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

[AllyKnight]

Wait... how can you even argue that Brawl is harder than Melee on a casual level? In my mind it's so blatantly obvious that Melee is harder on a casual level....

...let's see... Brawl (please keep in mind that I'm talking about a casual level here):

1. Slower. Do I need to explain why this makes things easier? (Slower = less spamming which means you gotta play safer, unless you're talking about tornado **** that)

2. More floaty. Again, that should be self-explanatory. ( Your point? This means rushing will make you lose)

3. Easier recovery options. Besides the fact that so many characters simply have more jumps/less punishable recoveries, you can now grab the ledge backwards. This is easier than recovering in Melee. (Yes it's easier to recover in this game, which makes kills harder to get and comebacks more likely to happen.)

4. Air dodging doesn't put you in free fall. Honestly, this should also be self-explanatory. (you're an idiot that's why smart players READ the airdodge and punish you, you can't spam this, it just shows you're a scrub and that's what you would be if you played Brawl).

5. Buffer. Seriously. This was put into the game to make quicker button inputs easier. That's all it does. (Ok? You don't see people buffering winning all the time, lol fool)

Melee:

1. Faster. Self-explanatory. (Less time to react, more foreverlasting moves spam aka nair, oh look I just hit him, let's combo!)

2. More difficult to recover. ( I agreed on this, it's not fun when you die at 13%)
3. Faster fall speeds. This makes it more difficult to go off stage in general. (ok that's good for you bro don't get hit though)
4. Hit stun. (Combos, no need to explain lol)
5. More stuff I don't feel like getting into. (ok)

I forgot in melee all you do is hope it clashes or hit the landing character. We play more with our mind than your common combo senses. I don't see why people always compare both games, it's not the same.

 

[Melomaniacal]

(ok)


I forgot in melee all you do is hope it clashes or hit the landing character. We play more with our mind than your common combo senses. I don't see why people always compare both games, it's not the same.

I'm talking about casual play. I'm talking about how Brawl is easier to pick up and play. I'm not talking about the metagame of either game. I thought I made that clear.

And I really don't want to get into it, but there's no reason to think that the existence of combos and tech skill takes away from the mental aspect of the game. The mental aspect of Melee and Brawl are pretty much the same, it's just emphasized in Brawl more because there aren't as many combos or tech skill requirements.

Also, make sure you know what I'm talking about before you insult my intelligence. It makes you look bad.

Wait a minute. What the hell does "buffer winning" mean?

 

[BEES]

Apex 1 and 2 had more brawl entrants than Melee by alot.

IIRC Apex 2 had nearly the same amount for both games.

Brawl had like 260 to Melee's 230.

 

[link2702]

looooooooooooool....ally be trolling now....

 

[Melomaniacal]

looooooooooooool....ally be trolling now....

He's either trolling or he just didn't read the first part of my post. I'm not convinced either way.

 

[AllyKnight]

looooooooooooool....ally be trolling now....

LOLOL

I'm semi trolling. Sorry Melo. I went very fast with the answer. I did miss the casual point. Thought if we're talking about friendlies. lol Brawl's boring for sure. I only enjoy MM'S/ tournaments.

 

[EPsilon933]

tl;dr

Sakurai is a selfish fool of a developer, forcing his ideals on his buyers

 

[Melomaniacal]

LOLOL

I'm semi trolling. Sorry Melo. I went very fast with the answer. I did miss the casual point. Thought if we're talking about friendlies. lol Brawl's boring for sure. I only enjoy MM'S/ tournaments.

Yeah, I'm not one to try and compare the two games on a competitive level. Casually, however, people play them basically the same way, so I think it's easier to make the comparison.

Also, for the record, I did play Brawl competitively up until the first Apex.

 

[BEES]

Wait... how can you even argue that Brawl is harder than Melee on a casual level? In my mind it's so blatantly obvious that Melee is harder on a casual level....

...let's see... Brawl (please keep in mind that I'm talking about a casual level here):

1. Slower. Do I need to explain why this makes things easier?
2. More floaty. Again, that should be self-explanatory.
3. Easier recovery options. Besides the fact that so many characters simply have more jumps/less punishable recoveries, you can now grab the ledge backwards. This is easier than recovering in Melee.
4. Air dodging doesn't put you in free fall. Honestly, this should also be self-explanatory.
5. Buffer. Seriously. This was put into the game to make quicker button inputs easier. That's all it does.

Melee:

1. Faster. Self-explanatory.
2. More difficult to recover.
3. Faster fall speeds. This makes it more difficult to go off stage in general.
4. Hit stun.
5. More stuff I don't feel like getting into.

