What did Yoshinori Ono do right that Sakurai didn't?

[Quillion]

I'm sure all y'all know about Yoshinori Ono, the directorial face of Street Fighter IV, known for trolling his fans endlessly and making Street Fighter more accessible to the average gamer.

Sounds like a director we know so well? You'll believe it after you read this. Doesn't sound eerily similar to everything Sakurai has been saying since Brawl?

(From Nintendo Power, May 2008 issue)

We really just wanted this game, again, to appeal to and be played by gamers of all different levels. We felt that there was a growing gap between beginners and advanced players, and taking that out helps to level the playing field. It wasn't a big priority or anything, but when we were building the game around the idea of making it fair for everybody, it just made sense to take it out. And it also goes back to wanting to make something different from Melee and giving players the opportunity to find new things to enjoy.

Yet somehow, SF3 elitists are as noticeable as 3D Mario elitists who say that the new games suck because of linearity (trust me, I am one of the latter). What did Ono do right that Sakurai didn't?

 

[PCHU]

I dunno; lots of my matches in Smash 4 feel like SFIV matches, so I don't really think anyone's right or wrong.
I haven't played much of it, mind you, but I've played enough BlazBlue/MvC3 to know that the pace and general tactics of SFIV relate very closely with Smash 4 than any other iteration.
Some like the more "basic" design and some hate it, and I'm not here to argue that, but it's a nice gesture of them to attempt to make the game more accessible.

Still, people like fast-paced action as well as a good challenge.
Some people appreciate a higher skill/technical ceiling because it gives them more to do and, for them, adds life to the game.
My girlfriend has played Mario Kart with me since MKWii, and after months of playing 8, we decided to pop in Wii, and she ended up liking it tons more (and I did, too) because it just felt better.
To quote her: "When we play MK8, it's easier and less fun, but when we play MKWii, I feel like it's more difficult, but more fun."

I think that both developers saw a casual market wanting to get into the game but felt intimidated, and though I don't think either one did it right with Smash 4's throw -> aerial combo restrictions and SFIV's 1-frame links, I think they both pretty much took the same route.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here because the ideas behind Brawl -> Smash 4 and SFIII -> SFIV feel like much of the same.
Feel free to ignore me if what you were trying to say went completely over my head.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Well he didn't put Dark Pit into his game...

 

[Quillion]

Well he didn't put Dark Pit into his game...

He did put Decapre in, though...

 

[FalKoopa]

It all comes down to preference, really. If you are new to something, even slightly advanced techs can feel intimidating, and if you are the receiving end of those, they might dissuade you from playing. That was the thing they wanted to avoid.
On the other hand, if you are an experienced gamer, removal of the more difficult techs can feel like punch to the gut, because you enjoyed the challenge they posed and your weeks/months/years of practice is all useless now.

It's a hard choice to make. You end up losing a portion of the fans either way, so it comes down which is less damaging.

That said, I don't think there was anything 'right' or 'wrong' here.

 

[κomıc]

I don't think Melee holds up well today.

Controls are clunky and of all games I've played by Nintendo I think is one the most unpolished (and for good reason- rushed out to market to meet the launch of the Gamecube). I think opinions would be vastly different if a new Smash Bros came out 3 years after Melee and not almost 8 years. There was nothing at the time to compare a game like Smash Bros to because it was a one of a kind game and it still is today despite attempts to replicate its formula.

Melee was good for its time. And I'm talking about it as a whole and not in the competitive bubble. I think all Smash games are valuable and as said before, it all comes down to preference. They all have their competitive values and I don't see any as "more competitive" than another considering the direction taken with the recent games and overall design of the games.

I don't have much experience in other fighting games nor do I know the goings-ons in the fighting game community so I can't really compare Smash 4 to SFIV. But it is something I often hear about. I tried to play SFIV and I didn't like the pacing of it. I enjoyed the flashiness and speed of MvC3 and Tatsunoko vs Capcom. Tried out the recent Blazblue and can't get into it. With those fighting games, I don't like using combinations to pull out one special move or what have yous. I find it too technical to be enjoyable and it detracts me from having fun.

I'll happily stick to my Smash Bros, Battle Royale type-games and 3D Fighters such as Soul Calibur.

 

[Newt Floss]

Nothing. Smash sold more and now Capcom is going out of business.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Last I checked, Smash Bros. appear to get more views in streams than Street Fighter, so I'm guessing Ono's doing nothing right. If he is, he's doing it way too late.

 

[Mono.]

He did put Decapre in, though...

Decapre plays COMPLETELY different than Cammy. Dark Pit has less than a handful of moves different than Pit and their playstyle is hardly different whatsoever.

 

[ICXCM]

Why do you think Ono got it right and Sakurai didn't ? Perhaps you are listening to the wrong people in either case.

 

[Jexulus]

Decapre plays COMPLETELY different than Cammy. Dark Pit has less than a handful of moves different than Pit and their playstyle is hardly different whatsoever.

While that's true, Decapre's marketing was WAY worse. They kept her a mystery when Ultra was announced, hyped her to no end and even gave her a trailer. The attention it got implied that Ultra Street Fighter IV's last hurrah was going to be a brand new fighter. Instead, it just looked like another clone, no matter how much their move sets differ. The hype she got killed any goodwill towards the character the general public could've had for her.
At least with Dark Pit, there was no marketing to suggest he was anything other than what he was. He doesn't have the burden of disappointing lofty expectations.

 

[Purple_Anteater]

I've heard a lot of these comparisons as well. People saying that Smash 4 is the SSIV of the smash bros franchise. It makes sense to me. The difference is that Street Fighter is "Competition, but make it more accessible" while Smash seems more like "Friendliness & fun at the expense of competition"

Which is weird because I've never been more frustrated with a fighting game than Smash 4.

 

[Quillion]

Nothing. Smash sold more and now Capcom is going out of business.

Only because Nintendo refuses to adopt Capcom's terrible practices, not for doing anything particularly new (which Capcom has been incredibly good at doing despite gamer rage at them).

 

[Roukiske]

Its hard to compare SF3 to SF4. Personally I did like Third strike WAY more, but SF4 itself holds the basic game mechanics that was SF2 and parts of SF3, which is why many people play both or are happy to quit SF3 to move on. SF3 > SF4 feels like street fighter. You can do everything you could in older street fighter games minus obvious techniques.

In street fighter, they let PRO PLAYERS play their game and test it out and they SHOW THE MECHANICS of the game before it comes out. In Smash, we have to wait for the game to come out to even see if we will actually like it. As a fighting game, that is very dumb, but smash is more of a party game to Sakurai so its understandable.

The thing is with street fighter, even though its more accessible, its obvious Capcom wants the better player to win and it was designed for the hardcore audience. With Smash, Sakurai wants everyone to win (though unless you make the game completely random, the better player WILL win) so he based his game off that mentality. There are more casual players than hardcore players so its obvious one will sell more. Also, one is classified as a fighting game and the other as a party game (which competitively is a fighting game). They're different guys.

I agree that this smash4 (edit->) reminds me more of traditional fighting game than Melee. The zoning, spacing, reads, offensive and defensive options you have to do in this iteration does remind me of SF4, but it only reminds me of it, I don't mean that it feels like it.

 

[Quillion]

Its hard to compare SF3 to SF4. Personally I did like Third strike WAY more, but SF4 itself holds the basic game mechanics that was SF2 and parts of SF3, which is why many people play both or are happy to quit SF3 to move on. SF3 > SF4 feels like street fighter. You can do everything you could in older street fighter games minus obvious techniques.

In street fighter, they let PRO PLAYERS play their game and test it out and they SHOW THE MECHANICS of the game before it comes out. In Smash, we have to wait for the game to come out to even see if we will actually like it. As a fighting game, that is very dumb, but smash is more of a party game to Sakurai so its understandable.

The thing is with street fighter, even though its more accessible, its obvious Capcom wants the better player to win and it was designed for the hardcore audience. With Smash, Sakurai wants everyone to win (though unless you make the game completely random, the better player WILL win) so he based his game off that mentality. There are more casual players than hardcore players so its obvious one will sell more. Also, one is classified as a fighting game and the other as a party game (which competitively is a fighting game). They're different guys.

I agree that this smash4 feels more like a traditional fighting game than Melee. The zoning, spacing, reads, offensive and defensive options you have to do in this iteration does remind me of SF4, but it only reminds me of it, I don't mean that it feels like it.

But does Smash NEED to be a "traditional fighter"?

 

[Roukiske]

But does Smash NEED to be a "traditional fighter"?

Nope, it doesn't need to be. And I hope it never becomes just like traditional fighter. Its unique the way it is. Tweaks between installments is nice, but I hope they don't forget what makes Smash Smash.

Edit: Oh and all the options we have for Special melee and stage builder are nice too. Lots to do if you have the imagination for it (it's nice to take a break from serious mode all the time)

 

[Quillion]

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here because the ideas behind Brawl -> Smash 4 and SFIII -> SFIV feel like much of the same.
Feel free to ignore me if what you were trying to say went completely over my head.

Actually the ideas from Melee -> Brawl is more similar to the SF3 -> SF4 jump. Did you read Ono's statement on SF3?

 

[Roko Jono]

Actually the ideas from Melee -> Brawl is more similar to the SF3 -> SF4 jump. Did you read Ono's statement on SF3?

Ah that comparison, I'd have to say that I disagree with that one. Ono said he wanted to make a game where the old timer's would feel familiar and he did because SF4 is a modified SF2 in a good way. Here's my sort of generalization of the next iterations:

Melee -> Brawl: Take things away. Techniques found were for the most part unintentional so they don't count for development.

SF3 -> SF4: Take things away and add stuff to replace it (Separate ultra meter + Focus attack)

That's the way I see it. Brawl > Smash4 to me though is more like: make this better than the last, which I felt is what they did a pretty good job at. At the end of the day though, one game is made for the hardcore audience and the other is not, that's just the way it is. It could change someday though...

 

[ChikoLad]

Only because Nintendo refuses to adopt Capcom's terrible practices, not for doing anything particularly new (which Capcom has been incredibly good at doing despite gamer rage at them).

If we're talking about Nintendo and Capcom as a whole, that's entirely untrue. They both do new things, but Nintendo actually comes up with new things for good reason, while Capcom just makes things new and different for the sake of it, not caring for the integrity of the franchise (e.g. Resident Evil and Phoenix Wright).

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

They have different design goals in the end. Street Fighter doesn't care about the casual crowd anywhere near the level Smash does. And as such has a different expectation.

 

[XxBHunterxX]

If we're talking about Nintendo and Capcom as a whole, that's entirely untrue. They both do new things, but Nintendo actually comes up with new things for good reason, while Capcom just makes things new and different for the sake of it, not caring for the integrity of the franchise (e.g. Resident Evil and Phoenix Wright).

I think it's reversed, nintendo is the one that seems to add new things without a clear purpose, while most of there productions turn out to be good, it's rarely from player feed back. Capcom on the on the other hand does seem to have some what of a reason for changes to their formula, while I don't know much about Phoenix wright , resident evil went through so many changes because of the profits made from each title. From a business view it makes more sense

 

[ChikoLad]

I think it's reversed, nintendo is the one that seems to add new things without a clear purpose, while most of there productions turn out to be good, it's rarely from player feed back. Capcom on the on the other hand does seem to have some what of a reason for changes to their formula, while I don't know much about Phoenix wright , resident evil went through so many changes because of the profits made from each title. From a business view it makes more sense

I'm pretty sure Resi 4 did perfectly fine.

And no, Nintendo's changes definitely have purpose. I mean, they always put out developer interviews explaining stuff like this, so there isn't even a question about it.

EDIT: Case in point with Capcom:
http://kotaku.com/capcom-takes-co-op-out-of-resident-evil-clever-modders-1688557011

 

[Quillion]

Ah that comparison, I'd have to say that I disagree with that one. Ono said he wanted to make a game where the old timer's would feel familiar and he did because SF4 is a modified SF2 in a good way. Here's my sort of generalization of the next iterations:

And SF2 was a very friendly, insert-coin-and-play kind of game. The SNES version of SF2 alone is like in the top 5 of Capcom's bestsellers for this reason.

SF3 already alienated a lot of fans for chucking out nearly the entire cast, but even much of SF2's faithful considered SF3 very difficult and overly precise to work with.

 

[Emblem Lord]

ono didnt put in decapre. Pretty sure ayano did that.

Anyway we are comparing apples and oranges. Also stop using sakurai and ono as the embodiment of nintendo and capcom respectively. Both these men have different design philosophies and both games were a commercial success and were well recieved by their target demographics overall.

Capcom and nintendos failures cannot be shouldered by either one of these men.

Ono cares about competition and high level players. Sakurai does not.

The end

 

[MAtgSy]

Well he didn't put Dark Pit into his game...

Two words: Shoto clone.

 

[Quillion]

Two words: Shoto clone.

But Smash has shotos, too, you know?

He did put Decapre in, though...

I'd also like to note that Ono also put in Oni in SSF4AE, who is just another form of Akuma.