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

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

Smash Bros. Melee was "too difficult" - New Sakurai Interview

Status
Not open for further replies.

SirroMinus1

SiNiStEr MiNiStEr
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
3,502
Location
NEW-YORK-CITY
NNID
Ajarudaru
Good to know i wont have to spend money on the next game.
Sad to know I wont be spending money on the next game

Onslaught once said "THE DREAM IS DEAD" and mine just died =/
 

Pi

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
6,038
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
wavedashing & landing is so integral...

it makes it so marth can't just space Fsmashes all day...

without wavedashing you can't punish a spaced fsmash on your shield

add wavedashing and the marth just ****ed up by smashing your shield (as it should be)


and ya'll shouldn't be sad

yea it'd be cool to have a fresh new game with advanced techniques and a larger roster

but it wouldn't be melee, melee is melee

we have our game

don't be emo that there won't be another melee, you knew there wouldn't be
 

crismas

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
4,596
Location
Inkopolis
NNID
crismaspresents
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think anyone looking for another Melee. Melee will always be what it is, amazing! But at least an improvement from Brawl, I'm open to changes as long as they're for the better.
 

TheGoat

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
584
Like Shiz once said, Melee is a man's game. I think anybody who has had the devotion to spend time learning melee is going to be able to be supportive of him/herself to continue to uphold the melee community.
 

Anthon1996

Smash Ace
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
995
Location
Bionis
NNID
AnUglyBarnacle
3DS FC
5301-0385-3871
If Melee was basically a Mario Party minigame, would it still have people playing it nearly 10 YEARS after it's release? Eff no. It even has a freakin' "legacy" section on its Wikipedia page. It's like my favorite 'Cube game, and I still sometimes play it. Do I play Mario Party 8 anymore? Played for like less than a week then stopped, like the super-casual non-gaming crowd that have their Wii in a closet. You want your next Smash game in that closet, Sakurai?

This is just stupid. I'm certainly not the best smasher (gotta work on my edge-guarding and mindgames), but I practically introduced myself to competitive Smash with Brawl's Wi-fi mode; whenever a 1v1 was gonna start on Basic Brawl (lol), I'd turn all the items off and pick a normal, balanced stage (I know Mario Circuit and Hanenbow don't count...) and then just duke it out to see who's better, that is if there aren't any CPUs, which I suck at fighting for some reason. I think that I even introduced myself to Dedede's ******** chaingrab infinite when next to walls, but not his normal running chaingrab. If I preform techniques like L-canceling or DACUS which I both happened to stumble upon while learning how to get better (I watched this video called "Melee for Dummies" or something like that, and I believe I looked up something like "snake dash attack slide" because I saw several Snakes do it online, which lead to me watching a video on DACUS. I even read a comment that said how that commenter does it (C-stick down > Up + Z) which helped me a lot in that I used to just press A then mash up on the C-stick, like the guy in the video) that doesn't auto-motherf****ing-matically mean that the game's "too difficult".

...Also, why would non-gamers even play Smash as their first game? You don't swing a wand to play them, unless you're playing with Shake Smash on. I played Brawl with some girl (on training) and she was horrendous. I should've at least put on the How to Play video, but even in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, it just felt like I was playing single-player just with Blue Toad standing still on screen with a goomba about to waltz right into him, even when I told him to jump. It was annoying.
 

Steelia

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
2,523
Location
Home.
I can't believe it.
It's actually HARD WORK to make an excellent game.

HARD.

WORK.


My mind is blown.

:\

Seriously, though, I laughed at that. Oh, Sakurai, you spend too much time around your own character. But it showed, there was certainly a lot of love in the game.
pfft, "hard work"... I'm glad to know Brawl was so EASY, and THAT shows.
 

Djent

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
2,606
Location
Under The Three Spheres
I've known forever that Melee was a fluke, but that doesn't invalidate its awesomeness in any way. Just appreciate it while it lasts, then move on to a different series if you still feel like gaming competitively. :2cents:
 

Jonas

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
2,401
Location
Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
A fluke? Maybe I got something wrong, but this interview seems to indicate that Melee was meant to have a lot of depth and fast paced gameplay. The fluke, as far as Sakurai is concerned, is that it took too much skill to be accesible to casual gamers, but that doesn't mean Sakurai just randomly made a super deep fighter while attempting to make a party game.
 

