Why do some mechanics get taken out?

[LancerStaff]

I don't think you understand what I mean. It would be like if Nintendo only advertised games to people who have already bought a Wii U. It gets people hyped but what are they doing to get people on board who don't have a Wii U? Without TV ads or other ads that non-owners can see then sales would stagnate.

My point here is that he is catering to people who are already going to be buying the game regardless. The competitive crowd is looking at the gameplay and expressing their concerns. They know there is a community and it would be smart to include things to ensure that they will buy the game as well.

They're buying the game because the previous games were made for their audience.

Skill snowballs in Brawl too. What do you think accruing a lead is? It's a snowball.


It isn't about how competitive players stack up against newbies or casuals. It's never been about that. They'll get ***** regardless. Where these changes affect players is in the competitive environment, with competitive players. And it make it less enjoyable for these players.



I'm not going to argue you on something that is intuitively obvious.

No, the skill itself snowballs, not the battle.

Less enjoyable? For some.

Opinions =/= facts. Prove it's a fact, or forever be wrong. You can't, so you're wrong.

This is like changing a Test format from Fill In the Blank to Multiple Choice. The people who has studied more will get more answers correct and the one who has not will still fail. The failure won't be as daunting, but it's still a failure.

In other words, you haven't said anything that changes the overall point of my argument to his post.





As a person who has actually mained Mario in Brawl, not really.

You were saying how it's a 'slippery slope' when it'll clearly stop somewhere. It'll stop when dashing is used for dashing, attacks are used for attacking, and so on. Basically until it's played the way it's ment to.

Pro Melee Mario vs casual Mario.
Pro Brawl Mario vs casual Mario.
Which will be the closer match?

This.
I've gotten called cheap and gotten complained against numerous times in Brawl, and I'm not a campy player in the least bit.
I'll hop into the middle of a FFA and attack whoever's nearest, and people still whine that I'm playing cheap.
Granted, I main MK and Kirby, but it doesn't matter who I choose after that, people will find something to complain about.

In Melee?
None of this; people understand that you're skilled and that you've clearly taken time to become the better player.
Even so, flat-out rushdown with all the techs in the world won't stop a DK from getting a grab from a read and turning that into quite possibly a 0%-death with few, if any techs.

I don't really know what happened to where peoples' mindsets changed.
In all honesty, I can't recall a single time before the past few months where someone genuinely complained about techs creating too much of a barrier besides Sakurai himself.
I don't mean to attack anyone, but it's seriously confusing to see this stuff just now pop up considering I used to be a very active member.

You see it all the time, just not here. I was always hearing about how DDD cheats with his grabs and Snake with his DACUS before the WiFi died.

Removing the technical options from Brawl really didn't do much to level the playing field for newcomers. Don't believe me? Observe that just like Melee, a handful of top players have dominated Brawl tournaments. If the skill ladder wasn't as tall, then more players would reach the top and the results for national tournaments would be more scattered. But actually, worse players get wrecked in Brawl about as bad as they get wrecked in Melee. It's just that the kind of play that's required to become a top player in Brawl isn't half as interesting, exciting or fun as in Melee. Disagree? Well, then you're in the minority for sure. After all, Melee has achieved popularity and competitive success that Brawl couldn't have dreamed of.

TLDR: By making Smash 4 a slower, more defense-focused game, you're doing nothing to help casuals compete (or arguably even to have more fun, considering how popular Melee was with casuals), while alienating and boring more serious competitive players. You gain nothing.

You're alienating some players. I've said why it's important to remove techs like fifty times now.

No, you tried to change the subject and ignore the fact I analysed the data you said supported your claim that a majority of casual players hate ATs and proved your assertion incorrect. THEN you tried to change your claim and divert attention away from the fact your claim was not supported by the evidence you provided. I would be more than happy to address these latest points you have made, but only after...

1) You admit you were wrong

or...

2) You prove to me how the data you provided proved your point in spite of my analysis showing it doesn't.

Get past this, and I am more than happy to continue this conversation. If not, stop posting.

I never said the majority of casuals hated techs. Plenty do, but not most. You're trying to win an argument that didn't exist.

 

[Ulevo]

No, the skill itself snowballs, not the battle.

Less enjoyable? For some.

Opinions =/= facts. Prove it's a fact, or forever be wrong. You can't, so you're wrong.

You realize right and wrong is not a dichotomy, but a perception, right? It's like you're impressed with yourself that you can do faulty verbal mathematics.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Pro Melee Mario vs casual Mario.
Pro Brawl Mario vs casual Mario.
Which will be the closer match?

I don't see much of a difference at all. In Melee, the casual Mario gets 4-stocked. In Brawl, the casual Mario gets 3-stocked. No way the casual Mario takes a stock in either game. There's a reason why the same Brawl players dominate tournaments year after year and it's because the skill ladder goes very high. The fact that the casual Mario MIGHT get a few more stray hits in during a Brawl match (and even this is debatable) doesn't mean much if they still won't take a stock, and they will still lose 100/100 matches.

 

[Ulevo]

I don't see much of a difference at all. In Melee, the casual Mario gets 4-stocked. In Brawl, the casual Mario gets 3-stocked. No way the casual Mario takes a stock in either game. There's a reason why the same Brawl players dominate tournaments year after year and it's because the skill ladder goes very high. The fact that the casual Mario MIGHT get a few more stray hits in during a Brawl match (and even this is debatable) doesn't mean much if they still won't take a stock, and they will still lose 100/100 matches.

Pretty much agree with this.

When I was dating my ex, the hall monitor for her dorm played Brawl and caught wind that her boyfriend, me, also played. He wanted to play me and was what I would define as a casual competitive player. The type of player that doesn't go to tournaments, isn't 'in-the-know', but hates losing. You know, the big fish in their small pond of friends types. He taunted and baited me in to playing him, saying he could rock me with his Ike, and that I played ****ty characters.

Needless to say, I wrecked him, and with several characters. Just to prove a point, I also played Ike dittos with him with both items on and items off, and four stocked him with both. The matches weren't even close. The only time he took stocks off me in matches were due to items since I decided to humor him for the first couple of games, and even then they ended in 3 stock matches.

People really exaggerate about how Brawl holds the casual players hand when it comes to facing up against a more competent player. All it really does is frustrate and bore the player who is more experienced, especially when they're playing someone of equal skill.

 

[LancerStaff]

You realize right and wrong is not a dichotomy, but a perception, right? It's like you're impressed with yourself that you can do faulty verbal mathematics.

...My name is not HeroMystic.
You're the one trying to pass off opinions as fact, not me.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Hell, in Melee a casual player might even get an accidental gimp if the pro player is messing around. In Brawl, it's a lot less likely that a casual player will be able to eke out enough pokes and stray hits, and then hit with a kill move at high percent, to ever take a stock on a pro player. And recovery is so buffed in Brawl that gimps on a pro player are pretty unlikely.

 

[Shiliski]

As a casual player who still can't SHFFL in Melee, I have to say that the inclusion or exclusion of ATs that my friends and I will never learn has never affected me.

Now, some trolls posters have brought up the controversy of snaking in Mario Kart, comparing it to something like L-Cancel. There's two things I'd like to say to that.