-The difference in recovery does not matter for casual players. You die less easily in Brawl, but so does your opponent.
-The moves are the same, ignoring the ATs, so you will take the same amount of time to fully understand the basic aspects of gameplay.
-Without L-canceling, the speed of attacks in Melee is much more comparable to Brawl at a casual level.
-There are more characters in Brawl, and the differences between character playstyles are more noticeable. You have to spend more time learning matchups at a casual level.

I don't think the differences between the games affect casual players. Brawl would obviously suit them more, because of the larger roster and better graphics. Those can be nice things, if you don't care too much about getting deep into the game.

 

[Wenbobular]

tl;dr

Sakurai is a selfish fool of a developer, forcing his ideals on his buyers

Don't you like Brawl ~_~

 

[omgwtfToph]

LOL why did this turn into a "is brawl competitive argument." this isn't 2008

obviously brawl can be, and is, played at a competitive level - the issue is sakurai's mentality as a developer and the direction he's taking the smash bros. series in

I think whether or not melee or brawl differ in accessibility or don't, the main thing to take away was the sakurai no longer has an interest in creating another smash game that's like melee. whether or not brawl ended up being competitive or not wasn't the point; the point was sakurai's INTENTIONS, which, from a competitive player's point of view, are misguided (simple example: tripping, which any brawler will agree is stupid)

 

[Melomaniacal]

-The difference in recovery does not matter for casual players. You die less easily in Brawl, but so does your opponent.
-The moves are the same, ignoring the ATs, so you will take the same amount of time to fully understand the basic aspects of gameplay.
-Without L-canceling, the speed of attacks in Melee is much more comparable to Brawl at a casual level.
-There are more characters in Brawl, and the differences between character playstyles are more noticeable. You have to spend more time learning matchups at a casual level.

1. Players need to spend less time learning how to properly get back on stage in Brawl. It is easier, meaning people will SD less basically. When I first started Melee, I couldn't recover with Falcon or Fox at all simply because they fell so fast and I couldn't properly recover. It was harder. Brawl doesn't really have that issue. I know that is a personal example, but I truly believe that's true for most casual players. The act of getting back on stage is simply more difficult in Melee.
2. Okay.
3. Even without l-canceling, Melee is still faster. Brawl is still more floaty.
4. Matchups don't mean anything on a casual level. Skill gaps can be so massive and playstyles can be so... wrong (for a lack of better terms), that it just simply doesn't matter.

Even if I were to humor you and say that Melee and Brawl at a casual level play at the same speed and have equal recovery difficulty, then there is still one big difference: BUFFERING. Buffering does nothing but make Brawl easier to pick up and play. It literally only exists to make fast button inputs easier. If you're going to say that the two games are equally difficult at a casual level in every other aspect, than buffer alone should be enough to consider Brawl to be easier.

On a casual level. (For emphasis)

 

[BEES]

Sure. I think brawl is competitive. I don't find it to be as fun. My opinions are subjective and someone else is perfectly entitled to disagree.

If Nintendo wants to alienate fans of the first two Smash Bros games, that's their loss. They're the ones making the games though and they get to follow whatever creative vision they want. It's unfortunate that it clashes with the wishes of many of their long-time fans.

We'll see how that works out for them.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Yeah but you don't see Brawl people say oh I hate melee or it sucks. I know quite a lot of people that hate it but won't say anything to be respectful. It's sad.

To quote Jorgen Von Strangle, not exactly.

I've seen people say that about Melee IN PERSON while being in the BG.

Look for Tommy's TY comment for an example
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=PUtUo7jOGGU

Anyway, Brawl is easier on the casual level since you can rely exclusively on items as most of them are game breakers in Brawl.

Not so much in Melee...

Edit: Wait, are you trolling??????

 

[BEES]

1. Players need to spend less time learning how to properly get back on stage in Brawl. It is easier, meaning people will SD less basically. When I first started Melee, I couldn't recover with Falcon or Fox at all simply because they fell so fast and I couldn't properly recover. It was harder. Brawl doesn't really have that issue. I know that is a personal example, but I truly believe that's true for most casual layers. The act of getting back on stage is simply more difficult in Melee.
2. Okay.
3. Even without l-canceling, Melee is still faster. Brawl is still more floaty.
4. Matchups don't mean anything on a casual level. Skill gaps can be so massive and playstyles can be so... wrong (for a lack of better terms), that it just simply doesn't matter.

Even if I were to humor you and say that Melee and Brawl at a casual level play at the same speed and have equal recovery difficulty, then there is still one big difference: BUFFERING. Buffering does nothing but make Brawl easier to pick up and play. It literally only exists to make fast button inputs easier. If you're going to say that the two games are equally difficult at a casually level in every other aspect, than buffer alone should be enough to consider Brawl to be easier.