Djent

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
2,606
Location
Under The Three Spheres
A fluke? Maybe I got something wrong, but this interview seems to indicate that Melee was meant to have a lot of depth and fast paced gameplay. The fluke, as far as Sakurai is concerned, is that it took too much skill to be accesible to casual gamers, but that doesn't mean Sakurai just randomly made a super deep fighter while attempting to make a party game.
The reason it was a "fluke" is because of Suckurai's twisted concept of "hardcore" and "casual" gamers. Depth and ease of access need not be mutually exclusive. Melee is a deep fighter *and* a party game, but Sakurai only sees it as the latter. :(
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
i agree with everything said about better balance.

i disagree with the "manual dexterity" bit for the following reason:

casual players are generally unaware that L-cancelling and so forth exist in the first place. brawl was not popular because it advertised "Lesser Execution Requirements!!!" on the back of the box. and likewise, i would argue that slowing down the gameplay had nothing to do with brawl's sales. after all, melee also sold like hotcakes, remember?

melee and brawl were both popular at release because they were colorful party/fighting hybrids that brought popular nintendo characters together. THAT is what attracted a casual following. the developing of high-level gameplay is inclusive to mass popularity. thus, in-depth game design decisions such as speed and comboability affect competitive play, and nothing else
I'm not saying that lesser execution requirement is why people bought to game, more so the game was just a bit easier and more refined in some areas like AA's post said.

Competitiveness and such are words that I think I'm not sure if it has a clear meaning in situations like this. Like a game such as Guilty Gear can have a lot of competitive depth, but if people don't want to play it then it's not really competitive.

People are a main part of the driving force for competition.

Really I think both games in ways failed to balance the accessibility issue with game play, but then again most games don't.

edit: this includes stuff like adding a buffer window. find me a few competitive brawlers today who will say "i stuck to competitive brawl because it had a buffer window allowing for easier execution! i probably would've quit otherwise" and i'll agree with you, but i really, really don't think the buffer window has anything to do with the popularity of brawl.
This isn't going to necessarily make people quit, but it can make the game more likable.
 

Wenbobular

Smash Hero
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
5,744
How "accessible" does a game have to be nowadays anyways to be deemed accessible <_< IMO there's nothing inaccessible about these games save for the competitive community which casuals don't care about
 

UberMario

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,312
A lot of stuff can happen in 9 years.... inconsiderate guests come over, play your video games, switch the game disc, but don't even bother to but it back in the case..... or a million other things. not everyone had the luxury of being able to leave melee in their gamecube for 9 years and never having it exposed to the cruelties of the outside world.... (as much as i would have liked that)
If you're trying to imply that's what I did to keep it that clean, then that is false. I haven't left Melee in my gamecube over that span, in fact, I constantly swap it out to run other games and have used it on both the Gamecube and the Wii . . . . . .

But I do get where you're coming from about people not putting discs away properly, I've seen that done plenty of times.
 

ryuu seika

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
4,743
Location
Amidst the abounding light of heaven!
I loved Melee but he does have a bit of a point with the difficulty. Sakurai takes his view way too far though, dumbing things down to the level of Brawl. Not only has he overdone the lessening of difficulty but he also removed the depth from the game.
As stated above me, depth and ease need not be mutually exclusive.

Melee was a great game. 64 lacked that extra difficulty. Brawl was an empty experiance.
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
How "accessible" does a game have to be nowadays anyways to be deemed accessible <_< IMO there's nothing inaccessible about these games save for the competitive community which casuals don't care about
Melee isn't inaccessible but Brawl is more accessible.

Guilty Gear compared to Blazblue if you will.
 

Strong Badam

Super Elite
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,545
Melee isn't inaccessible but Brawl is more accessible.

Guilty Gear compared to Blazblue if you will.
The accessibility is not what drove the game to popularity, however.
Brawl is popular because:
more characters
more stages
better graphical capabilities
online play
more time for fanbase to develop
the Wii's inherently greater level of popularity in comparison to the Gamecubes (see above point as well as the motion sensing gimmicks)
The Smash Bros. DOJO creating a **** ton of hype

it's easy to play melee much like how it's easy to play brawl.
it's difficult to play melee competitively
competitive brawl does not exist.

thus, to the casual player, the decision of Brawl over Melee cannot be attributed to "ease of access"
 

HDL

I like pork chops.
BRoomer
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
1,799
Location
Amongst haters
How many people here are old enough to have experienced the wonders of arcades in their heyday? If so, you might remember furiously entering quarters for this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEY1pTqEz7g

Why do I bring this up, it has nothing to do with Smash. But it has plenty to do with accessibility VS depth. This game only uses a stick and two buttons, simple right? You'd think a game that simple would be easy.

NO

In the 6 different parts of my run, I explain various things about the game in annotations and why it's so unreasonably hard. Even then, I don't explain everything about the game's depth because there would be annotations up the wazoo. I have a second run uploaded as well, which you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBR-4gRIqUQ

This one is an actual serious attempt to 1C the game. Those of you who understand the sheer amount of knowledge and skill it takes to 1C an arcade game can understand what it means to beat a game like Ghosts 'n Goblins, for which you can find videos.

