Smash 4's scene has plenty in common with early Brawl- bromides about letting the meta develop, hints of increasingly defensive play, etc.- and even greater competition. On the other hand, the Smash scene is bigger than it's ever been, Nintendo is giving Smash 4 its full backing, and the game (for now) appears better-balanced. It would not surprise me if Smash 4 survived a while, but it would also not surprise me in the slightest if Smash 4's scene crumbled within 2-3 years.

---

I'm also stunned Amazing Ampharos' pedestrian exercise in making excuses has garnered 80+ likes, but hopefully another user is willing to detail why that post is so awful so I won't have to go through the trouble.

 

[DaRkJaWs]

I'm also stunned Amazing Ampharos' pedestrian exercise in making excuses has garnered 80+ likes, but hopefully another user is willing to detail why that post is so awful so I won't have to go through the trouble.

I'm not sure I agree that what is wrong with his post is "making excuses", which isn't to say I like it, so I'd like to see your rebuttal.

 

[wannabe33]

I didn't mean to imply any hostility there, to be clear. Just expressing strong disagreement with his attitude and arguments.

Sure, I could draft a rebuttal up. A long post demands a long rebuttal, so it'll probably be done later today.

 

[AccountsDept]

Disclaimer: Melee's combos and 0 to deaths are hype as hell.

You can take two different things from the gameplay that you posted. The first is what you said - the top level of Melee shows a level of aggression and dominance that Smash 4 lacks (or rather, doesn't show as often). The second is that a wider variety of playstyles are viable at the top level in Smash 4. ZeRo and Dabuz are both incredible players, and ZeRo tends to be the more aggressive player, while Dabuz is far more defensive. This is, if nothing else, clearer in Smash 4. More diverse playstyles, much like the variety of movement options in Melee tend to lend to interesting gameplay. Now you may not enjoy certain styles in Smash 4, and that's fine. A lot of skill is still involved.

But as far as it comes to showing said skill, Sm4sh is simply not as able as Melee to be able to visibly show a spectator of any skill level something that impresses. The point at which Sm4sh becomes 100% mental game is way earlier than Melee, and this is because there's not as many options available when it comes to movement, attack, approach, and even defense, as Melee's double-shield system along with abuse of clanks and abuse of armor (i.e. Yoshi) provided more defensive options then are available in Sm4sh.

And, yes, more options =/= more depth, but more ways to use options = more depth. Melee has a lot of ways to use the large amount of options it has. Sm4sh lacks both compared to previous entries, and this directly leads to the mental game being much, much more important. Which, some would tout as praise, but I would disagree.

And, lastly, I don't think that what you should have taken away from the Melee clip is that "it's aggressive." Yes, it is, however, the amount of both tech-skill and mental play at hand is ridiculous. If Dabuz and ZeRo were at the same sort of stalemate, and both were constantly and cleverly keeping each other at bay with constant action, then it would've been something much more interesting. Yeah, Dabuz could still be camping the **** out of the game, but if the camping was structured in a way that it required immense technical skill to carefully pinpoint pikmin at the target and it required micro-movements to sustain it, it'd be okay. But none of that is happening. The game is inciting the stalemate, rather than the players.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

-Competition from Melee? We're in Melee's prime.

This is true. Though Smash 4 is barely behind Melee in views and attendance, both pretty much outclassing every other fighter except for Street Fighter in attendance.

-Ruleset issues? International disagreement regarding customs will likely cause metagame fracturing.

People seem to be more and more leaning towards customs and even then, oh well this has happened with every single iteration of smash.

-Slow, defensive mechanics? Of course. And with nerfs to Diddy, expect an era of Rosalina camp.

There are more rushdown characters than Diddy and even then who cares, it actually offers a variety to play styles.

-Negative PR? Depends on how upcoming major tournaments go. I can't imagine EVO attendees will enjoy Smash 4 too much.

FC hates smash anyways, melee included.

It'll be back at EVO if it has the views and numbers, I'm willing to bet it will.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Part of me really wants to make a long post explaining a lot about how smash games actually play and why what most people are saying is just silly (a full examination of Melee's meta vs 4's would be interesting if we were collectively mature enough to have that conversation), but it's very obvious to me it's just futile. I think a lot of you honestly just don't want to hear anything that suggests smash 4 is a good game. You also won't want to hear that Brawl wasn't the demon you make it out to be or that 4 is more different from Brawl than Brawl was from Melee. I'm not at any point making "excuses" for 4; most of the claims about 4 being bad are just wrong and often betray a ridiculous lack of understanding about how 4 actually plays.