On a casual level. (For emphasis)

-Not much less time. Developing that basic instinct to jump, jump up+B is the same. There isn't as much precision involved in Brawl, and you can recover facing backwards, and you auto-sweetspot. That puts at least a little more emphasis on learning how to kill your opponent without edgeguarding them though.
-Sure Melee is still faster without l-canceling. At the speeds we're talking about, I don't think that affects the difficulty much.
-Matchups mean more in Brawl on a casual level because of how ******** chaingrabs are, and how much bigger a difference in priority you can have between attacks. There are more characters that force you to learn that one character, independent of everyone else. (Diddy, Olimar, Snake).
-Buffering does not matter at a casual level. People habitually input attacks when they want them to come out. You have to play fast and learn to think ahead to use the buffer system to your advantage. It's a competitive thing, I think.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Wait... how can you even argue that Brawl is harder than Melee on a casual level? In my mind it's so blatantly obvious that Melee is harder on a casual level....

...let's see... Brawl (please keep in mind that I'm talking about a casual level here):

1. Slower. Do I need to explain why this makes things easier?
2. More floaty. Again, that should be self-explanatory.
3. Easier recovery options. Besides the fact that so many characters simply have more jumps/less punishable recoveries, you can now grab the ledge backwards. This is easier than recovering in Melee.
4. Air dodging doesn't put you in free fall. Honestly, this should also be self-explanatory.
5. Buffer. Seriously. This was put into the game to make quicker button inputs easier. That's all it does.

Melee:

1. Faster. Self-explanatory.
2. More difficult to recover.
3. Faster fall speeds. This makes it more difficult to go off stage in general.
4. Hit stun.
5. More stuff I don't feel like getting into.

This for Strong Bad and TheGoat.

this is still an entirely irrelevant point...

Then why bring up that Pound 4 had more entrance and lie that Genesis had more?

"Melee has more at these"
"But These had more"
"Irrelevant"
"wut"

You can't cheery pick only when it helps you.

I see Brawl kids hating on Melee all the time, actually.

Not even close to amount of Melee that hates on Brawl on these forums.

Also what Ally said, - the half trolling.

 

[Melomaniacal]

-Not much less time. Developing that basic instinct to jump, jump up+B is the same. There isn't as much precision involved in Brawl, and you can recover facing backwards, and you auto-sweetspot. That puts at least a little more emphasis on learning how to kill your opponent without edgeguarding them though.
-Sure Melee is still faster without l-canceling. At the speeds we're talking about, I don't think that affects the difficulty much.
-Matchups mean more in Brawl on a casual level because of how ******** chaingrabs are, and how much bigger a difference in priority you can have between attacks. There are more characters that force you to learn that one character, independent of everyone else. (Diddy, Olimar, Snake).
-Buffering does not matter at a casual level. People habitually input attacks when they want them to come out. You have to play fast and learn to think ahead to use the buffer system to your advantage. It's a competitive thing, I think.

1. Well... yeah, you just explained why it's harder in Melee... also, casual players really aren't edgeguarding and whatnot.
2. Fair enough.
3. Casual players aren't chaingrabbing, and they aren't using character specific ATs. Casual players aren't glide tossing, mortar sliding, or anything like that. They pick a character and do the same thing they would do with pretty much any other character.
4. I really do think buffering makes a huge difference at any level. It really just makes the game easier to pick up. It makes it easier to time your attacks. Though I will admit that it has a great affect on competitive play as well, I just think it makes the game feel more natural to people just picking it up.

I don't know, I'm just super convinced that Brawl is easier to pick up. I play with a large group of casual players twice a week in Brawl and Melee, and every single one of them have a much harder time with Melee. I mean, even outside of my personal experience, Sakurai has said on multiple occasions that he tried to make Brawl more accessible. I think he succeeded.

 

[BEES]

Could it just be that it's harder to fight casual players in Brawl, because there are far fewer things you can be better than them at?

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

The items in Brawl are SO easy to be so dependent on exclusively.

Most of the people on Wi-fi are like this. When the items are gone, it becomes a curb stomp battle.

The fact that he's forcing his ideals is contradicting one of his ideals of being able to play Smash however you want.......

 

[Melomaniacal]

Could it just be that it's harder to fight casual players in Brawl, because there are far fewer things you can be better than them at?

I mean they have a harder time playing Melee. Even when they are just playing with each other and I'm watching, I notice way more mistakes and SDs in Melee. Nothing to do with my ability to beat them in either game. The casual players are just... better at Brawl. It's not because they practice Brawl more (because they don't). They're just better at it. I think that's because it's easier to pick up.