Notice that games like these all have something in common: they are dirt easy to pick up and start playing! Tell me that you fools did not have fun playing Ninja Turtles, The Simpsons, Gradius, Strider, R-Type, Rygar, GNG, Metal Slug, Pac-Man, and other such arcade games with simple controls. Hell, everyone loses at Pac-Man and all you use is a single stick! You don't even push buttons! Only 1 or 2 people in the world have ever "beaten" it.

Anyway, why do I bring all this up? It's because accessibility and depth are not enemies. Every game I mentioned is easy to get into, everyone played them as kids and loved them. But deep down, they're so hard to get good at and actually beat legitimately. Melee is like this. Brawl is not like this.

Brawl uses more buttons than the games I mentioned and yet has less depth than they do and is so much easier. Eliminating all traces of difficulty does not make a well-designed game that people enjoy more. Good decisions make a well-designed game that people enjoy more. Accessibility is just an added layer on top of that.

Another reason why many people dislike Brawl is because it's not challenging. I've seen the words "slow, bland, boring" tossed around a lot. It's because these people are not having their minds stimulated. What induces stimulation? Difficulty, challenge, hardship. Having to put the effort to overcome a difficult task using skill and knowledge is where the enjoyment comes from.

Think back to when you played your favorite retro game, and you were almost down for the count. You had 1 life, nearly 0 health, and the enemy was coming fast and furious. All of a sudden you transform and go super saiyan, you start dodging ALL their attacks. You strike at all the right moments, and in the end you blast them to smithereens and feel that rush in your hands, that thrill of having succeeded in the face of overwhelming odds.

For those of you who weren't fully aware of why you think Melee is more hype than Brawl, you now have your answer.

The arcade games mentioned are so old and yet they got the formula of accessibility + depth right from the get-go. Why, then, do we still have certain developers floundering around trying to impose their own faulty philosophies as "the right way to design games"? The first known electronic "video game" to be made came out in 1947. Atari and arcade games followed in the 70s. Count the years, and then come back to the current generation. You'd think by now they'd get it. :glare:

Maybe I sound like a disgruntled old man, but I grew up in an era where challenging, skill-based hobbies were fostered. Nowadays you have these companies spoon feeding their user base. This is evident in dumb things like Xbox achievements in which no consistency is needed, just complete something once and feel like you did something special. Pretty soon we're going to have games where you watch stuff on the screen but don't need to control anything that happens! Talk about convenient!

To sum this up, Sakurai's design philosophy is terrible and it's the main reason why Kirby games are never even close to considered for titles like "best game of the year" and such.

Lastly, allow me to give you all this parting gift: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

tl;dr: If you thought this was too long, you probably play Brawl.
 

Merkuri

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,861
I guess all we can do is hope that Sakurai isn't in charge of development for the next installment in the series.
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
The accessibility is not what drove the game to popularity, however.
Brawl is popular because:
more characters
more stages
better graphical capabilities
online play
more time for fanbase to develop
the Wii's inherently greater level of popularity in comparison to the Gamecubes (see above point as well as the motion sensing gimmicks)
The Smash Bros. DOJO creating a **** ton of hype
All of these factor were pretty much known before the game came out via hype. Accessibility wasn't known, however once it is known people have known that Brawl is easier to pick up and play than Melee, which is Sakurai's point.

It's hard for competitive players to understand, which funny enough he even knew, because once we know how to do it, it stops being hard.

I've tried introducing this to causal players at gaming tournaments at my library or even seen it tried at anime conventions, people to go Brawl.

it's easy to play melee much like how it's easy to play brawl.
it's difficult to play melee competitively
Yes but Melee by far it is harder even on a casual level.

competitive brawl does not exist.
Doesn't exist?

Brawl nationals:
Apex
Pound
MLG
Genesis
Whobo
Clash of the Titans

If it wasn't, Brawl would have died like Naruto 4 and Soul Caliber 3 did or even have national events.

thus, to the casual player, the decision of Brawl over Melee cannot be attributed to "ease of access"
There are reasons why they pick it over the other, I can say for some difficult was an issue. Some of which were even told to me that is was an issue.
 

Gamegenie222

Space Pheasant Dragon Tactician
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
6,758
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
NNID
Gamegenie222
3DS FC
3411-1825-3363
How many people here are old enough to have experienced the wonders of arcades in their heyday? If so, you might remember furiously entering quarters for this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEY1pTqEz7g

Why do I bring this up, it has nothing to do with Smash. But it has plenty to do with accessibility VS depth. This game only uses a stick and two buttons, simple right? You'd think a game that simple would be easy.