A) This is not Mario Kart. This is Smash Bros. Smash Bros is a fighting game. People go into fighting games EXPECTING that there will be a load of techniques that are hard to pull off (like parry, unbreakable combos, perfect guard, perfect recoveries... hell even most game's special moves are more difficult to execute than anything Smash has to offer) that will multiply your effectiveness and increase your performance. It's a KNOWN THING. Unrealistic martial arts (see: DBZ) are perfectly acceptable and no one really cares. On the other hand, racing games are a completely different animal. Most of us know how to drive, and when we buy a racing game we want to drive, and we want our driving to be... perhaps not realistic but immersive. So when we see something like snaking being exploited to move at light speed, it completely invalidates the point of the game and makes us feel like we're wasting our time. We wanted a racing experience, not a glitch fest.

B) Casual players DO want to have a fair chance of winning, regardless of whether or not we've mastered some glitchy exploit. However, even if exploits, glitches, or even intentional ATs are in the game, we don't typically mind provided that the techs are fun or at least tolerable to perform. Bonus points if it also looks cool. So using this mindset, let's look at snaking and hill hopping vs. Melee's comparatively large number of ATs.

Snaking: Not fun to perform, not even tolerable. It looks like cheating. It's also insanely overpowered. So either you do the unfun thing of snaking, or you do the unfun thing of losing a race you could never keep up in. Go ahead and choose how you get to not have fun today. Great game amirite? (To be fair, MKDS is totally fun without snaking)

Hill Hopping: Easy to perform, looks a little silly (which may be good or bad depending on your mood, it IS a Mario game after all, so some silly is okay.), but not really that OP. Might cause a simple shrug, or it might cause people to call it cheating, but really no big deal.

Wavedashing: Takes a little practice, looks freaking awesome with the dust cloud kicking up, and gives you only a few more options than simple Dashing would. It's cool, not gamebreaking, and there's nothing in Smash that makes me feel like I have to Wavedash or lose. +10 casual points.

L-Cancelling: Not even hard. You get reduced recovery lag for successfully predicting when you're going to land, which is completely under your control, so being able to do it makes you feel like a boss. If you are a casual who can't really follow this up with a combo with any reliability, then the reduced lag makes almost no difference. The only people who beat us with L-cancelling are those who would also beat us without it. It's actually more fun for casuals than it is for competitors because there's almost no situation where you don't wanna L-cancel, so there's no strategic choice.

SHFFL: Very hard to pull off compared to other ATs. If you manage it, you get 5 non-smash attack options in addition to the 4 you already had. Good if you have some nice air options. I wouldn't say I find it fun, nor would I say that it is particularly boring. It's just something I'd probably focus on learning if I ever pick up Melee Zelda again.


I could go on, but most Smash ATs follow this general trend. Easy to perform (especially compared to other fighting games) and they aren't game-breaking. So you see, comparing Wavedashing to Snaking isn't even a remotely fair comparison. If Wavedashing gave you a free Smash Ball every time you pulled it off and reset you to 0% damage, AND it was as hard to pull off as MK's down-b glitch, THEN you could fairly compare it to Snaking. Otherwise, they aren't even in the same league. Most ATs are fun optional things to learn. Snaking was complete BS.

 

[thrillagorilla]

I never said the majority of casuals hated techs. Plenty do, but not most. You're trying to win an argument that didn't exist.

Where. Is. Your. Data. That. Corroborates. This. Statement.

What is your definition for "plenty?" Its vague to the extreme so it can be bent to mean a large number of things after the fact. I want a definitive answer.

The data still doesn't support that statement within reason, by the way. As for the "tier wars" argument, I'd like to remind you that happened within the competitive community and only trickled down to the casual fan base. It really doesn't apply.

You are also underestimating the size of the competitive community and their importance in sales of the game. Who are the people who will buy multiple copies of the game? Who are the people who won't trade the game in? Who are the people who will buy a new copy if something happens to the old one? Who are the people who will constantly buy replacement accessories due to overuse? There is a very good reason to throw the competitive community a bone or two. Most of your arguments have been completely ignoring that fact.

I am more than happy to see the game become more simplistic to execute, as long as the competitive value is there. Balance is key, you have to have something for everyone, competitive and casual communities alike. Creating a game that attempts to put both on the same playing field is not only unfeasible, but also destructive. Mario Kart Wii's item system is a very good example of this. Blue shells don't have the ability to hit anyone except for the person in first and whoever is close enough to the blast radius. The amount of time lost from getting hit by one is ludicrous. A person half a lap behind can pass you under the right (or imo wrong) circumstances. By this point, what fun is there to be had by the person who was in first place?

Note: In a blatant attempt at forwarding my own agenda, Mario Kart 8 fixed this problem and balanced it out in multiple ways. Best Mario Kart to date, imo.

I'm going to give you one more chance before I write you off as either a troll or simply not worth my time and block you. Make it count.

1) Admit you were wrong in regards to the link you sent me supporting your statement

or...

2) Show me how the link you sent me supports your point

Majority or "plenty," one or the other, I don't care. Just pick one.

 

[Ulevo]

Mario Kart Wii's item system is a very good example of this. Blue shells don't have the ability to hit anyone except for the person in first and whoever is close enough to the blast radius. The amount of time lost from getting hit by one is ludicrous. A person half a lap behind can pass you under the right (or imo wrong) circumstances. By this point, what fun is there to be had by the person who was in first place?

Note: In a blatant attempt at forwarding my own agenda, Mario Kart 8 fixed this problem and balanced it out in multiple ways. Best Mario Kart to date, imo.
.

Nice. This guy gets it.

 

[HeroMystic]

You were saying how it's a 'slippery slope' when it'll clearly stop somewhere. It'll stop when dashing is used for dashing, attacks are used for attacking, and so on. Basically until it's played the way it's ment to.

FFA with items on?

(This was a joke, don't take it seriously.)

I get what you're saying, and I don't really have a problem with that. However, I don't believe Sakurai would stop at just getting rid of all of the ATs (If he even can. What he got rid of in Melee was replaced with a slew of new ATs in Brawl).

Pro Melee Mario vs casual Mario.
Pro Brawl Mario vs casual Mario.
Which will be the closer match?

I hate to echo, but neither are closer. I've played casuals before. Items on, Items off, 1v1, and even aspiring competitive players. I've regularly destroyed Metaknights, Marths, and Falcos with my Mario despite being one of the worst characters in Brawl. Likewise, I've gotten wrecked by Pro players in Melee when I used Mario/Doc there because I have very minimal practice in competitive play there. A Pro Player will not lose any stocks to a casual player if he doesn't decide to sandbag.

What you're looking for isn't "which will be the closer match" but rather "which match can the casual improve on faster". To that note, I would say Brawl on the simple basis that it's just plainly easier to follow. Melee you just get wrecked and you just stand there and scratch your head wondering what just happened, while in Brawl everything that happens is clear and distinct.

 

[Shiliski]

I'm going to give you one more chance before I write you off as either a troll or simply not worth my time and block you. Make it count.