Oh, but I will admit that Brawl is harder on a casual level in one respect: Stages. Some Brawl stages are just... stupid, and much harder to work with.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

He gave us that option by letting us turn items, stages off and picking from multiple game modes.

 

[CloneHat]

(Yes it's easier to recover in this game, which makes kills harder to get and comebacks more likely to happen.)

Ouch. That logic.

Don't want to start Brawl vs Melee-ing, but I've got to call you on a point like that.

 

[AllyKnight]

Ouch. That logic.

Don't want to start Brawl vs Melee-ing, but I've got to call you on a point like that.

Fine that was a bad one. Melee combos = COmebacks easily too. Sorry buddy I'm not perfect >;l

 

[None Shall Pass]

Comebacks don't necessarily revolve around combos.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Soooo hey

lets not turn this into Brawl vs Melee

more than welcome to discuss the article at hand. any brawl vs melee argument (which game is "better" blah blah) this is going to get closed.

 

[AllyKnight]

Comebacks don't necessarily revolve around combos.

Most likely in Melee though. lol you know what, the come back thing works for both games. let's drop it lmao

 

[BEES]

Just look at Tang's 4 stock comeback against Lunin.

It was mostly gimps.

 

[MuraRengan]

Melee2good

 

[BEES]

The items in Brawl are SO easy to be so dependent on exclusively.

Most of the people on Wi-fi are like this. When the items are gone, it becomes a curb stomp battle.

The fact that he's forcing his ideals is contradicting one of his ideals of being able to play Smash however you want.......

I'm sure he thinks he's being consistent. "You can play Smash however you want, as long as you don't play it THAT way."

 

[Strong Badam]

Then why bring up that Pound 4 had more entrance and lie that Genesis had more?

"Melee has more at these"
"But These had more"
"Irrelevant"
"wut"

You can't cheery pick only when it helps you.

You are the one who brought up Apex, Pound, Genesis, etc. I was simply pointing out that Melee attendance was either equal (Are you going to call me out on a two player difference?) or greater (Pound 4).

Not even close to amount of Melee that hates on Brawl on these forums.

irrelevant to this discussion. the community has nothing to do with the game itself. I'm not even going to comment on the Brawl community.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

You are the one who brought up Apex, Pound, Genesis, etc. I was simply pointing out that Melee attendance was either equal (Are you going to call me out on a two player difference?) or greater (Pound 4).

You said Brawl was not competitive, in which I brought up those tournaments as national events. Then you said Pound and Genesis, which Genesis is a lie, had more melee attendance.

If it was irrelevant, why did you bring up attendance and try to bail out when proven wrong? Or even make the original comment that Brawl is not competitive?

irrelevant to this discussion. the community has nothing to do with the game itself. I'm not even going to comment on the Brawl community.

You could have said this without the jab at the end.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Can we talk about how this decision conflicts with one of Smash key principles and how badly this will cripple future projects(IE SSB4) instead?

 

[AllyKnight]

Yeah Strong Bad, you obviously stated something with that line, rofl. Melee players are horrible.

 

[SmashChu]

False.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.

From a distance, I hear a voice

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

I will be honest, no one here knows how people play this game outside of Smash Boards. I have been here since back in the late days of Melee, and I can tell you there is a big difference. Note that a lot of you concern yourselves with competitive Smash. So, to you all, these things in the game are easy. But to other gamers, they are not. There are plenty of players with varying skill levels. Not everyone is a pro and even as plenty of people have said here, Brawl is the easier game.

Note that, again, sales fell in Japan. This means people were leaving Smash Bros. The people who played 64 did not want to play Brawl. Likely, Sakurai could see this and made sure to fix this come Brawl.

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.

[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of ways you can tell who knows business and who doesn't. When you say "customers are stupid," they don't get it.

Consider this, if these people are dumb for buying a bad game, than what if they are smart and you are dumb. You wont consider this because you think you are "smart," but we will always have some ego and think we are all geniuses. But, what if the people who buy games from Wii Sports to Brawl are smart and you are dumb?

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

The other sign of someone who doesn't know business is that they do not mention customers. The closest you came was society (people buy goods, not societies). I expect this fine fellow is actually an Economics major.

Think about this: do you buy things you like? Of course you do. Why wouldn't you? Now, do you buy things you dislike? Well, no, you wouldn't buy it. Now, if you liked something, would you tell others? Yes. And if it's bad will you tell others not to buy if. Of course. This happens a lot in retail. So than ask yourself, why do you think this doesn't apply to everyone?

Rule number one about making big hit: make it something good. Fact is people don't buy bad products and if they are "bad," that's your thoughts, not theirs.

The audience is always, always, always right. You can point to the accessible parking lot, to the time of the showing, to the weather of the sky, but none of that matters. The audience is always right

?The topic I spoke of was accessibility VS depth. The points I made stay the same regardless if you're playing on stages in an arcade game or against another person in a fighter. In a nutshell, I explained why you can make a game very easy to get into and still have depth. Obviously the way these games are played are different but the concepts of accessibility and depth apply just the same.

No, it is not the same thing because how you develop a multiplayer game and a single player game is totally different. A single player game has only character, and the challenge is made though a stage. So if you want to make it a challenge, you make the stage harder.

You can't make a multiplayer game more challenging. Like a single player game (unless it's co-op). You can't just add enemies or change the level. The challenge comes from other players. The difficulty is that another player is really good. In other words, Melee is no more difficult than Brawl. The player defines the challenge. The game designer just gives them the clubs and tells them to go at it.

Whether intentional or not, Melee has depth below the surface and it has not harmed the accessibility the game has, just as the arcade games I mentioned have not had their accessibility harmed by their depth. This is not even about Brawl specifically, but the idea that one must remove or limit depth in favor of more accessibility is flawed and greatly reduces the quality of the final product. That is true for everything, not just games.

I wouldn't use depth. Depth is not difficulty. Take Super Mario Bros. What depth is there is jumping on a goomba or jumping over him. No much. You have two simple options. But that goomba can make a challenge for the player, such as putting him on a moving surface or have him drop from the blocks above. This is not depth, but difficulty.

I would argue depth doesn't matter to the player. People played pong and loved it despite it's just hitting a ball. Most sports have very little depth but as exciting nonetheless. Besides, you used depth and difficulty the same, when they aren't. Consider the games you brought up. Turtles in Times only has you jumping and kicking. There isn't much to it there. There are not Advance techs or anything. Just punching and kicking. This was many games in the arcade. Pac-Man only had you move forward and get power pellets. Donkey Kong only had you jump and get hammers. Yet somehow, it's the same if X game has all these little extra things we call ATs.

You mentioned Brawl felt "bloated," but I will say games like Melee felt bloated. A game with depth has lots of extra stuff that gives players more options. It is 9 resources in an RTS. It's focus attacks and cancels in Street Fighter 4. It's Baroque in Tatsunoko vs Capcom. It gives the player more depth in things they can do, but all it does is feel like fat to players. People flawk to simple games, game like Brawl. They don't want wavedashing, L-canceling, and all the other ATs Melee gave us. Putting in ATs does not make a game fun, it makes it feel bloated and boring. These things are extra barriers to the game for players. It's things players "have to know," to play the game.

People tend to miss that fact that Melee missed the mark in Japan. People will put extrnal forces to it, but the simple answer was that Smash Brothers was becoming Street Fighter. Street Fighter 2 was a very big game, but for some reason, it failed to keep that popularity. Even 4, despite being on two system, can't come close to 2's success. Melee was doing just that by making the game harder and harder for people to play. Japan wasn't a fluke, it was a warning sign. In Japan, people were leaving Smash. Not as many people wanted to jump into Melee. These players were not moving up? What happened? From Sakurai's sayings, they likely were not willing to move to Melee as they found it hard.

People will clamor and try to say Brawl did better because of the Wii, but consider that people play software, not hardware. If these people actually wanted Melee, they would buy a Gamecube. If they want Brawl, they'll buy a Wii. So, simply, these players were not buying Gamecubes for Melee as they didn't want Melee to begin with. Basically, people were not going to be excited for more Melee. They want Brawl.

Let me wrap this all up by saying that, in multiplayer games, difficulty and accessibility are opposites. The difficulty is made by the players being good, something the designer has no control over. The only way for them to make it more difficulty is to make the game harder to play or add lots of elements that change the game. Doing either is going to make it harder to get into. Multiplayer games work best when they are very simple. Remember, Starcraft was a simple RTS, and it's played in stadiums now.

 

['V']

Melee is very difficult, but only to people who don't want to learn.

 

[Mike G]

Melee is very difficult, but only to people who don't want to learn.

This .

 

[Youngling]

rofl barlw is so fail!!! epic fail! rofl! XD! rofl!

melee is ween ween ween no matta what!!!

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

rofl barlw is so fail!!! epic fail! rofl! XD! rofl!

melee is ween ween ween no matta what!!!

true story

 

[DAS]

Doesn't matter to me as long its like it always been Smash Bros, I don't really care what is either Smash game their all good to me.

 

[Black Mantis]

Ally with the ****!