NO

In the 6 different parts of my run, I explain various things about the game in annotations and why it's so unreasonably hard. Even then, I don't explain everything about the game's depth because there would be annotations up the wazoo. I have a second run uploaded as well, which you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBR-4gRIqUQ

This one is an actual serious attempt to 1C the game. Those of you who understand the sheer amount of knowledge and skill it takes to 1C an arcade game can understand what it means to beat a game like Ghosts 'n Goblins, for which you can find videos.

Notice that games like these all have something in common: they are dirt easy to pick up and start playing! Tell me that you fools did not have fun playing Ninja Turtles, The Simpsons, Gradius, Strider, R-Type, Rygar, GNG, Metal Slug, Pac-Man, and other such arcade games with simple controls. Hell, everyone loses at Pac-Man and all you use is a single stick! You don't even push buttons! Only 1 or 2 people in the world have ever "beaten" it.

Anyway, why do I bring all this up? It's because accessibility and depth are not enemies. Every game I mentioned is easy to get into, everyone played them as kids and loved them. But deep down, they're so hard to get good at and actually beat legitimately. Melee is like this. Brawl is not like this.

Brawl uses more buttons than the games I mentioned and yet has less depth than they do and is so much easier. Eliminating all traces of difficulty does not make a well-designed game that people enjoy more. Good decisions make a well-designed game that people enjoy more. Accessibility is just an added layer on top of that.

Another reason why many people dislike Brawl is because it's not challenging. I've seen the words "slow, bland, boring" tossed around a lot. It's because these people are not having their minds stimulated. What induces stimulation? Difficulty, challenge, hardship. Having to put the effort to overcome a difficult task using skill and knowledge is where the enjoyment comes from.

Think back to when you played your favorite retro game, and you were almost down for the count. You had 1 life, nearly 0 health, and the enemy was coming fast and furious. All of a sudden you transform and go super saiyan, you start dodging ALL their attacks. You strike at all the right moments, and in the end you blast them to smithereens and feel that rush in your hands, that thrill of having succeeded in the face of overwhelming odds.

For those of you who weren't fully aware of why you think Melee is more hype than Brawl, you now have your answer.

The arcade games mentioned are so old and yet they got the formula of accessibility + depth right from the get-go. Why, then, do we still have certain developers floundering around trying to impose their own faulty philosophies as "the right way to design games"? The first known electronic "video game" to be made came out in 1947. Atari and arcade games followed in the 70s. Count the years, and then come back to the current generation. You'd think by now they'd get it. :glare:

Maybe I sound like a disgruntled old man, but I grew up in an era where challenging, skill-based hobbies were fostered. Nowadays you have these companies spoon feeding their user base. This is evident in dumb things like Xbox achievements in which no consistency is needed, just complete something once and feel like you did something special. Pretty soon we're going to have games where you watch stuff on the screen but don't need to control anything that happens! Talk about convenient!

To sum this up, Sakurai's design philosophy is terrible and it's the main reason why Kirby games are never even close to considered for titles like "best game of the year" and such.

Lastly, allow me to give you all this parting gift: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

tl;dr: If you thought this was too long, you probably play Brawl.
I am a brawl player and that was a very good read along with that article from that website you posted Lord HDL. If I ever meet you in person, we need to nerd at some arcade games, I miss arcades so much.:(
 

Sterowent

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
648
Location
Southgate, MI
man, i read that essay. i remember a long time ago, when i was a teenager, a friend of mine brought me to an arcade, but he had at least $5 in quarters. i was poorer than he was, and it really freaked me out how much he could spend. i think he said he would spend twenty bucks or so's worth in a period of time that escapes me, and i figured it was too much for the likes of me.

maybe i should give arcades another shot, if i can find one...
 

§leepy God

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
3,302
Location
On The Move....
Sakurai already said he never wanted Smashbros to be completive, but saying Melee is too difficult is just lol. He already made his point of wanting to reach out to the casual players more.
 

choknater

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
27,296
Location
Modesto, CA
NNID
choknater
lols

preferences

melee: more difficult, fun for casuals, fun for competition
brawl: easier, fun for casuals, fun for competition

sakurai is trolling us all.

i'm just gonna put this quote out there: "the best criticism to art is creating your own art."

brawl is a great and successful game lol, it's your choice to like it or not on a forum that they don't read. i agree with what red ryu has been saying
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
Many people tend to miss this line

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult

People here tend to claim that Melee was SOOO easy, but that's because it was easy for them. They invested a lot of time into the game and it's been a while since they were little n00bies. I also want to point something else out. Melee was the worst selling game in Japan (for Smash). So, I think Sakurai saw a real problem. Would another Melee excite people?

Sakurai is an idiot (albeit a talented one) and that's the first thing I'd tell him if we met in person.