Talking about how 4 is overly defensive or honestly even particularly defensive at all betrays a serious lack of understanding of how the game actually plays, but then I see you guys talking about how campy or inactive dabuz's playstyle is and it's even more obvious you don't even know what you're watching when you see this game played since what dabuz actually does is play an incredibly active and efficient control game. If this is you, just please step back for a moment and realize the simple truth that you don't understand this game at all; your claims aren't even logical. Think about it; if what dabuz was doing were merely a basic camp strategy, why would he win so much? Basic camping is easy, and a lot of people would be more than happy to do the same thing if it got them the wins and the cash. If it were such an easy thing, every region would have at least one guy just like dabuz who in principle would be just as good as the original article. Instead dabuz is an elite player who decisively defeats almost everyone he plays, and Rosalina who allegedly is going to lead 4 into a new era of camp is one of the more rarely played characters among the generally agreed to be strong characters. Doesn't the way that reality is completely incongruent with these claims bother you guys a bit? Just please... step back and consider the objective evidence.

Regardless, the actual 4 community is completely and totally sold on the merits of this game. 4 is not just a decent game; it's an outstanding game, and the only direction the community for this game is going is up. If you go to a smash 4 tournament and hang out with smash 4 players, you'll see an atmosphere of basically pure optimism for the game; almost all of the negativity 4 gets comes from people who don't play it seriously. The 4 community is also going to be less laid back about baseless attacks on the game; we see full well that just tolerating stuff like that for years in Brawl hurt us, and that's why at APEX when our community was basically just insulted we got mad instead of sad. We do want to get along and do mostly still believe the smash community is better served working together instead of apart, but please, don't kick this beehive by antagonizing us. My goal in this topic is basically to just assert that 4 is good to try to nip this in the bud; I'm actually trying to help all of us here...

 

[thehard]

Part of me really wants to make a long post explaining a lot about how smash games actually play and why what most people are saying is just silly (a full examination of Melee's meta vs 4's would be interesting if we were collectively mature enough to have that conversation), but it's very obvious to me it's just futile.

write it anyway! You have a way with words, a lot of people including myself would appreciate it

On other note, the accusation that Smash 4's engine favors defensive play is a pretty silly claim (not that there's anything wrong with defensive play, and ignoring the fact that what "defensive" means varies from person to person, but this is just a blatant untruth) when you consider that ZeRo plays a full-on aggression game, and uh, he's the best Smash 4 player by a wide margin. Then you have Nairo, an easy pick for 2nd best, who utilizes dizzying movement and offensive pressure with ZSS and the Pits to dominate his opponents. This is kind of a Sonic thing, but 6WX forces opponents to play by his game, and just so happens to play offensively and in doing so cemented his status as the best Sonic player in Smash 4 (the "campy" ones like Seagull Joe and Static Manny placed much lower than him at APEX). Mr. R and Nietono? Both highly aggressive Shieks, just watch their APEX ditto, no explanation needed. Even Dabuz "goes in" when he has an advantage, some times he goes in for no reason too. I honestly don't get the hate, he puts serious pressure on his opponents - I'm sure all these sentiments exist PURELY because of his set with Abadango, where his "camping" was the smartest way to play (and is in every Smash game in the situation he was put in, AKA a percentage/stock lead). He has not timed out a match since, afaik. (Barring that awful 5 minute timer period)

Honestly by now minds are already made up, you're "with or against" Smash 4 and you're probably not going to budge on your stance. Too bad most of the people against it have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game is actually played, as evidenced by such quotes as "smash 4 games always go to time" and "zero is the campiest smash 4 player".

 

[wannabe33]

@ #HBC | Red Ryu : While every Smash game has featured tweaked rulesets depending on region (stage legality in particular), we haven't seen anything as major as custom moves before. This fundamentally changes the game; Japan won't be playing and developing the same Smash 4 we are.

I'm not sure there's a variety of viable rushdown characters. Falcon looks good, but, as ZeRo has argued (I think persuasively), is hard countered by Pikachu- who plays surprisingly campy for someone so agile. Sheik and Sonic are other possibilities, but both had kill options nerfed in 1.06. Diddy's still very good. The important question is whether these characters can counter Rosalina, who was untouched in 1.06 and benefits significantly from customs. We'll see. I'm pessimistic.