I've already written him off. The vast majority of his posts are not aimed at making an particular point but are instead meant to enrage his targets and incite general anger. He frequently relies upon straw man arguments, and tries to set up a false dichotomy of casuals vs. hardcores that doesn't really exist (well it kinda does and doesn't. It's not black and white. it's shades of grey) and claims to speak for a "casual" audience that apparently hates ATs that 99% of them probably don't even know anything about.

There's no real substance to what he says. It's just empty raging at the hardcores over an issue that doesn't really even exist.

 

[RODO]

Can you imagine what life in general would be like without depth? Guitars are a great examples of how someone can play only knowing a few chords but others who have tons of experience can do cool things. I'm sure there are many things you can do on a guitar, ranging from techniques to playing different genres of music, that were never intended or thought possible by the man who made it.

Saying something is bad just because you can do more with it than originally intended is silly. Sakurai should be ecstatic that people are playing his game (melee) to this day because it was so well made even if it turned out a bit different. Freedom in games should be a good thing. Forcing your audience to play a certain way takes away from the experience imo.

 

[Shiliski]

I hate to echo, but neither are closer. I've played casuals before. Items on, Items off, 1v1, and even aspiring competitive players. I've regularly destroyed Metaknights, Marths, and Falcos with my Mario despite being one of the worst characters in Brawl. Likewise, I've gotten wrecked by Pro players in Melee when I used Mario/Doc there because I have very minimal practice in competitive play there. A Pro Player will not lose any stocks to a casual player if he doesn't decide to sandbag.

What you're looking for isn't "which will be the closer match" but rather "which match can the casual improve on faster". To that note, I would say Brawl on the simple basis that it's just plainly easier to follow. Melee you just get wrecked and you just stand there and scratch your head wondering what just happened, while in Brawl everything that happens is clear and distinct.

To me, it's not a matter of "how wide the gap is" but rather "how long does it take to lose". Brawl is a slower game, so it takes longer to lose, so it's less fun for the loser. If you beat me in 10 seconds, I think "wow that was amazing how did you do that?", but if it takes you 10 hours to beat me I think "Oh god I just wasted 10 hours of my life losing to this asshole. This is boring. I never want to play this again."

Any respect I could possibly give him for being good at the game is completely meaningless compared to the amount of time I just spent having a video game tell me "You Suck." Some amount of raging, while sometimes immature and misguided, is natural after that. 10 seconds and 10 hours are hyperbole, sure, but not so much. It's a fact that games that go on longer than they need to are less fun for the losers. Many of my friends (all mostly casual) enjoyed Melee a lot more than Brawl, so making it slower didn't really help anyone.

For a real life example, look at League of Legends. It can take 30 minutes to finish a game that you already lost 15 minutes in. It's excruciatingly boring to sit through that extra unnecessary 15 minutes and that's why there's a surrender option.

Can you imagine what life in general would be like without depth? Guitars are a great examples of how someone can play only knowing a few chords but others who have tons of experience can do cool things. I'm sure there are many things you can do on a guitar, ranging from techniques to playing different genres of music, that were never intended or thought possible by the man who made it.

Saying something is bad just because you can do more with it than originally intended is silly. Sakurai should be ecstatic that people are playing his game (melee) to this day because it was so well made even if it turned out a bit different. Freedom in games should be a good thing. Forcing your audience to play a certain way takes away from the experience imo.

This. I don't even see why this is a point of debate. Depth is good. If you want a shallow game with very limited depth, go play tic-tac-toe. There are only 9 factorial (362880) possible states for that game, and 3/4ths of that are literally the same states repeated but rotated 90 degrees. A large number of those are draws, and it's very easy to consistently force a draw so that no one wins.

Tic-tac-toe is a simple game with no depth, and it's not that hard to "Solve" it so that you can always force a draw.

What's that? People don't play tic-tac-toe anymore? Not even casuals? Huh I wonder why. It couldn't possibly be related to the fact that it has no depth and is completely predictable, can it?

 

[RODO]

I also want to know why people act as if a casual happens upon Mango and challenges him to a match that he is stuck in a room and forced to lose to him for the rest of his life. If you hate losing to someone that much then play other people. Have no friends? Luckily there is an online mode that even has a For Fun option.

I like how instead of those easy fixes some people think it's cool to take away from the competitive scene. I would NEVER and I mean NEVER be okay with Sakurai taking something away from the casual scene be it items or game modes. If casuals were upset about something not being in you better believe I'm going to stand there with them even if I don't really care about what they are losing.

 

[HeroMystic]

To me, it's not a matter of "how wide the gap is" but rather "how long does it take to lose". Brawl is a slower game, so it takes longer to lose, so it's less fun for the loser. If you beat me in 10 seconds, I think "wow that was amazing how did you do that?", but if it takes you 10 hours to beat me I think "Oh god I just wasted 10 hours of my life losing to this *******. This is boring. I never want to play this again."

This is pretty much the reason why I stopped playing Starcraft. I'm naturally competitive (or rather, I enjoy improving), so I have an extremely high tolerance to losing, but you eventually grow to stop caring because all the effort you put into attempting to win just goes crashing down. Obviously, Brawl is a less extreme example of this, but I understand your point.

I like how instead of those easy fixes some people think it's cool to take away from the competitive scene. I would NEVER and I mean NEVER be okay with Sakurai taking something away from the casual scene be it items or game modes. If casuals were upset about something not being in you better believe I'm going to stand there with them even if I don't really care about what they are losing.

Somewhat playing Devil's Advocate, but I'm sure the difference between the two is anyone can play the game casually, but being a competitive player feels exclusively for the talented.

...Yeah, I don't quite agree with what I just said myself, but maybe that is Sakurai's train of thought.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Moonwalking, Crouch Cancel, and Dash Cancel were also removed. However Brawl added in a slew of new ATs that the community found that more or less made the same trend. The biggest ones being Momentum Cancelling and DACUS.

---



This actually isn't completely true. Players of MvC2 hated MvC3 originally due to X-Factor being horribly overpowered. It wasn't until Capcom updated the game with UMvC3 that people started to settle in. The same with Street Fighter 4, as the main complaint I remember from the original rendition is it felt slow and too basic.

The main problem is until now, Nintendo has not shown any interest in balancing the game for competitive means. Other companies have listened to complaints and made balance patches (or in Capcom's case, released a new game) to fix those issues, which is why competitive players don't complain nearly as much as we do. Their requests don't fall on deaf ears.

Except for UMVC3.

Nintendo does care about trying to balance the game at least to a degree where they nail it down fine, idk why people think they treat their game like most of the anime fighters that give no ****s how unbalanced the game is.

Then we end up with Naruto Rev 3 banning 4 characters from comp play and the game is still busted beyond belief. Heck MVC 1&2 were completely unbalanced far worse than anything in smash you could compare and for some reason gets loads of respect anyways despite the horrific balance issues.

 

[Shiliski]

I also want to know why people act as if a casual happens upon Mango and challenges him to a match that he is stuck in a room and forced to lose to him for the rest of his life. If you hate losing to someone that much then play other people. Have no friends? Luckily there is an online mode that even has a For Fun option.