Smash sells because of the cast of characters first, its frantic nature second and the low execution barrier third. The only reason why Brawl sold more than Melee is that the Wii has sold three times as much as the GC. That's all there is to it. He had already made a game that allowed casual and competitive players to have fun in their own ways ten years ago. Make L-canceling automatic (i.e. reduce lag on all aerials) and you've got a perfect game.
Games sell because they are good, not because of what system they are on.

Let's look at Mario Kart. Sure, the games did better when the Wii and DS took off, but look by how much. Mario Kart DS sold 19 million where it sold about 6 on the Gamecube. Mario Kart Wii sold just under 24 million, the DS is doing far better than the Wii. People buy software. The hardware is more a means to an end (why people enjoy emulating on the PSP). The system's sales can help, but the game stands alone. Brawl did well because it improved on Melee (why it is the best selling Smash game in Japan where Melee was the worst).

How many people here are old enough to have experienced the wonders of arcades in their heyday? If so, you might remember furiously entering quarters for this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEY1pTqEz7g

Why do I bring this up, it has nothing to do with Smash. But it has plenty to do with accessibility VS depth. This game only uses a stick and two buttons, simple right? You'd think a game that simple would be easy.

NO

In the 6 different parts of my run, I explain various things about the game in annotations and why it's so unreasonably hard. Even then, I don't explain everything about the game's depth because there would be annotations up the wazoo. I have a second run uploaded as well, which you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBR-4gRIqUQ

This one is an actual serious attempt to 1C the game. Those of you who understand the sheer amount of knowledge and skill it takes to 1C an arcade game can understand what it means to beat a game like Ghosts 'n Goblins, for which you can find videos.

Notice that games like these all have something in common: they are dirt easy to pick up and start playing! Tell me that you fools did not have fun playing Ninja Turtles, The Simpsons, Gradius, Strider, R-Type, Rygar, GNG, Metal Slug, Pac-Man, and other such arcade games with simple controls. Hell, everyone loses at Pac-Man and all you use is a single stick! You don't even push buttons! Only 1 or 2 people in the world have ever "beaten" it.

Anyway, why do I bring all this up? It's because accessibility and depth are not enemies. Every game I mentioned is easy to get into, everyone played them as kids and loved them. But deep down, they're so hard to get good at and actually beat legitimately. Melee is like this. Brawl is not like this.

Brawl uses more buttons than the games I mentioned and yet has less depth than they do and is so much easier. Eliminating all traces of difficulty does not make a well-designed game that people enjoy more. Good decisions make a well-designed game that people enjoy more. Accessibility is just an added layer on top of that.

Another reason why many people dislike Brawl is because it's not challenging. I've seen the words "slow, bland, boring" tossed around a lot. It's because these people are not having their minds stimulated. What induces stimulation? Difficulty, challenge, hardship. Having to put the effort to overcome a difficult task using skill and knowledge is where the enjoyment comes from.

Think back to when you played your favorite retro game, and you were almost down for the count. You had 1 life, nearly 0 health, and the enemy was coming fast and furious. All of a sudden you transform and go super saiyan, you start dodging ALL their attacks. You strike at all the right moments, and in the end you blast them to smithereens and feel that rush in your hands, that thrill of having succeeded in the face of overwhelming odds.

For those of you who weren't fully aware of why you think Melee is more hype than Brawl, you now have your answer.

The arcade games mentioned are so old and yet they got the formula of accessibility + depth right from the get-go. Why, then, do we still have certain developers floundering around trying to impose their own faulty philosophies as "the right way to design games"? The first known electronic "video game" to be made came out in 1947. Atari and arcade games followed in the 70s. Count the years, and then come back to the current generation. You'd think by now they'd get it. :glare:

Maybe I sound like a disgruntled old man, but I grew up in an era where challenging, skill-based hobbies were fostered. Nowadays you have these companies spoon feeding their user base. This is evident in dumb things like Xbox achievements in which no consistency is needed, just complete something once and feel like you did something special. Pretty soon we're going to have games where you watch stuff on the screen but don't need to control anything that happens! Talk about convenient!

To sum this up, Sakurai's design philosophy is terrible and it's the main reason why Kirby games are never even close to considered for titles like "best game of the year" and such.

Lastly, allow me to give you all this parting gift: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

tl;dr: If you thought this was too long, you probably play Brawl.
Your right in depth and accessibility, but you applied it wrong.

You are saying Brawl lacks accessibility but also lack accessibility. The difference here is that the games you mentioned are player(s) vs environment games. The player has to beat the realms the game makes up. So, the challenge is that the player navigates and conquers the levels of the game up until the very end. These games can be accessible and challenging. Many know games like Mario and Mega Man were easy to get your hands around but the levels were hard.