@ Amazing Ampharos : If you want "mature" conversation, step one is to stop being melodramatic. You aren't a pariah. Most people agree with you. Some don't.

Step two is to stop treating those who disagree with you as "illogical" or "silly" or "lacking understanding" or "immature" or "stubborn." Stop. Why would anyone want to debate you if they'll inevitably be met with a verbose response packed with poor arguments and insults and self-pity?

Step three is to stop making absurd claims like "4 is more different from Brawl than Brawl was from Melee." If you are so blindly committed to defending Smash 4 from criticism that you'd deny obvious similarities between it and the least popular competitive Smash game, you're making it clear to everyone that you aren't really interested in the truth of the matter.

 

[Nobie]

Part of me really wants to make a long post explaining a lot about how smash games actually play and why what most people are saying is just silly (a full examination of Melee's meta vs 4's would be interesting if we were collectively mature enough to have that conversation), but it's very obvious to me it's just futile. I think a lot of you honestly just don't want to hear anything that suggests smash 4 is a good game. You also won't want to hear that Brawl wasn't the demon you make it out to be or that 4 is more different from Brawl than Brawl was from Melee. I'm not at any point making "excuses" for 4; most of the claims about 4 being bad are just wrong and often betray a ridiculous lack of understanding about how 4 actually plays.

Talking about how 4 is overly defensive or honestly even particularly defensive at all betrays a serious lack of understanding of how the game actually plays, but then I see you guys talking about how campy or inactive dabuz's playstyle is and it's even more obvious you don't even know what you're watching when you see this game played since what dabuz actually does is play an incredibly active and efficient control game. If this is you, just please step back for a moment and realize the simple truth that you don't understand this game at all; your claims aren't even logical. Think about it; if what dabuz was doing were merely a basic camp strategy, why would he win so much? Basic camping is easy, and a lot of people would be more than happy to do the same thing if it got them the wins and the cash. If it were such an easy thing, every region would have at least one guy just like dabuz who in principle would be just as good as the original article. Instead dabuz is an elite player who decisively defeats almost everyone he plays, and Rosalina who allegedly is going to lead 4 into a new era of camp is one of the more rarely played characters among the generally agreed to be strong characters. Doesn't the way that reality is completely incongruent with these claims bother you guys a bit? Just please... step back and consider the objective evidence.

Regardless, the actual 4 community is completely and totally sold on the merits of this game. 4 is not just a decent game; it's an outstanding game, and the only direction the community for this game is going is up. If you go to a smash 4 tournament and hang out with smash 4 players, you'll see an atmosphere of basically pure optimism for the game; almost all of the negativity 4 gets comes from people who don't play it seriously. The 4 community is also going to be less laid back about baseless attacks on the game; we see full well that just tolerating stuff like that for years in Brawl hurt us, and that's why at APEX when our community was basically just insulted we got mad instead of sad. We do want to get along and do mostly still believe the smash community is better served working together instead of apart, but please, don't kick this beehive by antagonizing us. My goal in this topic is basically to just assert that 4 is good to try to nip this in the bud; I'm actually trying to help all of us here...

Honestly what I think a lot of it comes down to is that people miss being able to SHFFL. This isn't every complaint, and there's a huge difference between the criticisms lobbed by higher level and lower level players, but whenever anyone tries to say something about how to be aggressive in Smash 4 on Reddit, there are inevitably responses that ask, "Well why can't I jump in on my opponent and not get shielded?" or "why should I play a game where I can't just keep attacking?" There's a whole complex debate about whether Melee is actually a very defensive game that I'll admit to not being knowledgeable on, but whenever I see someone try to teach new players or those coming from Melee that you can be aggressive without necessarily having to actually hit the opponent, the response is, "But hitting the opponent IS the only definition of aggression I want."

 

[Pyr]

99% sure that, when he referred to maturity, he was referring to the fact that everyone has their stance and no one is willing to discuss their stance possibly being wrong on BOTH sides. Very few people have shown themselves to be objective enough to have a long, deep discussion in this matter. That's the thing with open forums: anyone can post and anyone can reply with things that derail the conversation so substantially that the discussion value is lost, all because "their view is right and their view need not be discussed."

The worst possible attitude for a competitive gamer to have runs rampant in this forum. It's all debate or argument when the conversation DOES NOT NEED TO BE WON. Because, when all you can have is debate or argument instead of a simple discussion, the community comes to harm because it doesn't actually advance at all. No one wins, but everyone wins in their own mind. It's a very toxic circle.