I like how instead of those easy fixes some people think it's cool to take away from the competitive scene. I would NEVER and I mean NEVER be okay with Sakurai taking something away from the casual scene be it items or game modes. If casuals were upset about something not being in you better believe I'm going to stand there with them even if I don't really care about what they are losing.

While I see your point, there is a natural tendency to finish what you start, and there's a bit of a stigma against "giving up" or "quitting", even if it costs nothing and actually saves you a lot of time. Which is why I have a hard time swallowing the claim that "slower pcae" means "better for casuals". Faster pace for multiplayer games is better for you regardless of skill level.

However, even if you do reach such a point that you just want to walk out of the room in the middle of the match, you should at least have enough class and sportsmanship to admit that you did lose. Throwing an epic fit over a game isn't a sign of a casual, it's a sign of an asshole.

Unrelated to your post but related more to the rest of the thread, many people here don't seem to understand what it is that casuals actually do. Some posters seem to think that casuals do nothing with the game except show up at tournaments with big, fragile egos thinking that they are all the best smash players ever, only to lose to and then whine at all the hardcores who play better than they do. That really isn't the case. Let me paint a picture for you.

Five or six of your friends are gathered at someone's house. You put in Smash because let's face it: Smash is a fun game to play. None of you are very serious about the game, however. Two of your buddies are just trying to see how long they can stay on the stage after a few swigs of rum. Another has had a bit too much sugar and has the hyperactive rush to prove it. Pokeballs and Bob-ombs are flying all over the place while people hop from one Poke Float to another. Pizza arrives and someone who's sitting out this round goes to answer the door. Eventually the match ends and the two losers swap out with the two bench warmers and another round begins.

That's what Smash is for me. I've only attended a tournament once and that was only because I happened to be around at the time (it was at a con). I want you to notice that in there is no mention of SHFFL, L-Cancel, DACUS, or anything else because none of that was relevant. Whether ATs were there or not does not make the slightest difference. What DID make a difference were stages, items, likable characters, theme music and so on. You know, flashy stuff. Fox saying "You're not ready yet, Falco" is 100x more important than whether or not someone knows how to short hop.

So let me ask you: How do ATs affect the casual scene? Answer: They don't. There's no reason for a casual to care, unless they just want to use ATs as a scapegoat for their own inadequacies and fragile egos. Again, something like snaking in MKDS is an exception to the rule, but that's only because in the game of MKDS you snake or you die. No Smash AT is anywhere near that level of broken. The only way an AT would ever affect me is if I went to a tournament which, as I said before, I don't typically go to. So it really isn't worth it to screw over the entire competitive scene just to help me win a competition that I have no chance of getting past round 1 in.

Now for the slower pace, it was actually stated that the slower pace was meant to cater to casuals... but let me ask you, how would a 10 minute match, as opposed to a 5 minute one, appeal to me at all? If I get 3rd or 4th place, I'd have to sit out for 10 minutes in Brawl, but in Melee I'd only have to sit out for 5 minutes at a time. Which one of those do you think is less unfun? Melee's pace was a lot more casual friendly than Brawl was in a lot of ways.

But the casual crowd is a large crowd, and I'm just one voice in it. I don't claim to speak for THE ENTIRE CASUAL SCENE unlike some people.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I don't see much of a difference at all. In Melee, the casual Mario gets 4-stocked. In Brawl, the casual Mario gets 3-stocked. No way the casual Mario takes a stock in either game. There's a reason why the same Brawl players dominate tournaments year after year and it's because the skill ladder goes very high. The fact that the casual Mario MIGHT get a few more stray hits in during a Brawl match (and even this is debatable) doesn't mean much if they still won't take a stock, and they will still lose 100/100 matches.

Isn't this a good argument for not re-adding the aforementioned techs?

If it has zero effect on the dichotomy of competitive players vs casuals, then why do I see nothing but whinging about how removing the techs narrows the skill gap and makes it more difficult to exemplify skill?

There's a missing link here, obviously you think a match outcome is barely effected with or without melee techs, so clearly there is something there being utilized by competitive players that IS demonstrating a wide skill gap. It's not melee techs obviously.

That being said, why again is it so essential those techs be re-implemented? Honestly, the reason it's the same either way is because Brawl uses a different skill set. It rewards reading and adaptation a bit more than melee, and melee rewards technical skill and character choice a bit more than Brawl (though Metaknight withstanding). Both are valued in both games, to a degree.

Brawl has a less physically technical approach, and more of a calculated approach. In this case, less is more.

I like the guitar analogy. A guitar is simple, but what we love is all the things skilled musicians can DO with those 5 strings. There's no camp of people advocating to add 5 more strings to the traditional guitar schemes, or 5 more handles and whammies in order to make it sound good or show that a person is good at playing guitar. People don't complain that the original designer of the guitar is limiting musical choices by the instrument only having a small set of strings.

 

[Dapplegonger]

I don't really like the whole Melee vs Brawl debate. Competitive players are going to like whichever one they're more used to, while casual players can transition more easily. Smash 64 was never a super competitive game on the scale of Melee or Brawl (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and it was only out for two years. Melee was somewhat similar (still had combos and was, before anyone learned ATs, similarly fast), so people got used to it more easily and became popular as a result. Melee was then out for seven years before Brawl came out and was immensely popular, but Brawl was very different. Since people were so used to Melee, they hated on Brawl. Newer players might have joined Brawl, and are now more used to it, so they don't want to go to Melee, or are more reluctant. A good example of this is what happened with me. I played Melee for a while without knowing anything about competition or advanced techniques, so it was an easy transition to Brawl. After losing my copy of Melee, I learned about the Melee competitive community, bought a new copy, and learned about advanced techniques. After learning about all these advanced techniques and being able to implement them, I no longer enjoy Brawl as much. Same would probably go vice versa. Newer players who are in the Brawl competitive community won't enjoy Melee as much. If Brawl came before Melee, imo, Melee would die out like Brawl actually did.

On another note, I don't think Smash 4 is a Brawl 2.0, and I think many Brawl players would agree. I was watching Clash Tournaments' footage of Smash 4 gameplay and it is definitely faster than Brawl. I even heard the commentators mentioning combos a few times. There is still hope yet. Although from what I've heard about the 3DS version, that is much more likely to be a Brawl 2.0 than the WiiU version, which is the one most people are getting anyway.

EDIT: One more thing, to avoid a double post, casual players enjoy things that are fun or cool, while competitive players enjoy things that are, well, like Melee. Brawl did a good job of adding a sh**-ton of cool details, and Smash 4 seems to be following this trend, but Brawl was so slow that it wasn't as fun (just a generalization here, most people like Melee more). Smash 4, going back to the previous paragraph, is a middle point between Melee and Brawl, appealing to the fun, fast part, but Sakurai is looking more towards Brawl for the amount of detail, which is much more than any of the other games. Sakurai is doing an amazing job of appealing to everyone. It's not his goal to add more mechanics or techs, it's to make a fun game, something at which he is definitely succeeding.

 

[Ulevo]

Isn't this a good argument for not re-adding the aforementioned techs?

If it has zero effect on the dichotomy of competitive players vs casuals, then why do I see nothing but whinging about how removing the techs narrows the skill gap and makes it more difficult to exemplify skill?

There's a missing link here, obviously you think a match outcome is barely effected with or without melee techs, so clearly there is something there being utilized by competitive players that IS demonstrating a wide skill gap. It's not melee techs obviously.

That being said, why again is it so essential those techs be re-implemented? Honestly, the reason it's the same either way is because Brawl uses a different skill set. It rewards reading and adaptation a bit more than melee, and melee rewards technical skill and character choice a bit more than Brawl (though Metaknight withstanding). Both are valued in both games, to a degree.

Brawl has a less physically technical approach, and more of a calculated approach. In this case, less is more.

I like the guitar analogy. A guitar is simple, but what we love is all the things skilled musicians can DO with those 5 strings. There's no camp of people advocating to add 5 more strings to the traditional guitar schemes, or 5 more handles and whammies in order to make it sound good or show that a person is good at playing guitar. People don't complain that the original designer of the guitar is limiting musical choices by the instrument only having a small set of strings.

The complaint isn't that that the removal of mechanics make the skill gap between casual and competitive players smaller. The complaint is that it makes the game shallow and uninteresting.

Also, Brawl does not have a more calculated approach. You need to rely more on mind games in Brawl because that's mostly all you have to rely on. That doesn't mean they're more abundant or significant. To put it another way, if you're not a smart player in competitive Brawl, you've got nada. However, you're rewarded far more for being smarter in Melee than you are in Brawl.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

The complaint isn't that that the removal of mechanics make the skill gap between casual and competitive players smaller. The complaint is that it makes the game shallow and uninteresting.

Also, Brawl does not have a more calculated approach. You need to rely more on mind games in Brawl because that's mostly all you have to rely on. That doesn't mean they're more abundant or significant.

You're making a big statement with assertion that Brawl requires zero technical skill. Just because it requires less than melee doesn't mean it requires none.

 

[Ulevo]

You're making a big statement with assertion that Brawl requires zero technical skill. Just because it requires less than melee doesn't mean it requires none.

You're right, I'm generalizing. But that's primarily because the technical skill required with most characters is pretty insignificant.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

You're right, I'm generalizing. But that's primarily because the technical skill required with most characters is pretty insignificant.

I would argue that general precision, speed, and accuracy in the control of your character is technical skill in and of itself.

 

[Ulevo]

I would argue that general precision, speed, and accuracy in the control of your character is technical skill in and of itself.

Well, it is. But I mean, what I'm trying to illustrate is that there's basically a fundamental base for basics in Smash that you need to acquire in order to really be a competitive player. If you don't have that base you won't do well. And for Brawl, the skill potentially technically speaking from the base that's required to where it can be potentially isn't very big.

You need to be able to do things like space fairs properly, have your fast fall timings down, be able to power shield on a dime. Things of that nature. But they're all fairly easy things to do, and they're all requirements you've needed in every Smash game anyway.

 

[LancerStaff]

As a casual player who still can't SHFFL in Melee, I have to say that the inclusion or exclusion of ATs that my friends and I will never learn has never affected me.

Now, some trolls posters have brought up the controversy of snaking in Mario Kart, comparing it to something like L-Cancel. There's two things I'd like to say to that.

A) This is not Mario Kart. This is Smash Bros. Smash Bros is a fighting game. People go into fighting games EXPECTING that there will be a load of techniques that are hard to pull off (like parry, unbreakable combos, perfect guard, perfect recoveries... hell even most game's special moves are more difficult to execute than anything Smash has to offer) that will multiply your effectiveness and increase your performance. It's a KNOWN THING. Unrealistic martial arts (see: DBZ) are perfectly acceptable and no one really cares. On the other hand, racing games are a completely different animal. Most of us know how to drive, and when we buy a racing game we want to drive, and we want our driving to be... perhaps not realistic but immersive. So when we see something like snaking being exploited to move at light speed, it completely invalidates the point of the game and makes us feel like we're wasting our time. We wanted a racing experience, not a glitch fest.

B) Casual players DO want to have a fair chance of winning, regardless of whether or not we've mastered some glitchy exploit. However, even if exploits, glitches, or even intentional ATs are in the game, we don't typically mind provided that the techs are fun or at least tolerable to perform. Bonus points if it also looks cool. So using this mindset, let's look at snaking and hill hopping vs. Melee's comparatively large number of ATs.

Snaking: Not fun to perform, not even tolerable. It looks like cheating. It's also insanely overpowered. So either you do the unfun thing of snaking, or you do the unfun thing of losing a race you could never keep up in. Go ahead and choose how you get to not have fun today. Great game amirite? (To be fair, MKDS is totally fun without snaking)

Hill Hopping: Easy to perform, looks a little silly (which may be good or bad depending on your mood, it IS a Mario game after all, so some silly is okay.), but not really that OP. Might cause a simple shrug, or it might cause people to call it cheating, but really no big deal.

Wavedashing: Takes a little practice, looks freaking awesome with the dust cloud kicking up, and gives you only a few more options than simple Dashing would. It's cool, not gamebreaking, and there's nothing in Smash that makes me feel like I have to Wavedash or lose. +10 casual points.

L-Cancelling: Not even hard. You get reduced recovery lag for successfully predicting when you're going to land, which is completely under your control, so being able to do it makes you feel like a boss. If you are a casual who can't really follow this up with a combo with any reliability, then the reduced lag makes almost no difference. The only people who beat us with L-cancelling are those who would also beat us without it. It's actually more fun for casuals than it is for competitors because there's almost no situation where you don't wanna L-cancel, so there's no strategic choice.

SHFFL: Very hard to pull off compared to other ATs. If you manage it, you get 5 non-smash attack options in addition to the 4 you already had. Good if you have some nice air options. I wouldn't say I find it fun, nor would I say that it is particularly boring. It's just something I'd probably focus on learning if I ever pick up Melee Zelda again.


I could go on, but most Smash ATs follow this general trend. Easy to perform (especially compared to other fighting games) and they aren't game-breaking. So you see, comparing Wavedashing to Snaking isn't even a remotely fair comparison. If Wavedashing gave you a free Smash Ball every time you pulled it off and reset you to 0% damage, AND it was as hard to pull off as MK's down-b glitch, THEN you could fairly compare it to Snaking. Otherwise, they aren't even in the same league. Most ATs are fun optional things to learn. Snaking was complete BS.

SSB is NOT a fighting game, or atleast a traditional one, and people actually found Snaking enjoyable. Some like a 'tech' some hate it, but you have to use it to compete at higher levels. It's the same exact situation.

People aren't allowed to not like glitches? Also, you just called Snaking a glitch and not an exploit. I'm surprised somebody hasn't said anything with how people here have to make sure you call Wavedashing an 'exploit' instead of glitch, since it's working exactly as intended and all.

Where. Is. Your. Data. That. Corroborates. This. Statement.

What is your definition for "plenty?" Its vague to the extreme so it can be bent to mean a large number of things after the fact. I want a definitive answer.

The data still doesn't support that statement within reason, by the way. As for the "tier wars" argument, I'd like to remind you that happened within the competitive community and only trickled down to the casual fan base. It really doesn't apply.

You are also underestimating the size of the competitive community and their importance in sales of the game. Who are the people who will buy multiple copies of the game? Who are the people who won't trade the game in? Who are the people who will buy a new copy if something happens to the old one? Who are the people who will constantly buy replacement accessories due to overuse? There is a very good reason to throw the competitive community a bone or two. Most of your arguments have been completely ignoring that fact.

I am more than happy to see the game become more simplistic to execute, as long as the competitive value is there. Balance is key, you have to have something for everyone, competitive and casual communities alike. Creating a game that attempts to put both on the same playing field is not only unfeasible, but also destructive. Mario Kart Wii's item system is a very good example of this. Blue shells don't have the ability to hit anyone except for the person in first and whoever is close enough to the blast radius. The amount of time lost from getting hit by one is ludicrous. A person half a lap behind can pass you under the right (or imo wrong) circumstances. By this point, what fun is there to be had by the person who was in first place?

Note: In a blatant attempt at forwarding my own agenda, Mario Kart 8 fixed this problem and balanced it out in multiple ways. Best Mario Kart to date, imo.

I'm going to give you one more chance before I write you off as either a troll or simply not worth my time and block you. Make it count.

1) Admit you were wrong in regards to the link you sent me supporting your statement

or...

2) Show me how the link you sent me supports your point

Majority or "plenty," one or the other, I don't care. Just pick one.

Did I ever say this single article was my end-all proof? No. It's just the first thing that came up in Google. Type "Wavedashing is" into Google and look at the autofill options. It says "Wavedashing is stupid" "Wavedashing is a cheat" "Wavedashing is a glitch" with no sign of things like "Wavedashing is fun" or "Wavedashing is an exploit" in sight. The most positive option I saw was "What makes Wavedashing good." To say that there's nobody against 'techniques' is flat-out wrong. If I wanted something definite, why would I pick something as unimportant and unknown as firehopping? And chances are that more comments were posted anyway. Again, your chasing something that isn't there. I wasn't pinning my entire argument on this one link. Geeze.

What you're looking for isn't "which will be the closer match" but rather "which match can the casual improve on faster". To that note, I would say Brawl on the simple basis that it's just plainly easier to follow. Melee you just get wrecked and you just stand there and scratch your head wondering what just happened, while in Brawl everything that happens is clear and distinct.

We are in agreement of that much, atleast. I'd say "In which would a casual understand" would be a better way of saying it, though. Many players simply stop playing when glitches become the norm because it derails their idea of the game.

Can you imagine what life in general would be like without depth? Guitars are a great examples of how someone can play only knowing a few chords but others who have tons of experience can do cool things. I'm sure there are many things you can do on a guitar, ranging from techniques to playing different genres of music, that were never intended or thought possible by the man who made it.

Saying something is bad just because you can do more with it than originally intended is silly. Sakurai should be ecstatic that people are playing his game (melee) to this day because it was so well made even if it turned out a bit different. Freedom in games should be a good thing. Forcing your audience to play a certain way takes away from the experience imo.

A Guitar plays musical notes, as was intended. Playing a different style of music isn't an 'exploit' because the guitar simply plays notes.

Either way, you're forcing the audience to do something. Deal with glitches, or not have any. Pick your poison.

To me, it's not a matter of "how wide the gap is" but rather "how long does it take to lose". Brawl is a slower game, so it takes longer to lose, so it's less fun for the loser. If you beat me in 10 seconds, I think "wow that was amazing how did you do that?", but if it takes you 10 hours to beat me I think "Oh god I just wasted 10 hours of my life losing to this *******. This is boring. I never want to play this again."

Any respect I could possibly give him for being good at the game is completely meaningless compared to the amount of time I just spent having a video game tell me "You Suck." Some amount of raging, while sometimes immature and misguided, is natural after that. 10 seconds and 10 hours are hyperbole, sure, but not so much. It's a fact that games that go on longer than they need to are less fun for the losers. Many of my friends (all mostly casual) enjoyed Melee a lot more than Brawl, so making it slower didn't really help anyone.

For a real life example, look at League of Legends. It can take 30 minutes to finish a game that you already lost 15 minutes in. It's excruciatingly boring to sit through that extra unnecessary 15 minutes and that's why there's a surrender option.




This. I don't even see why this is a point of debate. Depth is good. If you want a shallow game with very limited depth, go play tic-tac-toe. There are only 9 factorial (362880) possible states for that game, and 3/4ths of that are literally the same states repeated but rotated 90 degrees. A large number of those are draws, and it's very easy to consistently force a draw so that no one wins.

Tic-tac-toe is a simple game with no depth, and it's not that hard to "Solve" it so that you can always force a draw.

What's that? People don't play tic-tac-toe anymore? Not even casuals? Huh I wonder why. It couldn't possibly be related to the fact that it has no depth and is completely predictable, can it?

If I was beaten in ten seconds, I'd just give up the game. If I had time to understand why I lost, I'd continue. Oh, and Checkers and Chess are completely possible to be solved, but people still play. Even Melee can be solved if somebody tried hard enough. Tic-tac-toe's lack of depth is from the imbalance, since we already know what will happen. And lastly, I never said anything about removing ALL depth. You're just generalizing.

I also want to know why people act as if a casual happens upon Mango and challenges him to a match that he is stuck in a room and forced to lose to him for the rest of his life. If you hate losing to someone that much then play other people. Have no friends? Luckily there is an online mode that even has a For Fun option.

I like how instead of those easy fixes some people think it's cool to take away from the competitive scene. I would NEVER and I mean NEVER be okay with Sakurai taking something away from the casual scene be it items or game modes. If casuals were upset about something not being in you better believe I'm going to stand there with them even if I don't really care about what they are losing.

This is a CASUAL franchise. No duh people will be upset over removed features. But when it comes to mechanics, what's actually better is an opinion. Defensive or offensive? There is no right answer, and don't go claiming there is.

While I see your point, there is a natural tendency to finish what you start, and there's a bit of a stigma against "giving up" or "quitting", even if it costs nothing and actually saves you a lot of time. Which is why I have a hard time swallowing the claim that "slower pcae" means "better for casuals". Faster pace for multiplayer games is better for you regardless of skill level.

I'm probably remembering the wrong name, but what I remember to be Gears of War 1 was designed to be a defensive, tactical shooter. Everybody would just charge in with shotguns and ignore cover. Not because it was better, but because that's what everybody did. Come GoW2, the shotgun was nerfed beyond recognition, and getting hit by gunfire pushes you back. GoW2 was widely considered to be the better game, even though it's slower. Sound familiar? Not saying this is the same situation, but similar.

 

[RODO]

Basically all I'm getting from this is that if people want to play differently from what Sakurai intended then it's wrong. I cannot agree with this and I'm sad that you feel that way.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The complaint isn't that that the removal of mechanics make the skill gap between casual and competitive players smaller. The complaint is that it makes the game shallow and uninteresting.

Also, Brawl does not have a more calculated approach. You need to rely more on mind games in Brawl because that's mostly all you have to rely on. That doesn't mean they're more abundant or significant. To put it another way, if you're not a smart player in competitive Brawl, you've got nada. However, you're rewarded far more for being smarter in Melee than you are in Brawl.

I think you mean you are more rewarded for technical ability here.

Even then, for playing Yomi with someone that is far more important in Brawl than Melee. Doesn't mean anything if you outread someone in Melee if you can't execute the punish/combo/follow up.

In Brawl it's easier, hence why people say it's more important to have more mindgames.

 

[Ulevo]

I think you mean you are more rewarded for technical ability here.

Even then, for playing Yomi with someone that is far more important in Brawl than Melee. Doesn't mean anything if you outread someone in Melee if you can't execute the punish/combo/follow up.

In Brawl it's easier, hence why people say it's more important to have more mindgames.

No, I definitely don't mean that. I mean you're more rewarded for being smarter in Melee than you are for being smarter than Brawl. There are far more relevant options for you and your opponent to utilize with your characters at any given time involving risk, reward, and opportunity cost, and all of it needs to be weighed in and considered. Whether or not you're able to apply what you foresee mentally from a technical standpoint is another matter entirely.

If I were to use an example to illustrate this, I think people view this in a sense that if you require 40% technical ability and 60% mental ability to perform in Melee adequately, and 20% technical ability and 80% mental ability to perform in Brawl, that this implies that Brawl rewards you more for being the smarter player. What isn't considered is that Brawl is a shallower game in all respects, and even if the proportion of skill that is appreciate is different, the amount of skill required on all accounts for Melee is just greater.

 

[LancerStaff]

Basically all I'm getting from this is that if people want to play differently from what Sakurai intended then it's wrong. I cannot agree with this and I'm sad that you feel that way.

Wouldn't say it's right, but I'm not saying we should ban Wavedashing or anything.

...And I just realized how long my post got. Yikes. No more on-and-off posting for me.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

No, I definitely don't mean that. I mean you're more rewarded for being smarter in Melee than you are for being smarter than Brawl. There are far more relevant options for you and your opponent to utilize with your characters at any given time involving risk, reward, and opportunity cost, and all of it needs to be weighed in and considered. Whether or not you're able to apply what you foresee mentally from a technical standpoint is another matter entirely.

If I were to use an example to illustrate this, I think people view this in a sense that if you require 40% technical ability and 60% mental ability to perform in Melee adequately, and 20% technical ability and 80% mental ability to perform in Brawl, that this implies that Brawl rewards you more for being the smarter player. What isn't considered is that Brawl is a shallower game in all respects, and even if the proportion of skill that is appreciate is different, the amount of skill required on all accounts for Melee is just greater.

Except in order to so any string or follow up in brawl you need to outread your opponent more times than in Melee. You get a stronger reward for 1 correct reads, but Brawl requires you to keep doing that over and over.

The technical matter is entirely relevant, it's where players put focus and can add to gameplay.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Did I ever say this single article was my end-all proof? No.

You also never gave any other examples aside from "I saw this on this internet," which only proves you saw something on the internet.

It's just the first thing that came up in Google. Type "Wavedashing is" into Google and look at the autofill options. It says "Wavedashing is stupid" "Wavedashing is a cheat" "Wavedashing is a glitch" with no sign of things like "Wavedashing is fun" or "Wavedashing is an exploit" in sight.

Point and case. Besides, mine doesn't auto-fill to that at all, meaning you LOOK for this sort of s***. What does that say about your objectivity in this discussion?

The most positive option I saw was "What makes Wavedashing good."

On a google internet auto-fill. I honestly don't know how to respond to this aside from "good job, you know what google auto-fill is." Except it seems you don't.

To say that there's nobody against 'techniques' is flat-out wrong.

The whole purpose of my first post, if you will remember, is that there are all types and one shouldn't try to make claims to a specific type of crowd without first knowing it's size and impact. I could quote both of us and show how you have blatantly back-pedaled, but you have shown you wouldn't listen anyways. Be it due to a lack of understanding on your part to a lack of caring on your part I don't know and I don't care.

If I wanted something definite, why would I pick something as unimportant and unknown as firehopping?

To prove or at least support your point. You know, that thing I asked you to do. That you didn't. At all.

And chances are that more comments were posted anyway.

There is a 99% probability that it wouldn't matter as long as the sample that you gave me was good. That is how statistics works.

Again, you're chasing something that isn't there. I wasn't pinning my entire argument on this one link. Geeze.

You weren't pinning your argument on anything except a random b******* idea you had and went with, then altered it when you realized that you were wrong, but didn't consider the existence of the "back" button on internet browsers. I think at this point the only person even willing to respond to you is me. On that note...

AAAAAAAANNNNNNNNDDDDDD ... *clicks ignore*

Edit: Haha, I don't even know if my comments in the quote of your post show up for anyone else to see. XD

Edit2 to avoid double posting:

@ #HBC | Red Ryu : I am of the opinion that what you are talking about makes Brawl a much more subtle, more difficult game for a lot of people to play and understand. This is especially true of the casual crowd, who by definition of "casual" wouldn't know about how "mind games" work. They are both difficult games in their own right, and both equally competitive (sans Metaknight for Brawl, but that is a debate for an entirely different thread. Shout-outs to Pierce7d, he would be able to explain much better than me anyways).

 

[LancerStaff]

I'll just go with the ol' Miiverse creed. They block you, you win.

 

[RODO]

Wouldn't say it's right, but I'm not saying we should ban Wavedashing or anything.

...And I just realized how long my post got. Yikes. No more on-and-off posting for me.

That's why I didn't quote you. Too much text lol

 

[Ulevo]

Except in order to so any string or follow up in brawl you need to outread your opponent more times than in Melee. You get a stronger reward for 1 correct reads, but Brawl requires you to keep doing that over and over.

The technical matter is entirely relevant, it's where players put focus and can add to gameplay.

I think this more or less alludes to another skill set that I've thought of before, which is mental endurance. Intelligence is one thing, but being able to perform optimally without making mistakes for long periods of time is a different asset in and of itself. This is pretty evident with things like competitive Pokemon, where in order to gain a high spot on a ladder, players who are able to make consistently smarter decisions for longer periods of time before going on tilt are rewarded more so than for players who burn out sooner.

In the short run, like with something like a 5-8 minute game or two, I don't think it amounts to much. It definitely adds up in things like a tournament setting though, where you're playing for literally the whole day under stressful conditions.

I'll just go with the ol' Miiverse creed. They block you, you win.

That's definitely not the case here.

 

[thrillagorilla]

I think this more or less alludes to another skill set that I've thought of before, which is mental endurance. Intelligence is one thing, but being able to perform optimally without making mistakes for long periods of time is a different asset in and of itself. This is pretty evident with things like competitive Pokemon, where in order to gain a high spot on a ladder, players who are able to make consistently smarter decisions for longer periods of time before going on tilt are rewarded more so than for players who burn out sooner.

In the short run, like with something like a 5-8 minute game or two, I don't think it amounts to much. It definitely adds up in things like a tournament setting though, where you're playing for literally the whole day under stressful conditions.



That's definitely not the case here.

Having played a lot of competitive Brawl, I can attest to this.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think this more or less alludes to another skill set that I've thought of before, which is mental endurance. Intelligence is one thing, but being able to perform optimally without making mistakes for long periods of time is a different asset in and of itself. This is pretty evident with things like competitive Pokemon, where in order to gain a high spot on a ladder, players who are able to make consistently smarter decisions for longer periods of time before going on tilt are rewarded more so than for players who burn out sooner.

In the short run, like with something like a 5-8 minute game or two, I don't think it amounts to much. It definitely adds up in things like a tournament setting though, where you're playing for literally the whole day under stressful conditions.



That's definitely not the case here.

I can dig this, though I'm sure where we are not seeing eye to eye on the difference though. Because I'm not sure what I am missing on the differences between what I am saying and what you are in this quote.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I think this more or less alludes to another skill set that I've thought of before, which is mental endurance. Intelligence is one thing, but being able to perform optimally without making mistakes for long periods of time is a different asset in and of itself. This is pretty evident with things like competitive Pokemon, where in order to gain a high spot on a ladder, players who are able to make consistently smarter decisions for longer periods of time before going on tilt are rewarded more so than for players who burn out sooner.

In the short run, like with something like a 5-8 minute game or two, I don't think it amounts to much. It definitely adds up in things like a tournament setting though, where you're playing for literally the whole day under stressful conditions.



That's definitely not the case here.

I want to clarify that I "liked" the first part of your post, not the part jabbing at Lancer, because I still disagree with you on the necessity of advanced techs (and all relevant discussion under that).

 

[Shiliski]

AAAAAAAANNNNNNNNDDDDDD ... *clicks ignore*

Edit: Haha, I don't even know if my comments in the quote of your post show up for anyone else to see. XD

Edit2 to avoid double posting:

@ #HBC | Red Ryu : I am of the opinion that what you are talking about makes Brawl a much more subtle, more difficult game for a lot of people to play and understand. This is especially true of the casual crowd, who by definition of "casual" wouldn't know about how "mind games" work. They are both difficult games in their own right, and both equally competitive (sans Metaknight for Brawl, but that is a debate for an entirely different thread. Shout-outs to Pierce7d, he would be able to explain much better than me anyways).

This may be a little nit-picky, but...

While I can't execute a lot of more complicated ATs, I'd consider mindgames to be an exception to the rule. Mindgames have to do with psychology, which effects every single situation that involves one or more human brains, not just smash. So yeah, a casual player could very well understand the notion of "mindgames". The shortcoming, however, is not knowing the rules of the mind game. If you don't understand the Shield > Attack > Grab > Shield RPS set-up, or if you don't understand priorities, reach, and specific character match-ups, and you don't know about mix-ups, then yeah you aren't going to be effective in your mindgames.

If I'm recovering on FD as Mewtwo, and Marth is standing on the edge spamming counter, then I'm more or less forced to spend my fall time thinking about what's going to happen next. "Do I try to teleport behind Marth? Do I try to get in during his recoil lag and punch his face? Do I wait for Samus to shoot him in the back with a missile? Do I teleport towards the edge and hope he attacks me during my invincibility frames (because he totally will)? " From there I try to mix it up, depending on what I think he's going to guess I'll do, but really...

In the end, the only one playing that mindgame is me. He actually thinks he's invincible, or at least highly advantaged, in that situation, and he isn't really giving a second thought to what my options are because he isn't really aware of the fact that I HAVE options. Still, mind games, or at least the prediction part of mind games, do happen.

 

[thrillagorilla]

This may be a little nit-picky, but...

While I can't execute a lot of more complicated ATs, I'd consider mindgames to be an exception to the rule. Mindgames have to do with psychology, which effects every single situation that involves one or more human brains, not just smash. So yeah, a casual player could very well understand the notion of "mindgames". The shortcoming, however, is not knowing the rules of the mind game. If you don't understand the Shield > Attack > Grab > Shield RPS set-up, or if you don't understand priorities, reach, and specific character match-ups, and you don't know about mix-ups, then yeah you aren't going to be effective in your mindgames.

If I'm recovering on FD as Mewtwo, and Marth is standing on the edge spamming counter, then I'm more or less forced to spend my fall time thinking about what's going to happen next. "Do I try to teleport behind Marth? Do I try to get in during his recoil lag and punch his face? Do I wait for Samus to shoot him in the back with a missile? Do I teleport towards the edge and hope he attacks me during my invincibility frames (because he totally will)? " From there I try to mix it up, depending on what I think he's going to guess I'll do, but really...

In the end, the only one playing that mindgame is me. He actually thinks he's invincible, or at least highly advantaged, in that situation, and he isn't really giving a second thought to what my options are because he isn't really aware of the fact that I HAVE options. Still, mind games, or at least the prediction part of mind games, do happen.

This isn't nit-picky at all, I should have been more specific. I agree with you fully.

 

[Anomalus]

I think a good distinction to make is between mechanical and technical skill. Personally, I don't care for l-cancelling or wavedashing or dash dancing, I care for what l-cancelling and wavedashing dash dancing allow me to do, the creative options they provide.

Chess is an extremely technical but not at all mechanical game. There are whole books on tactics, strategy, puzzles, annotated games and anything else within the game but the entire ruleset probably fits on a single page and you don't need any kind of dexterity to do well (except maybe in some extremely fast bullet games).

Streamlining is when a game reduces mechanical requirements without reducing technical capacities. Reducing both is Simplifying, increasing mechanics without technique is Complicating and increasing both is Expanding (or whatever you want to call these things).

There are probably a few pathologically stubborn players out there who truly want a complicated, cumbersome game but I think it is safe to say most here who are concerned at all are concerned with technique, not mechanics.

Although players can become overwhelmed if you give them too many options I think Smash is intuitive enough that the game mostly suffers from being simplified, I'd rather it be expanded and/or streamlined overall between installments.

I can dig this, though I'm sure where we are not seeing eye to eye on the difference though. Because I'm not sure what I am missing on the differences between what I am saying and what you are in this quote.

I think his point is that, it's not so much that mindgames are more important in Brawl (in an absolute, not proportional sense), but that they become important faster, because with the game being simpler, technique can only take you so far, so you can't afford not to pay attention to the mental aspects. That one can achieve in Melee a higher level of mastery, both mental and technical. Or maybe I'm completely wrong, idk, I'm not him. Also note that while Brawl demands more reads, it's less damaging to be wrong (for both players) and in general less difficult to be right due to reduced options for most characters.

But I think this can only be a theoretical point since there are no perfect players and in practice difficulty is determined more by the opponent than the game , for any non-trivial game. But it does have some implications concerning difference in aesthetics of play which everyone here is probably well aware of, if only intuitively.

I also think a lot of misrepresentations surrounding the games actually come from roster imbalances instead of systemic difference. Melee is seen as really fast but there's still stuff like YL vs Puff, and in PM you can see how changing the roster can change the nature of the matches (longer fights, plenty of more taciturn characters) even while still using pretty much the same physics and mechanics. A more uniform distribution of playstyles and a less imbalanced roster could do a lot to help have something for everyone, for any of the smash games.

Overall, I think a few points mentioned in the thread have improved my opinion of brawl a bit, even if without altering my palate.