Smash Bros is a multiplayer game, so it is player vs player. The game does not dictate the difficulty, but the players do. A difficult multiplayer usually means that it's hard to control or get a hang of. The real difficulty is the psychology of the opponents. So, for these games, it's better to keep it simple. This allows players to jump right into the action and do what they want; to play with their friends.

A "bloated" multiplayer game would be like RTS with buttloads of resources (I beleive Red Alert and Command and Conquer did this, but I could be wrong). Usually, if you make a simple game, the players will make the strategy, rather than have you make it for them.
 

Anth0ny

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
4,061
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Many people tend to miss this line

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult

People here tend to claim that Melee was SOOO easy, but that's because it was easy for them. They invested a lot of time into the game and it's been a while since they were little n00bies. I also want to point something else out. Melee was the worst selling game in Japan (for Smash). So, I think Sakurai saw a real problem. Would another Melee excite people?
No, it really is sooo easy. 90% of people who've played Melee and Brawl can barely tell the difference between the two, gameplay wise. The controls are the same for christ sake.

when Melee came out, I was 9. Had absolutely NO problem playing it.

Also, didn't Melee come bundled with the Cube over in NA for a while? That must be bad marketing on Nintendo of Japan's part...


And MK Wii sold so well because it came with a plastic wheel. Consumers go crazy for useless pieces of plastic, haven't you heard?
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
No, it really is sooo easy. 90% of people who've played Melee and Brawl can barely tell the difference between the two, gameplay wise. The controls are the same for christ sake.

when Melee came out, I was 9. Had absolutely NO problem playing it.

Also, didn't Melee come bundled with the Cube over in NA for a while? That must be bad marketing on Nintendo of Japan's part...


And MK Wii sold so well because it came with a plastic wheel. Consumers go crazy for useless pieces of plastic, haven't you heard?
In this episode of Assumptions Gone Wild.

First, not sure where you can up with 90%?

Second, marketing and plastic wheels are not why games sell (Mario Kart DS didn't have that was still mustered 19 million, the best selling Mario Kart up to that point). People buy good games, so it makes more sense that Brawl is what they want.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Many people tend to miss this line

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult

People here tend to claim that Melee was SOOO easy, but that's because it was easy for them. They invested a lot of time into the game and it's been a while since they were little n00bies. I also want to point something else out. Melee was the worst selling game in Japan (for Smash). So, I think Sakurai saw a real problem. Would another Melee excite people?
This is the most annoying of all arguments. "Melee is actually too difficult, but you wouldn't understand why because you play it a lot" (pararphrasing). It's the best way to avoid having to actually give arguments.

Games sell because they are good, not because of what system they are on.

Let's look at Mario Kart. Sure, the games did better when the Wii and DS took off, but look by how much. Mario Kart DS sold 19 million where it sold about 6 on the Gamecube. Mario Kart Wii sold just under 24 million, the DS is doing far better than the Wii. People buy software. The hardware is more a means to an end (why people enjoy emulating on the PSP). The system's sales can help, but the game stands alone. Brawl did well because it improved on Melee (why it is the best selling Smash game in Japan where Melee was the worst).
"Games sell because they are good." For the most part that is true, but you're saying that it goes the other way around too, "good games sell." That is not always the case. If a game doesn't sell well, you can't take that to mean that the game is bad. By the way, Melee sold extremely well, and as someone pointed out in an earlier post (maybe in the other thread), Melee took a bigger market share (which is a more accurate measurement) than Brawl. Again though, selling more DOES NOT EQUAL better game.
 

Melomaniacal

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
2,849
Location
Tristate area
First, not sure where you can up with 90%?
I'm just going to go ahead and agree with that 90% figure. 90% of casual players, anyway.
I base this off of my experience with all my casual friends, and the two gaming clubs I'm in here at college.

For instance, yesterday I went to the gaming club, popped in Melee and selected it from the Wii menu. Keeping in mind that the Melee logo appears and it says "Melee" in huge font, someone yelled "Brawl!" He sat down to play, and he didn't figure out it was Melee until we started playing.

I know this is one example (and a bit of an extreme one), but stuff like this happens all the time with casual gamers. They straight-up can't tell the difference between Melee and Brawl, not just in gameplay, but visually as well. Every time I put in Melee, it takes 10 minutes before I start hearing things like "is this hacked Brawl?" When I sit down and play with someone, it will take sometimes more than one match until they try to grab the ledge backwards and finally figure out "this isn't Brawl, what the ****."

Although most people will catch on based on the character selection screen, but even then most people will think it's a hacked version of Brawl or something. I rarely hear "oh, this is Melee." Instead it's always "where the hell is Sonic? Is this hacked?"