So few are mature enough to have a simple discussion. Playing to win is good in games, but not when talking about the games.

 

[thehard]

Honestly what I think a lot of it comes down to is that people miss being able to SHFFL. This isn't every complaint, and there's a huge difference between the criticisms lobbed by higher level and lower level players, but whenever anyone tries to say something about how to be aggressive in Smash 4 on Reddit, there are inevitably responses that ask, "Well why can't I jump in on my opponent and not get shielded?" or "why should I play a game where I can't just keep attacking?" There's a whole complex debate about whether Melee is actually a very defensive game that I'll admit to not being knowledgeable on, but whenever I see someone try to teach new players or those coming from Melee that you can be aggressive without necessarily having to actually hit the opponent, the response is, "But hitting the opponent IS the only definition of aggression I want."

I would say that while Melee probably affords the most aggressive play in the series due to spacie shield pressure and some other stuff (not really that knowledgeable of Melee myself), it can actually be played quite defensively or in a reactionary manner. I truly think Melee is equated with aggression so often because of its fast but extended punish game + there being less "empty movement" in comparison to Smash 4. I honestly think straight up running away and stalling isn't abused enough in Melee, the game engine and strongest characters allow for it, why isn't it used more? @Shaya has said it's because the top players don't want to sacrifice their images for a potentially easier tournament win and it's a pretty convincing argument.

https://twitter.com/toph_bbq/status/580082445166362624

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

@ #HBC | Red Ryu : While every Smash game has featured tweaked rulesets depending on region (stage legality in particular), we haven't seen anything as major as custom moves before. This fundamentally changes the game; Japan won't be playing and developing the same Smash 4 we are.

I'm not sure there's a variety of viable rushdown characters. Falcon looks good, but, as ZeRo has argued (I think persuasively), is hard countered by Pikachu- who plays surprisingly campy for someone so agile. Sheik and Sonic are other possibilities, but both had kill options nerfed in 1.06. Diddy's still very good. The important question is whether these characters can counter Rosalina, who was untouched in 1.06 and benefits significantly from customs. We'll see. I'm pessimistic.


@ Amazing Ampharos : If you want "mature" conversation, step one is to stop being melodramatic. You aren't a pariah. Most people agree with you. Some don't.

Step two is to stop treating those who disagree with you as "illogical" or "silly" or "lacking understanding" or "immature" or "stubborn." Stop. Why would anyone want to debate you if they'll inevitably be met with a verbose response packed with poor arguments and insults and self-pity?

Step three is to stop making absurd claims like "4 is more different from Brawl than Brawl was from Melee." If you are so blindly committed to defending Smash 4 from criticism that you'd deny obvious similarities between it and the least popular competitive Smash game, you're making it clear to everyone that you aren't really interested in the truth of the matter.

Luma's health got nerfed in 1.0.6.

You really think Rosalina is gonna dominate now? I doubt it. Results actually haven't change that much but part of that is a result of people not changing what they did post patch outside of M2K who used Mii fighter and palatina recently

Customs are a whole new ball park, you are right, but this rule set stuff has been an issue for every game and still changes for even older games sometimes

In terms of this call out to AA, I agree with him in the sense that a lot of people are looking at it with rose tinted glasses, mostly Melee area.

A lot of people aren't interested I. A conversation or looking for the truth at times. In some cases those "truths" can also come out as just subjective opinions.

But w/e I think a lot of the Smash 4 will die talk is dumb anyways. Even when the high entrance numbers show it's not going that way right now.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Stock increase decreasing the chance of upsets is absolutely true, and I feel like a lot of people haven't really thought about that. I think 2 stock is detrimental to the game, and having at least 3 would be better. However, if you look beyond 2, 3, or 4 stocks, imagine playing 50 stock games. That's far from logical for tournaments, but I think in a game with a ton of stocks the better player would pretty much always win, where as with something like 2 stocks upsets are far more likely.

Exactly. And if you played 1 stock you honestly could beat any player no matter how good they are.

 

[wizards64]

This is an amazing post, and I am happy to see posts like this that allow a person invested in Melee like me to see the beauty of Smash 4 which I have personally wanted to know more about for a while. I have to disagree with what you said towards the end though, Leffen and Armada both rarely played Smash 4 and got top results each time, this is not to say that Zero won't body them though.

Okay, let's start this off right. First of all, let's clear up something important:



First of all, this isn't true; average landing lag in this game is definitely lower than Brawl at the very least. Melee is a strange, non-linear comparison since, while Melee has less landing lag on aerials on average, smash 4 has considerably wider and more useful auto-cancel windows so lagless landings are way more common in 4 than in Melee. It's more about a different meta where you use your aerials early instead of late and do more full hops and don't fast fall as often since you're fishing for auto-cancels a lot more in this engine. This is also a really strange way to phrase things since, even if smash 4 had strictly more landing lag on aerials than Melee, that wouldn't be "worse". Since when does the amount of landing lag aerials have have anything to do with game quality? Lines of thinking like this are way too common and really hurt our collective ability to understand these games we play.

---

I'm actually seeing much more pronounced skill gaps in 4 than I saw in past smash games honestly because I feel like this game has way more "footsies" than any other smash game mostly because jumping around (which resets situations) is so much worse. In Melee jumping put you in that state where you had these insanely safe attacks (due to how L-cancel worked in combination with the fortresses that were Jigglypuff and Peach in the air), and in Brawl, jumping put you in that state where you could fling yourself around with copious invincibility since Brawl airdodge was pretty ridiculous. In 4, when you jump, you're taking a huge risk every time. Landings are intrinsically unsafe due to airdodge landing lag (and pretty high average ground speed helps!), and the way auto-cancels work makes doing late aerials to bail yourself out of trouble more of a guessing game than an actually solid escape. The implication of this is that you just don't jump as much and rely instead on asserting stage control on the ground and trying to bully your opponent into situations where they are forced to choose between risky options. This is hard to do and hard to avoid, and when I see players of uneven skill meet, I often see extremely decisive victories due to skill gaps in this regard. When players are close in skill, I generally see the results come down to clean adaptation and decision making to force these decisions on the opponent; it feels to me like it's almost always crisp and clear that the winning player was actually playing better in this game.

I also think people confuse skill ceiling and skill floor. This game definitely has the lowest skill floor of any smash game; there's a pretty hard limit to how much you can suck at smash 4, and you don't need very much practice at all to be able to play in a coherent way that can look respectable. This results in far fewer total blow-out games among weaker players than in past smash games; even bad players at least have the bare minimum of ability to fight back. On the other hand, the ceiling is enormous; just look at what zero does to everyone he plays (generally brutal games that make it super obvious he's the best by far), and I strongly suspect even he is just barely scratching the surface of this game's depth. The game's skill ceiling, how much you can improve, is just obviously very large; it's my suspicion it will prove to be the largest of any smash game, but we won't be able to be sure of that for the next several years. I'd also like to make it clear what claiming the opposite means. If you believe this game has a low skill ceiling, then you need to offer some very serious explanation for why you aren't winning nationals since a low skill ceiling means it's easy to get as good at the game as you can get. You also need to explain how it's even possible for zero to be as good as he is versus everyone else; games in which a very small number of players just dominate everyone else are generally games in which the community as a whole is very far from reaching the skill ceiling.

I'd also like to share another observation that I think speaks well for this game. In early Brawl, it took about a year for top Melee players to really stop being a factor at a tournament level; they relied for a long time on skill transfer from Melee and it just worked until the meta grew a lot in Brawl. In 4, being good at Melee never seemed to help all that much, and even though you honestly see less cross-over, when you do see it the results just don't happen. If you don't specifically practice 4, you just don't win at it, and that tells me that smash 4 pushes players really hard. Like if this game didn't push skill, I'd expect to see players who don't care or don't try winning, and honestly, I'm just not seeing that at all in this game. I disagree 100% with the premise of this topic and actually feel the exact opposite.

Also to be clear, I'm not interested in smash game vs smash game arguments, but I do think that if you aren't fully immersed in 4, it might be easy not to notice the meta. 4 is a beautiful game, and it's growing better and better at an incredible rate. I know there will always be Melee-heads especially since the gameplay dynamics of 4 are even more different from Melee than Brawl was, but if that's you and 4 is seeming bad to you, I'd just ask you to consider that maybe what makes 4 great is just outside of your sight as opposed to non-existent. If that's not you and you just feel like you can't improve at 4 which is the source of your criticism, I really suggest looking within instead of blaming the game. Just watch your game with a super critical eye asking where you could do things better, and look at the micro level and not just the macro level (if you take a step forward at a bad time or fail to take a step forward when you should, that matters a lot!). You should find, honestly even if you're a top player, tons of spots where you didn't do the best thing even within your understanding, and if you watch others play especially those better than you you'll probably also discover that your understanding itself has a lot of room to grow. I know as a player I feel like I'm improving every time I play just from testing what does and doesn't work in my own play, and then I watch someone like dabuz who I can kinda relate to in terms of playstyle but who just outclasses me hard as a player and just see so plainly that I still have so much further to go. With that being the case, how could I possibly feel bad about the game?

 

[gameprodigy12]

This isn't quite right. Brawl's scene deteriorated for many reasons- negative PR from the Smash documentary, waning viewership, Metaknight dominance and ruleset favoritism, increasingly slow pace, growing competition from Melee's revival- but what ultimately finished Brawl was the introduction of Smash 4.

I don't say that as a knock against Smash 4, mind. Typically, when a fighting game gets a sequel, the original game's scene is largely disbanded and players move on to the most recent installment. Exceptions are rare (Melee, SF2). And Smash 4 was certainly a sequel to Brawl, both chronologically and mechanically.

To put things another way: if Smash 4 never came to fruition, Brawl would still have a scene. Bigger than 64's scene, I imagine; not huge, but healthy.

---

That having been said, those qualities that deteriorated Brawl's scene are absolutely present in Smash 4's.

-Competition from Melee? We're in Melee's prime.
-Ruleset issues? International disagreement regarding customs will likely cause metagame fracturing.
-Slow, defensive mechanics? Of course. And with nerfs to Diddy, expect an era of Rosalina camp.
-Negative PR? Depends on how upcoming major tournaments go. I can't imagine EVO attendees will enjoy Smash 4 too much.

It's simply too early to say. Smash 4's scene has plenty in common with early Brawl- bromides about letting the meta develop, hints of increasingly defensive play, etc.- and even greater competition. On the other hand, the Smash scene is bigger than it's ever been, Nintendo is giving Smash 4 its full backing, and the game (for now) appears better-balanced. It would not surprise me if Smash 4 survived a while, but it would also not surprise me in the slightest if Smash 4's scene crumbled within 2-3 years.

---

I'm also stunned Amazing Ampharos' pedestrian exercise in making excuses has garnered 80+ likes, but hopefully another user is willing to detail why that post is so awful so I won't have to go through the trouble.

That might be the case but the community is really divided due to what you say, but crumbling within 2-3 years I don't see and a era if Rosalina camp won't happen since that's not the characters style.

 

[Emblem Lord]

The idea that maybe, perhaps, a wifi player will dominate sometime in the future perhaps being proof this is a low skill game is super cute. For anyone familiar with street fighter 4, WolfKrone started as an online warrior I am pretty sure, and continued to do a lot of online play. He absolutely dominated the scene a few years back.

Well, perhaps that's to be expected from the random, low skill, small and competitive joke scene that is street fighter 4.

Ironically unlike smash 4, SF4 series is technically intensive, ESPECIALLY with Wolfkrone's main C.Viper who relies on alot of set-play and putting people in situations where you must block or get hit. True 50/50 mix-ups that don't actually exist in this game. C.Viper was the type of character that could blow up a good player if they simply blocked right instead of left and then she reset her mix-up.

I get what you are saying, but the engines in both games are very different and SF4 allowed for a very exploitative kind of metagame that abused flaws in the engine and it's wake-up game.

And online really is perfect for mastering set play and C.Viper's footsies are terrible so Wolfkrone didn't need to worry about that or fundamentals as much. Basically she kind of ignored fundmanetals and did her own thing.

 

[Nobie]

I would say that while Melee probably affords the most aggressive play in the series due to spacie shield pressure and some other stuff (not really that knowledgeable of Melee myself), it can actually be played quite defensively or in a reactionary manner. I truly think Melee is equated with aggression so often because of its fast but extended punish game + there being less "empty movement" in comparison to Smash 4. I honestly think straight up running away and stalling isn't abused enough in Melee, the game engine and strongest characters allow for it, why isn't it used more? @Shaya has said it's because the top players don't want to sacrifice their images for a potentially easier tournament win and it's a pretty convincing argument.

https://twitter.com/toph_bbq/status/580082445166362624

What I find fascinating about this is the fact that people have accused both Brawl and Smash 4 of just being games where campy/defensive play is optimal and that the people who play aggressively do so out of sheer stubbornness/inability to acknowledge that it's not how the game should be played at the highest levels. There's even a myth that Brawl just became increasingly defensive over time and never stopped trending in that direction. However, if what you're saying is true, it's almost as if, somewhere deep down, the threat of defensive play that is more "visible" in Brawl and Smash 4 (especially to the untrained eye) reflects a fear that Melee might turn out the same way if people began to realize its power. I don't think there's any tinfoil hat conspiracy going on, but it does make me wonder how much the Smash Bros. scene is truly built on "playing to win" and how much of it is built on "purposely winning in the most exciting ways possible." Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, in my opinion.

 

[Emblem Lord]

What I find fascinating about this is the fact that people have accused both Brawl and Smash 4 of just being games where campy/defensive play is optimal and that the people who play aggressively do so out of sheer stubbornness/inability to acknowledge that it's not how the game should be played at the highest levels. There's even a myth that Brawl just became increasingly defensive over time and never stopped trending in that direction. However, if what you're saying is true, it's almost as if, somewhere deep down, the threat of defensive play that is more "visible" in Brawl and Smash 4 (especially to the untrained eye) reflects a fear that Melee might turn out the same way if people began to realize its power. I don't think there's any tinfoil hat conspiracy going on, but it does make me wonder how much the Smash Bros. scene is truly built on "playing to win" and how much of it is built on "purposely winning in the most exciting ways possible." Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, in my opinion.

Keep digging. You are extremely close to the truth.

Here is a hint: Try searching Mew2King's post circa 2010.

You will see alot of. "I choose not to play that way because it's lame."

Top player metagame manipulation is definitely real.

Here is the truth and it will blow you away

All fighting games when played optimally lean towards being "defensive".

Shocking I know.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

That's why I bite the bullet and just play slow. Wario, Vega (Ultra), Dee Jay (ST)...Better to slow it down and bully people at mid-range than to leave offensive actions to uncertainty.

 

[outfoxd]

That's why I bite the bullet and just play slow. Wario, Vega (Ultra), Dee Jay (ST)...Better to slow it down and bully people at mid-range than to leave offensive actions to uncertainty.

Sounds close to the MMA "meta". Everyone wants to be that exciting striker or flashy submission artist, but at the end of the day, up to a certain point, you can win a lot wrestling people to death in a slow, Deliberate fashion.

 

[Muro]

Sounds close to the MMA "meta". Everyone wants to be that exciting striker or flashy submission artist, but at the end of the day, up to a certain point, you can win a lot wrestling people to death in a slow, Deliberate fashion.

MMA also has an idiotic commission that doesn't have the best interest of the sport as their goal. With rules catered more to favour aggression it could be a lot more interesting (PRIDE never DIE).

 

[outfoxd]

MMA also has an idiotic commission that doesn't have the best interest of the sport as their goal. With rules catered more to favour aggression it could be a lot more interesting (PRIDE never DIE).

I miss soccer kicks and grounded knees to the head.
I do agree with you, but even back in Pride there was some top level grapple stalling happening. (Arona) It might still be a dominating strategy in Smash even with a rule tweak.

 

[Emblem Lord]

But see, being defensive is just smarter. Foolish overaggressive behavior gets you mauled. Playing the waiting game and not being too risky is just how you win. And that goes for ALOT of games and sports.

It's not fun to watch, but when you are in the drivers seat and money/pride/ or keeping your teeth is on the line you don't care about pleasing any onlookers.

And that is why I feel fighting games can NEVER be e-sports because e-sports fighters do not represent the "true" meta of fighting games. It's just flashy hogwash to pull in viewers.

 

[Muro]

I miss soccer kicks and grounded knees to the head.
I do agree with you, but even back in Pride there was some top level grapple stalling happening. (Arona) It might still be a dominating strategy in Smash even with a rule tweak.

That's definitely true. I think in many competitions defence is always gonna be the best option a lot of the time. It's always a matter of making the other guy show his hand first. We just need to have a ruleset that doesn't let defence be the only viable strategy. This goes for both smash and MMA. It's kinda harder with sm4sh because the game was made to favour defence so much.

And that is why I feel fighting games can NEVER be e-sports because e-sports fighters do not represent the "true" meta of fighting games. It's just flashy hogwash to pull in viewers.

eh, there's defence and then there's a dude rolling around trying to avoid interaction. Defence can be fun to watch, but it can't be so simple as pressing a button, and it can't completely shut down other play styles.