Not that there aren't people who can tell the difference, I'm just saying that in my experience, casual players can't tell the difference between the games.
 

BEES

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
1,051
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Many people tend to miss this line

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult

People here tend to claim that Melee was SOOO easy, but that's because it was easy for them. They invested a lot of time into the game and it's been a while since they were little n00bies.
No, I attend tournaments and I've put in the hours to learn all the technical stuff in Melee, and I don't think the game is beyond criticism in some areas. The learning curve is too steep. Nobody should have to practice for weeks wavedashing up and down final destination until they can do it. SHFFLing until the l-cancel works, and then applying it to different characters in different situations.

It's fair to say that is a level of grinding that detracts from the fun of the game.

However, the game is still fun. It's fun because it's fast, it has cool combos, it's aggressive, and you can always get better at it. Those aspects of the gameplay should have been retained. They should have integrated the ATs more purposefully into the game, smoothing out the learning curve without detracting from the strategic depth.

I would rather re-learn all the hard stuff in Melee just to play Melee, than ever waste my time on Brawl. A glacially slow fighting game without combos... no thanks.

Let's look at Mario Kart. Sure, the games did better when the Wii and DS took off, but look by how much. Mario Kart DS sold 19 million where it sold about 6 on the Gamecube. Mario Kart Wii sold just under 24 million, the DS is doing far better than the Wii. People buy software. The hardware is more a means to an end (why people enjoy emulating on the PSP). The system's sales can help, but the game stands alone. Brawl did well because it improved on Melee (why it is the best selling Smash game in Japan where Melee was the worst).
1 - The Japanese have a weird definition of fun.
2 - Brawl sold because of the popularity of Melee. We'll see how well the next game does. I'm willing to bet you'll see some decline, because many hardcore players that bought Brawl are never coming back.
 

Anth0ny

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
4,061
Location
Toronto, Ontario
In this episode of Assumptions Gone Wild.

First, not sure where you can up with 90%?
Made it up. I should have said "the overwhelming majority of people who bought the game" I suppose.

Second, marketing and plastic wheels are not why games sell (Mario Kart DS didn't have that was still mustered 19 million, the best selling Mario Kart up to that point). People buy good games, so it makes more sense that Brawl is what they want.
I want to believe this, but there are way to many amazing games that barely sell... meanwhile Wii Fit, Wii Play and casual game x are selling like hot cakes because of stupid peripherals.
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
This is the most annoying of all arguments. "Melee is actually too difficult, but you wouldn't understand why because you play it a lot" (pararphrasing). It's the best way to avoid having to actually give arguments.
Note it was Sakurai who said it, and it is generally true. Look at all the competitive Smash players who say it's easy.

It's easy for higher level players since they spent so much time with it and they haven't been new to the series for a while. They live in a different world. But Sakurai likely sees many different people play the game. And even sales data shows there was a problem.

"Games sell because they are good." For the most part that is true, but you're saying that it goes the other way around too, "good games sell." That is not always the case. If a game doesn't sell well, you can't take that to mean that the game is bad. By the way, Melee sold extremely well, and as someone pointed out in an earlier post (maybe in the other thread), Melee took a bigger market share (which is a more accurate measurement) than Brawl. Again though, selling more DOES NOT EQUAL better game.
Good games always sell. Period. The reason they didn't sell was because something was holding them back.

People always try to argue this because there is a game they like that didn't sell well or didn't sell a lot. It's simple consumer logic. People buy things they want. This is just a fact of life. If, on the off chance, they buy something and they don't like it, they will soon tell everyone they know that it is bad and to not buy it. Buyers are marketers. Their judgment will be whether they sell the game or prevent sales. There are some judgment calls to be made, but generally speaking, a game that sells well is good. Seeing as Brawl outsold every other Smash Brothers game, I would say they see it as they best.

2 - Brawl sold because of the popularity of Melee. We'll see how well the next game does. I'm willing to bet you'll see some decline, because many hardcore players that bought Brawl are never coming back.
This is a misconception because Melee did worse than 64 in Japan. It makes no sense that it road Melee's success when Melee was a down turn for the series.
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
This is the most annoying of all arguments. "Melee is actually too difficult, but you wouldn't understand why because you play it a lot" (pararphrasing). It's the best way to avoid having to actually give arguments.



"Games sell because they are good." For the most part that is true, but you're saying that it goes the other way around too, "good games sell." That is not always the case. If a game doesn't sell well, you can't take that to mean that the game is bad. By the way, Melee sold extremely well, and as someone pointed out in an earlier post (maybe in the other thread), Melee took a bigger market share (which is a more accurate measurement) than Brawl. Again though, selling more DOES NOT EQUAL better game.
Just to add to this, Twilight series, enough said.

Sales can equal to a good game, but you should also look at the content itself.

In which case Brawl was good in both areas just like Melee was.
 

crismas

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
4,596
Location
Inkopolis
NNID
crismaspresents
I was going to write some kinda long thing with numbers or w/e but I'm at work so I'm just going to write my thoughts on the above comments on the system only being a small factor and the game being the main issue. The system is marketed first and foremost, in fact I feel like the Wii is marketed much better than the Gamecube ever was.

There were more units sold because of this, so there are more people who actually have a Wii. The game isn't SOLD only on the fact that "it's good" it's sold because of brand/title familiarity. Nintendo is already a brand you love and am familiar with. And then you have Smash Bros who's been with us since 64, you've tried it out at the store maybe back in the day and then you got your friends into it etc... the next one comes out for the following system so you assume it's going to be good, so you buy it, you're hooked! What a fan-****ing-tastic game! In your head at this point, Smash is a familiar and reliable title that you're looking forward to on the next installment. Then the Wii comes out and "damn, this is gonna be great! I can't wait!" you get it home and it's not exactly what you expected. You're devasted and you immediately sell it on ebay (lol).

Obviously I just used Smash as an example. Chances are, you're a casual player anyway who didn't care about competitive play and bought all three games (or maybe even just two) because it's Smash and it's new!

This is what happens GENERALLY when people buy games (again, I wish I knew the actual studies or statistics on this) but being a general consumer of games I know that when I buy a game I'M HOPING it's going to be good. Not that it's already good. There's been plenty of games I've bought in my lifetime that have sucked *******s when I got it home and was dissapointed in it. The sales aren't indicating the number SOLD BACK, they're only recording what's SOLD initally. And selling initially doesn't automatically mean it's a good game.
 

TheGoat

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
584
Yes but Melee by far it is harder even on a casual level.
False.



Many people tend to miss this line

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult

People here tend to claim that Melee was SOOO easy, but that's because it was easy for them. They invested a lot of time into the game and it's been a while since they were little n00bies. I also want to point something else out. Melee was the worst selling game in Japan (for Smash). So, I think Sakurai saw a real problem. Would another Melee excite people?
Who claims that Melee is easy to play? Go ask competitive players and they will tell you otherwise. Competitive Melee is difficult to play and learn, but in return it is extremely rewarding and allows for a fulfilling competitive experience, as demonstrated by large tournament outcomes 9 years after the game has been released.

Also, casual Melee is extremely easy to get into. I have had plenty of friends who love to spam the C-stick and throw around items, and have great fun; that is how most people start. If you think competitive Melee is too difficult, you'd probably be better of playing more generic, easy games such as halo or star fox.

Games sell because they are good, not because of what system they are on.

Let's look at Mario Kart. Sure, the games did better when the Wii and DS took off, but look by how much. Mario Kart DS sold 19 million where it sold about 6 on the Gamecube. Mario Kart Wii sold just under 24 million, the DS is doing far better than the Wii. People buy software. The hardware is more a means to an end (why people enjoy emulating on the PSP). The system's sales can help, but the game stands alone. Brawl did well because it improved on Melee (why it is the best selling Smash game in Japan where Melee was the worst).
Wow, terrible, terrible.
Games sell to the masses not because they are "good" but because they are generally dumbed down and made accessible to the majority. Going by your logic, Wii Sports is better than Brawl, Melee, super mario bros, counter strike, etc. merely because it sold the most copies.
Brawl did not improve from Melee. It was a crappier version spat out with better graphics and more gimmicky characters so that it could attract flocks of 10 year olds. Not even an effort at balancing the game.

The ad populum fallacy does not work.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Good games always sell. Period. The reason they didn't sell was because something was holding them back.
This is where I stop responding, because I know that arguing with you is meaningless. I will leave with this though.

1. Not as many consoles available.
2. Poor marketing.
3. People at first don't understand the depth of the game.
4. Social trends cause people to not enjoy video games as much.
5. Economic trends cause people to not buy as many things (video games included).
6. Current events causing sales of certain video games to decline (school shootings leads to parents not buying as many violent games for kids).
7. Individual aspects of the game which people perceive to be bad but actually it's just a small part of the game (eg: many casual players hate brawl because of SSE).
8. Miscellaneous factors (I prefer Melee/64 over Brawl any day, yet I have bought a copy of brawl and still have it, and have never bought and never owned a copy of Melee).

I could go on, but as I said, arguing with you is meaningless.

Btw, not all of those 8 apply to Melee/Brawl sales, I'm just saying that your statement

Good games always sell. Period. The reason they didn't sell was because something was holding them back.
is a horrible one.

Edit: @ Red Ryu, That's a great example, again showing that sales do not imply a good game, and lack of sales do not imply a bad game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom