<3 Depth Versus Complexity in Smash 4

[<π]

So this video sums up most of the opening post, so its an easy way to get people involved in the discussion without them having to read through a wall of text. So if you know someone you want to get involved in the discussion, for or against, share it with them. My stance is that Smash 4's focus is more depth, less complexity; and that it is a good thing!

The rest of this kind of reiterates exactly what I say in the video for those of you who can't or don't want to watch it, but still want to be a part of the conversation. A few definitions so we are all using the same meaning.

Depth:
In games depth describes the number of meaningful choices in any given situation. So just to clarify if there is always one optimal; one BEST option, even in a pool of hundreds... then there isn't much depth. (its a shallow pool) Depth is Awesome!
Complexity:
In fighting games I define complexity as what you need to do to perform an action. Do I have to push 1 button to grab or two? Do I need to do this in a sequence in order to get my end goal? Combo strings, etc. Complexity... can be cool.
.
.
.

Okay now that that’s out of the way. I also need to point out, though I went to school for it, I'm no game designer. I'm just a guy who picks apart games so I can play them at higher levels. So take what you hear with a grain of salt.

First thing I want to do is congratulate Sakurai on creating the deepest, but least complex fighting games in... ever. With 1 attack button, 1 special button, a shield, and we will count these separately, a jump, a grab button and an analog stick he has given us access to tons of moves and then even more variation within those moves (angled tilts, smashes, and specials.)
and then compare it to a game like... Street Fighter 4. Very deep game but... oh so complex. 3 punch buttons, 3 kick buttons, press two buttons to grab, two to focus attack. Each special has a different input, plus a different button... or two buttons. Long combo strings that don't leave much room for creativity or adaptability (there is one BEST combo from every starter in every match up)

In smash shielding is a deep option shielding has a very meaningful trade off compared to not shielding: a weaker shield over time. In Street fighter shielding just isn't a deep option. No frame disadvantage, just the fact that you can't advance on the same frame you expect to block.

Is that to say complexity is bad? NO, not at all. Often times complexity is a draw for an certain audience, but complexity does limit access to your game. Comparing SF to smash you have a much steeper climb until you can really access the peak of the game's depth (heh), and I believe smashes accessibility has done far more to keep it a relevant and growing title for three different titles.

I have seen many people confusing complexity for depth when it comes to smash 4. Making a game faster does not make it deeper; the options available don't change with game speed alone. Having combos can, (I'll get to that later) but don't always make a game deeper. Advanced Techniques and movement options do not a deep game make (and these too).

But I think a few of those concepts can be a little tricky so lets try to unwrap them.

I think one of the draws to smash in general is the combo system, particularly once we got DI, or directional influence, involved. Even while being attacked a player has control over his launch trajectory, and their opponent; while still having the advantage; has to react and adapt to how his opponent chooses to DI. In top level melee, however, there is usually a best way to DI so that your opponent can't follow up, or you use attacks to guarantee your opponent can't use DI to escape your combos. And when you have a best option it isn't a very deep option.

Brawl changed up this combo formula a little. It kept DI around but also stole away the hit stun that made combos so powerful in melee. Often times there would be JUST ENOUGH hit stun so that a player could air dodge right before a follow up hit would connect. Our use a special move to out right beat any combo attempt. But the best option is not to always evade the follow up. If you air dodge or throw out an attack but if you opponent expects it that puts you are risk for a larger punish.

As a brawl sheik. Baiting reaction in-between my combos (or strings as well call them in brawl) was my bread and butter and really it separated me from many other sheiks. It kept me relevant against vastly superior characters played by some of the strongest smashers in the country.

Do Advanced techniques and movement options make a game deeper?
Well it can if it provides options with meaningful trade offs.
L canceling does not add depth to the game. It does add complexity and raises the skill curve, but L canceling is ALWAYS the optimal choice. There is absolutely no meaningful trade off involved. If L Canceling halved your landing lag but forced you to spot dodge or roll immediately after. That would add depth.
"Am I baiting a shield grab?"
"Am I unsure and just want to play it safe?"
"Am I forcing myself on you expecting you to respect options?"
Something like this would add meaningful choice and through it depth to a mechanic like L Canceling.

Advanced Techniques like wave dashing on the other hand give players more meaningful options out of shield. It trades the invulnerability of dodges and spot dodges for a quicker mobility options without that advantage. Those trade offs between choices mean depth.
If we look at dash dancing it gives players huge amounts of freedom in how they can move. BUT it completely eliminates the need to walk. Because you can pivot smash, or wave dash or crouch cancel your run. There are really never any situations where you feel like walking in a good option. Its just a slower version of dashing. Removing dash dancing gives much more room for counter play to your opponent (YES HE COMMITTED TO THIS DASH!!) and forces you to make more meaningful decisions in how you want to disengage or approach. (Should I really commit to a dash here?)

When I look at these pre-release builds of Smash 4 I see a plethora of intuitive meaningful options with low complexity. There is a lot of commitment in the options available, but through it we are able to access much more depth. I don't think the goal is to alienate the hardcore fan base but instead to create a deeper experience that is easier to access for new players. As a competitive community we NEED those new players in order to grow.

I believe smash 4 will do a better job of finding who consistently picks the better options as opposed to who consistently performs the optimal ones. I know that won't be everyone's cup of tea. But I think with the new games that's the right direction to go. I believe that easy to grasp depth will make the game fun to watch and play for a very wide pool of people.

SO what are your thoughts? Think Sakurai's choices are making the game deeper and more accessible? Or do you think he is "Targeting the competitive scene" by removing dash dancing and low lag aerials? Whats your thoughts?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

You nailed in a nutshell why I prefer Brawl to Melee.

Might have more later but I do like where this thread can go in regards to discussing. I am watching this thread, if you turn this into a flame war or strong VS thread I will not hesitate to remove and infract what you post.

Be respectful.

 

[Raijinken]

I agree with the majority of this, particularly with details about what constitutes complexity.

I was working on a very large post elaborating on it, but you really said all that I think needs to be said. Sakurai's aim is to make an accessible and fun game. If the complexity exceeds that of the somewhat above average gamer, then accessibility to skilled play becomes an issue (as it happens, this was an issue with Melee). Gameplay may be somewhat versatile within the valid roster of high skill, but the balance will be skewed towards players and characters that can suit the technical level of play (Falco, Fox), at the expense of the viability of others.

However, if these techniques and the options they bring don't exist, or aren't sufficient, then the opposite issue can occur. Without worthwhile options to encourage and reward aggressive play, play can become TOO campy and defensive (as happened in Brawl). This is not to say that defensive play is inherently bad, but a metagame built around it amounts to a less exciting (if no less mentally taxing) game of chicken.

Striking a balance is important. Smash can be a very deep game when tradeoffs are present. It can also be a very accessible game when the technical finesse required is kept at reasonable levels. In short, I do not see a benefit to adding technical complexity for the sake of adding technical complexity.

 

[the8thark]

You nailed in a nutshell why I prefer Brawl to Melee.

Might have more later but I do like where this thread can go in regards to discussing. I am watching this thread, if you turn this into a flame war or strong VS thread I will not hesitate to remove and infract what you post.

Be respectful.

We get it. It's in the forum rules. No need to get so defensive about it. Just let us have our conversation without trying to put a dampener on it before it's even started. If there's an issue just deal with it. Clogging up topics with stuff like this is not needed.

Ok back on topic.

This is basically what is better?
- More skill with the move choices you are required to make to win
or
- Choosing the right moves at the right times better than the other player to win

Both options require skill. But I think the 2nd one is inherently better for Smash as a whole. Only because think more choice is always better. And it'd make competitive matches more interesting to watch. You'd have more options/moves to react to while playing. Not just the same few always.

I would not like the game to go hard scissors paper rock where as choosing the right move as the right time always wins. But I don't want the game to get to a point where you know what moves are the best so you just practice them vs the hardest AI to get your timings down perfectly. I think a balance of the two would be best for Smash 4. There should be optimal moves to use in each situation. Sure you could use the sub optimal moves you you'd need a lot more skill to pull them off.

 

[JoeInky]

I think most people don't have a problem with removing complexity from the game necessarily, it's more the depth those options provide that people miss, people who like L-cancelling would probably rather just have reduced landing lag than force a button input, for instance.

That said, while they have removed complexity in the new game I don't necessarily think they're adding depth, more removing it.

Like the spammable air dodge, I'd rather they just let you air dodge once per airtime but have it so it doesn't put you into special fall, that puts more emphasis on actually dodging properly rather than just spamming it as you return to the stage, increased landing lag on an air dodge doesn't matter if people are just going to sweetspot the ledge.

I like ledge invincibility not being refreshed to get rid of planking, but I can't understand the ability to grab the ledge whilst someone else is on it.

It all puts too much power in the returning player, what's the point in trying to edgehog if they can just grab the ledge? What's the point in going off the stage to get a quick kill if they can just spam air dodges and then auto-sweetspot with their recovery?

The offstage game, which used to be a major part of smash, seems massively nerfed in this game to the point that you're not going to see any low percentage kills that you need to make a comeback, it's less exciting just because I guess Sakurai is worried about people getting upset because they died to a good edgeguard or because the other player went deep for the KO. A lot of the game decisions so far seem to be based around letting players live longer despite what the other player is doing to stop them from being upset at getting KO'd.


Like the SDCC grand finals, whenever one player was sent off the stage and both players actually played well (e.g. not playing dumb and getting suicide grabbed or constantly recovering high into Bowser's ftilt instead of just going lower and then sweetspotting the ledge), nothing really happened until the other player was back off the stage. It was incredibly to see one of the major aspects that differentiates smash from other fighters be so muted.


The only instance so far that springs to mind where I can say "Yes, this adds depth to the game" rather than think how they've removed it, is custom moves, most of the other changes or things that stayed the same from Brawl are pretty disappointing.

 

[HeavyLobster]

I think most people don't have a problem with removing complexity from the game necessarily, it's more the depth those options provide that people miss, people who like L-cancelling would probably rather just have reduced landing lag than force a button input, for instance.

That said, while they have removed complexity in the new game I don't necessarily think they're adding depth, more removing it.

Like the spammable air dodge, I'd rather they just let you air dodge once per airtime but have it so it doesn't put you into special fall, that puts more emphasis on actually dodging properly rather than just spamming it as you return to the stage, increased landing lag on an air dodge doesn't matter if people are just going to sweetspot the ledge.

I like ledge invincibility not being refreshed to get rid of planking, but I can't understand the ability to grab the ledge whilst someone else is on it.

It all puts too much power in the returning player, what's the point in trying to edgehog if they can just grab the ledge? What's the point in going off the stage to get a quick kill if they can just spam air dodges and then auto-sweetspot with their recovery?

The offstage game, which used to be a major part of smash, seems massively nerfed in this game to the point that you're not going to see any low percentage kills that you need to make a comeback, it's less exciting just because I guess Sakurai is worried about people getting upset because they died to a good edgeguard or because the other player went deep for the KO. A lot of the game decisions so far seem to be based around letting players live longer despite what the other player is doing to stop them from being upset at getting KO'd.


Like the SDCC grand finals, whenever one player was sent off the stage and both players actually played well (e.g. not playing dumb and getting suicide grabbed or constantly recovering high into Bowser's ftilt instead of just going lower and then sweetspotting the ledge), nothing really happened until the other player was back off the stage. It was incredibly to see one of the major aspects that differentiates smash from other fighters be so muted.


The only instance so far that springs to mind where I can say "Yes, this adds depth to the game" rather than think how they've removed it, is custom moves, most of the other changes or things that stayed the same from Brawl are pretty disappointing.

I think that the reason why the offstage game in Smash 4 is what it is is to better balance the game between speedsters and heavyweights. In Melee, and to a lesser extent Brawl, faster characters could rack up damage more reliably and combo more easily, and were less vulnerable to getting comboed themselves. (exceptions do exist) Also, they could gimp heavyweights fairly easily, thus negating heavies' advantage in terms of survivability.
In Smash 4, characters that can throw out big, powerful hitboxes offstage like Bowser and Ike, as well as characters with other strong edgeguarding tools like Mega Man and Pikachu, will be able to get kills offstage without too much trouble, while some other characters might struggle a bit more to gimp their opponents. I suspect Fox and Sheik in particular will be great at racking up damage onstage but struggle to get kills on the likes of Bowser and DK. Based on what we've seen so far, Bowser's Bair is designed to be his main offstage finisher, not his Fair, so the footage of Bowser hitting his opponent repeatedly with Fair without getting the kill seems to be more indicative of players not knowing how to edgeguard properly rather than there being no edgeguarding at all. Characters like Fox, who rely on disrupting the opponent's recovery rather than smashing/spiking them will likely suffer, and lighter/weaker characters who stale their kill moves will be in trouble against heavies.
Also, air dodges weren't really all that spammable in Brawl, and are even less so in Smash 4, so the risk/reward balance is nowhere near as skewed as you make it out to be. It's not true that you could effortlessly recover against skilled Brawl players by simply mashing airdodge, especially offstage, and it'll be even harder in Smash 4 due to increased fall speeds and cooldown lag to use airdodge to avoid gimp attempts. Brawl airdodges certainly make juggling significantly easier to get out of than Melee, but they're not the get-out-of-jail-free card some people think they are, and this is even truer in Smash 4.

 

[JoeInky]

snip.

I think you make an interesting point about this being a buff to the heavier characters that are able to throw out large hitboxes.

But I don't think the cooldown on an airdodge is as long as you think it is, forgive me for not knowing the specifics, but at SDCC there was a game with two Bowser's on Gerudo valley, and as one that had just been knocked skyward fell towards the stage, he just kept spamming the air dodge and the other bowser couldn't hit him, the duration between air dodges seemed miniscule.

 

[Renji64]

A game that is more limited and has less options than melee will just be a shallow boring experince. Brawl felt like i had nothing to get better at and wasn't rewarding. Melee lets me control my character how i want to and if someone is better than me they truely are. People compare brawl to chess it isn't that deep it is a bunch of standing around that is why the commentators always have to try to compensate for the lack of action. Smash 4 will be a great party game or casual game. But for a competitive experince it is unknown at this time.

 

[HeavyLobster]

I think you make an interesting point about this being a buff to the heavier characters that are able to throw out large hitboxes.

But I don't think the cooldown on an airdodge is as long as you think it is, forgive me for not knowing the specifics, but at SDCC there was a game with two Bowser's on Gerudo valley, and as one that had just been knocked skyward fell towards the stage, he just kept spamming the air dodge and the other bowser couldn't hit him, the duration between air dodges seemed miniscule.

I admit that I don't have enough hands-on time with the game to really come to a strong conclusion as far as air dodges go. I have heard that they are laggier, mainly when done while landing. I am familiar with the event you are referring to, and it's possible that you're right. However, premature airdodges are very punishable in Brawl and will likely be at least as punishable in Smash 4, and air dodges done near the ground will be more punishable than in Brawl.

 

[Raijinken]

I believe D1 mentioned that, at E3, air dodges felt far more punishable than they were in Brawl, though without the final game we can't tell for sure that's still the case. The point about gimping heavyweights is fair.

And while the edge trumping will change up the offstage game, I'm not sure it will make it quite as favorable as some have claimed. Edgehogging in particular will now be a much more closely timed thing, you will be encouraged to force them to grab the edge (instead of landing on the stage), and then trump them off of it, rather than being encouraged to grab, hold, and roll at the last moment. I see this as a way of adding depth and making the decision both more thoughtful and more precise. I will admit, I have a heavy bias against edge hogging in past games.

With the mechanic as it appears to now be, the choice will be to either knock them off-stage (interceptive edgeguarding is more exciting than simply hogging, too, even if it carries greater risk), let them recover and punish the climbup animation/roll, go for a meteor/spike/whatever (and it looks like more characters are getting these now), or to let them grab the edge and try to knock them straight off it. Now, from my perspective, these are all basically the same options that existed before. However, the relative strength of hogging has been reduced by making it riskier, and I feel like that, much like the aerial lag increase, while it does not innately add depth, it rebalances existing depth. Whether it rebalances it favorably or outright kills edgehogging remains to be seen.

A game that is more limited and has less options than melee will just be a shallow boring experince.

If they balance the combat and characters properly, then a game with fewer options (which has not been proven to be the case yet) may still be fun as long as players have reason to play aggressively. Even in Melee, the game is about forcing your opponent to take the option that leads right into your killing blow.

And a nice thing about Chess is that stalling causes you to lose, not draw the game into a Sudden Death.

 

[Renji64]

I believe D1 mentioned that, at E3, air dodges felt far more punishable than they were in Brawl, though without the final game we can't tell for sure that's still the case. The point about gimping heavyweights is fair.

And while the edge trumping will change up the offstage game, I'm not sure it will make it quite as favorable as some have claimed. Edgehogging in particular will now be a much more closely timed thing, you will be encouraged to force them to grab the edge (instead of landing on the stage), and then trump them off of it, rather than being encouraged to grab, hold, and roll at the last moment. I see this as a way of adding depth and making the decision both more thoughtful and more precise. I will admit, I have a heavy bias against edge hogging in past games.

With the mechanic as it appears to now be, the choice will be to either knock them off-stage (interceptive edgeguarding is more exciting than simply hogging, too, even if it carries greater risk), let them recover and punish the climbup animation/roll, go for a meteor/spike/whatever (and it looks like more characters are getting these now), or to let them grab the edge and try to knock them straight off it. Now, from my perspective, these are all basically the same options that existed before. However, the relative strength of hogging has been reduced by making it riskier, and I feel like that, much like the aerial lag increase, while it does not innately add depth, it rebalances existing depth. Whether it rebalances it favorably or outright kills edgehogging remains to be seen.


If they balance the combat and characters properly, then a game with fewer options (which has not been proven to be the case yet) may still be fun as long as players have reason to play aggressively. Even in Melee, the game is about forcing your opponent to take the option that leads right into your killing blow.

And a nice thing about Chess is that stalling causes you to lose, not draw the game into a Sudden Death.

I love agressive play i hope i'm able to do that in this installment effectively.

 

[Big-Cat]

I think most people are wanting this game to be Melee or Brawl when it's clearly neither of them. Depth and complexity can come out in different ways. Pivoting in Smash 4 will be filled with both of these when it's all said and done.

 

[JediLink]

I just there to be a decent edgeguarding/offstage/gimping game. That's where heaps of Melee's depth came from.

 

[<π]

Hi just wanted to make a few points

AIR DODGE SPAM:
You can't spam air dodge on recovery... you just can't.

IN brawl most air dodges last about a whole second about 49 frames for a majority of the cast. but the invincibility is for about half of that most characters it is frame 4-29 or 25 frames, just over half. That's almost a full second of not being able to jump or use a recovery move. when you are already below the stage that is quite a bit of time.

Another thing: With my main, sheik I could literally MAKE them air dodge with my fair, as in if they don't air dodge they will get hit. and then fair again before they were done with their animation, but no longer invincible. I can probablly pull up videos of me doing this consistently, it isn't hard.

Even if that wasn't the case... like I didn't have an aerial that was less than a second... lets say I'm Ike. I can jump off stage and threaten an aerial with my range alone and try and scare them into air dodgeing and then hitting them while they are still in their animation but no longer invulnerable.

EDGE GUARDING:
So all the above still plays in while you are edge guarding. most of the time while you are recovering you don't want to commit to an aerial because its a budget of how much time you can spend off stage before you can act. (Though I'd argue brawls slower speed made for more interesting off stage fights because it increased that time budget)
Your opponent is fighting to take it away from you. Often times they have powerful zoning options you HAVE to respect. (like marth fair, MK dair, fox shine) This will not change with the new game, because moves like this still exist. These make for interesting choices and trade offs do I jump through them and air dodge? do I jump into them with an aerial and disrespect their zoning tools? Do I have to recover high and land on stage because I can't afford to risk recovering low?

I think most people were specifically talking about the new edge mechanics.
This change was put in place for a few reasons I think. 1 to encourage conflict, you can't ledge stall or plank with invulnerability. personally I LOVE the new edge snap mechanics. it again is there to force conflict. You can't just edgehog for a kill and thats okay. Since like brawl you can't instantly let go of the edge on your own I think people are going to force their opponents off the edge as soon as they grab it to take away their invulnerability and force them back off stage. I'm really looking forward to seeing how strong players turn this change into an advantage.

AGGRESSIVE PLAY:
SO this is one thing I didn't really talk much about. Commitment doesn't mean there is no room for aggressive play. I'm going to use two examples.
Brawl was a game about commitment. But with sheik I was able to be VERY aggressive in spite of it. with access to her spaced fair, forward facing bair, ftilt, and jab combined with her dash speed I was able to stay on top of my opponents and force them to to play my game until they made an error. (or I made an error... but like thats gonna happen )
Or SF4, I'm not a top level player but I know a thing or two. SF4 is a very committal game. Makoto has one of the slowest walking animations in... ever, but she is one of the most rush down aggressive characters in the game even though she has to hard commit to her advances.

You can be aggressive even if you have to make commitments. its about choosing trade offs, "Is this advance worth the risk? If I connect I can combo for 40 damage and an edge gaurd... I'm risking a sheild grab though..." Instead of "LOL I'LL JUST JUMP IN! I CAN BE AGRESSIVE BECAUSE I CAN"T BE PUNISHED!"

A game that is more limited and has less options than melee will just be a shallow boring experience. Brawl felt like i had nothing to get better at and wasn't rewarding.

Sometimes "less options" means more viable options. I explained how by taking away the freedom of dash dancing you make walking a real and meaningful option: a slow movement option where i have all actions available. Compared to a dash: a quick movement option with dash attack, jump and upsmash as my only available options."
So now instead of just the only always better option (I mean you could walk in melee... but why would you when dash does everything walk does?) you have two options that have trade offs.

You don't seem to have a strong grasp on Brawl at a high level. Out of curiosity how much time did you invest into brawl before you reached your peak? Who did you play against?

 

[Renji64]

Hi just wanted to make a few points

AIR DODGE SPAM:
You can't spam air dodge on recovery... you just can't.

IN brawl most air dodges last about a whole second about 49 frames for a majority of the cast. but the invincibility is for about half of that most characters it is frame 4-29 or 25 frames, just over half. That's almost a full second of not being able to jump or use a recovery move. when you are already below the stage that is quite a bit of time.

Another thing: With my main, sheik I could literally MAKE them air dodge with my fair, as in if they don't air dodge they will get hit. and then fair again before they were done with their animation, but no longer invincible. I can probablly pull up videos of me doing this consistently, it isn't hard.

Even if that wasn't the case... like I didn't have an aerial that was less than a second... lets say I'm Ike. I can jump off stage and threaten an aerial with my range alone and try and scare them into air dodgeing and then hitting them while they are still in their animation but no longer invulnerable.

EDGE GUARDING:
So all the above still plays in while you are edge guarding. most of the time while you are recovering you don't want to commit to an aerial because its a budget of how much time you can spend off stage before you can act. (Though I'd argue brawls slower speed made for more interesting off stage fights because it increased that time budget)
Your opponent is fighting to take it away from you. Often times they have powerful zoning options you HAVE to respect. (like marth fair, MK dair, fox shine) This will not change with the new game, because moves like this still exist. These make for interesting choices and trade offs do I jump through them and air dodge? do I jump into them with an aerial and disrespect their zoning tools? Do I have to recover high and land on stage because I can't afford to risk recovering low?

I think most people were specifically talking about the new edge mechanics.
This change was put in place for a few reasons I think. 1 to encourage conflict, you can't ledge stall or plank with invulnerability. personally I LOVE the new edge snap mechanics. it again is there to force conflict. You can't just edgehog for a kill and thats okay. Since like brawl you can't instantly let go of the edge on your own I think people are going to force their opponents off the edge as soon as they grab it to take away their invulnerability and force them back off stage. I'm really looking forward to seeing how strong players turn this change into an advantage.

AGGRESSIVE PLAY:
SO this is one thing I didn't really talk much about. Commitment doesn't mean there is no room for aggressive play. I'm going to use two examples.
Brawl was a game about commitment. But with sheik I was able to be VERY aggressive in spite of it. with access to her spaced fair, forward facing bair, ftilt, and jab combined with her dash speed I was able to stay on top of my opponents and force them to to play my game until they made an error. (or I made an error... but like thats gonna happen )
Or SF4, I'm not a top level player but I know a thing or two. SF4 is a very committal game. Makoto has one of the slowest walking animations in... ever, but she is one of the most rush down aggressive characters in the game even though she has to hard commit to her advances.

You can be aggressive even if you have to make commitments. its about choosing trade offs, "Is this advance worth the risk? If I connect I can combo for 40 damage and an edge gaurd... I'm risking a sheild grab though..." Instead of "LOL I'LL JUST JUMP IN! I CAN BE AGRESSIVE BECAUSE I CAN"T BE PUNISHED!"



Sometimes "less options" means more viable options. I explained how by taking away the freedom of dash dancing you make walking a real and meaningful option: a slow movement option where i have all actions available. Compared to a dash: a quick movement option with dash attack, jump and upsmash as my only available options."
So now instead of just the only always better option (I mean you could walk in melee... but why would you when dash does everything walk does?) you have two options that have trade offs.

You don't seem to have a strong grasp on Brawl at a high level. Out of curiosity how much time did you invest into brawl before you reached your peak? Who did you play against?

I play DK in every installment I will get punished all the time I like the freedom of movement other smash games offer i don't like being restricted. I'm just gonna have to force myself to find something postive i like about smash 4 other than the visuals and new playstyles.

 

[<π]

Dk was a really good character in brawl, he just feel to the D3 chain grab shanans. Bar that I believe he was concidered to be better over all than his melee counter part .His range let him be much more agressive even with high end lag.

DK did not have a good wave dash or a good dash dance in melee. mobility wasn't his thing, nor was SHFFLED approaches. He was a zoning and hard punish guy. I mean you can play him aggressively in but you are gonna get punish pretty bad for it.

I did a quick search of some semi-recent high level DK game play. Got the videos in spoilers if you are interested.

Spoiler

Will's DK

Green Ranger's DK

(I had a hard time finding a really good melee DK video that is recent... I think the new stage restrictions hit DK hard. There haven't been many relevant DKs)

 

[Veggi]

I know a lot about DK in Brawl and he didn't have much of a problem with approaching against shields because bair and down b were so insane.

However he doesn't have many options for relentlessly attacking and being safe. He's decent at approaching because his options have more range. I think it's a lot to expect a character like DK to fit into every possible play style.

 

[HeavyLobster]

I know a lot about DK in Brawl and he didn't have much of a problem with approaching against shields because bair and down b were so insane.

However he doesn't have many options for relentlessly attacking and being safe. He's decent at approaching because his options have more range. I think it's a lot to expect a character like DK to fit into every possible play style.

It's not necessarily a bad thing if you can't viably play rushdown with a character not designed to be a rushdown character to begin with, as long as there are other options that fit your playstyle. It's a good thing that there appears to be more of an effort to balance different character archetypes and playstyles than in previous Smash games, especially as far as buffing heavyweights goes. One of the flaws Melee had was that it didn't do a very good job at balancing different character archetypes, as the best characters were either speedsters who could fully abuse Melee's movement options or floaty characters who had great recovery, edgeguarding, and aerial mobility. Mobility was king in Melee, and slower characters were generally at a disadvantage. Brawl infamously favored characters with strong defensive capabilities, and rushdown/combo oriented characters were usually less effective. Smash 4 appears to be making more of an effort to ensure that all characters and character archetypes have distinct strengths and weaknesses, and I personally think that making this type of balance a priority is more important than making the game super fast or offensive.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Actually brawl favored people who could safely pressure shields while being able to play defensive to some extent.

 

[Veggi]

It's not necessarily a bad thing if you can't viably play rushdown with a character not designed to be a rushdown character to begin with, as long as there are other options that fit your playstyle. It's a good thing that there appears to be more of an effort to balance different character archetypes and playstyles than in previous Smash games, especially as far as buffing heavyweights goes. One of the flaws Melee had was that it didn't do a very good job at balancing different character archetypes, as the best characters were either speedsters who could fully abuse Melee's movement options or floaty characters who had great recovery, edgeguarding, and aerial mobility. Mobility was king in Melee, and slower characters were generally at a disadvantage. Brawl infamously favored characters with strong defensive capabilities, and rushdown/combo oriented characters were usually less effective. Smash 4 appears to be making more of an effort to ensure that all characters and character archetypes have distinct strengths and weaknesses, and I personally think that making this type of balance a priority is more important than making the game super fast or offensive.

I agree. I think it's better for there to be characters that play dramatically different so that everyone can find something they like as opposed to every character being offensive, defensive, or something between the two.

 

[Raijinken]

I agree. I think it's better for there to be characters that play dramatically different so that everyone can find something they like as opposed to every character being offensive, defensive, or something between the two.

At the same time, I like it when characters can reasonably fight to two or so unique playstyles. Some people (myself included) main based on series fandom, and there is nothing more disappointing than loving a character you cannot play well.

 

[<π]

Actually brawl favored people who could safely pressure shields while being able to play defensive to some extent.

Yeah I've gotta agree with this statement. Defensive play was the thing early on that's why you saw D3 so high... but as the meta grew, it became more about characters you could safely apply pressure and then capitalize once that pressure yielded a result.

Metaknight is not a defensive power house. He is just very very safe.

 

[HeavyLobster]

Actually brawl favored people who could safely pressure shields while being able to play defensive to some extent.

Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than simply being a character that can camp. By defensive I mean being good in Brawl has more to do with being able to avoid taking damage rather than the ability to deal massive amounts of damage through aggressive play. In contrast to high-risk characters like Melee Fox, top Brawl characters are usually defined by more conservative playstyles. The main point was that top tier characters in Brawl usually played similarly, and Smash 4 appears to be trying to change this tendency.

 

[<π]

I don't know if I'd call melee fox high risk...

The top characters all have very different strengths but like Red Ryu said they are all able to safely pressure shields.
MK has his amazing aerials and speacials... and tilts.
Diddy had a powerful projectile in bananas + glide toss. He can trip you while you are in shield... so dumb. (lack luster in the air though)
Snake had a great zone control game with nades C4 and dsmash. plus high range low start up tilts. (No air game)
Marth had great air speed and good range on his aerials and tilts.
Olimar had AMAZING range and priority
Wario had so much aerial agility... even with his low range he was always safe on shield.
Zero suit was just really fast and could cover her openings really well with jab and dash attack and utilt. great pokes in dsmash and forwardB.

IDK I felt like in brawl all of the characters, even the clones, felt VERY different from one another. I don't think there was one dominate archetype for Brawl.

Falco sucks.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than simply being a character that can camp. By defensive I mean being good in Brawl has more to do with being able to avoid taking damage rather than the ability to deal massive amounts of damage through aggressive play. In contrast to high-risk characters like Melee Fox, top Brawl characters are usually defined by more conservative playstyles. The main point was that top tier characters in Brawl usually played similarly, and Smash 4 appears to be trying to change this tendency.

Fox really isn't high risk high reward.

If anything melee as a whole is kind of like this with risk reward. You don't really play with risk a whole lot.

Brawl kinda inverted this.

 

[LancerStaff]

I play DK in every installment I will get punished all the time I like the freedom of movement other smash games offer i don't like being restricted. I'm just gonna have to force myself to find something postive i like about smash 4 other than the visuals and new playstyles.

Not exactly giving the Melee fans a good name there. You act elitist in the sense that you say the base game isn't good enough for you, you say that every other mechanic should be like Melee, and you say Brawl and 4 are trash on a regular basis. Unless you want people think all Melee players are like this, which I am seriously believing at this point, you ought to stop.

Question: Do you want people to respect Melee fans?

 

[JV5Chris]

Fox really isn't high risk high reward.

If anything melee as a whole is kind of like this with risk reward. You don't really play with risk a whole lot.

Brawl kinda inverted this.

What? Taking risks is a big part of both Melee and Brawl, there's just differences in them. Keep in mind too high tier characters in each game have movesets and standout qualities that reduce their risk factor.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Not exactly giving the Melee fans a good name there. You act elitist in the sense that you say the base game isn't good enough for you, you say that every other mechanic should be like Melee, and you say Brawl and 4 are trash on a regular basis. Unless you want people think all Melee players are like this, which I am seriously believing at this point, you ought to stop.

Question: Do you want people to respect Melee fans?

He's not making anyone look bad, he just doesn't like the game. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone has personal preferences.

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

Very well said, OP. It's always nice to see people around here that can appreciate Brawl and understands concepts like depth vs complexity and that there is more depth involved in choosing an option rather than being able to consistently perform the optimal option. And as you point out, everyone has a different cup of tea; more depth or less complexity won't make someone like a game more nor does it objectively make a game "better". Depth simply adds depth and reducing complexity simply reduces complexity. Some people prefer playing a faster paced game and don't care if walking virtually has no advantages over dashing or preferring a game that is more technically demanding, while others may not care so much for complexity or technical demands as long as there is depth. I agree with everything you said!

 

[Tagxy]

Like the spammable air dodge, I'd rather they just let you air dodge once per airtime but have it so it doesn't put you into special fall, that puts more emphasis on actually dodging properly rather than just spamming it as you return to the stage, increased landing lag on an air dodge doesn't matter if people are just going to sweetspot the ledge.

Brawl's airdodge amongst good players is not spammable, the interaction and 50-50's the mechanics creates actually has a high level of depth. Unless you have a deeper perspective you feel is being missed. Eh, theres actually other points through your post that either dont have correct elaboration, or dont seem to have a firm grasp on how mechanics add or remove depth, but I would ask that you review each statement carefully and removed of any unintentional bias.

A game that is more limited and has less options than melee will just be a shallow boring experince. Brawl felt like i had nothing to get better at and wasn't rewarding. Melee lets me control my character how i want to and if someone is better than me they truely are. People compare brawl to chess it isn't that deep it is a bunch of standing around that is why the commentators always have to try to compensate for the lack of action. Smash 4 will be a great party game or casual game. But for a competitive experince it is unknown at this time.

Nothing personal, but your statements are about as accurate as if I were to post "melee is a slow, techless game that isnt enjoyable". Obviously a statement like this would only come out of ignorance, and this is how yours comes across in discussing mechanics. It would be one thing if we could discuss the accuracy of the statement that could lead to an improved viewpoint on all sides, but the problem is you dont really care whether these statements are true or false, because you say the same thing frequently regardless of calls for elaboration or correction, and have already been banned for it once. If people dont like a game for personal reasons thats understandable, but why would anyone spread statements on topics they dont understand?

 

[ferioku]

Not exactly giving the Melee fans a good name there. You act elitist in the sense that you say the base game isn't good enough for you, you say that every other mechanic should be like Melee, and you say Brawl and 4 are trash on a regular basis. Unless you want people think all Melee players are like this, which I am seriously believing at this point, you ought to stop.

Question: Do you want people to respect Melee fans?

Dude, what on earth are you talking about? When did he say anything about Melee supporters being trash, there are quite a lot of people here who play melee and you're the only one who seems to be getting offended -_-

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

A game that is more limited and has less options than melee will just be a shallow boring experince. Brawl felt like i had nothing to get better at and wasn't rewarding. Melee lets me control my character how i want to and if someone is better than me they truely are. People compare brawl to chess it isn't that deep it is a bunch of standing around that is why the commentators always have to try to compensate for the lack of action. Smash 4 will be a great party game or casual game. But for a competitive experince it is unknown at this time.

Depth =/= spectator enjoyment.

The commentators having to try to "compensate" for the lack of action does not mean there is little depth. All I'm seeing is a bunch of vague meanings. What do you mean "if someone is better than me they truely are"? Are you trying to say that if you lose in Brawl it doesn't mean they are better than you (at least within the time frame of that game)? If you lose, you lose. You might not feel like improving in Brawl is rewarding, that's fine, and you might not like the focus Brawl has, but if you lose to someone then there must be ways for you to get better.

 

[Renji64]

Not exactly giving the Melee fans a good name there. You act elitist in the sense that you say the base game isn't good enough for you, you say that every other mechanic should be like Melee, and you say Brawl and 4 are trash on a regular basis. Unless you want people think all Melee players are like this, which I am seriously believing at this point, you ought to stop.

Question: Do you want people to respect Melee fans?

I don't care about people opinions who think a game with tripping is a good game honestly lol. People come to their own conlusions about things i just want a good smash brothers game. A game doesn't have to be melee to be good i enjoy smash 64 as well.

 

[Renji64]

Depth =/= spectator enjoyment.

The commentators having to try to "compensate" for the lack of action does not mean there is little depth. All I'm seeing is a bunch of vague meanings. What do you mean "if someone is better than me they truely are"? Are you trying to say that if you lose in Brawl it doesn't mean they are better than you (at least within the time frame of that game)? If you lose, you lose. You might not feel like improving in Brawl is rewarding, that's fine, and you might not like the focus Brawl has, but if you lose to someone then there must be ways for you to get better.

I don't get a sense of someone being a more skilled player in brawl just feels like the more patience player wins rather than the better player to me.

 

[Tristan_win]

This thread has renew my hatred of meta knight but also makes me wonder. I wonder what was the biggest force that stop Brawl, was it the non flashy game mechanics, meta knight early and steady dominance, or did the almost meta knight ban have a greater effect. I kind of want to discuss or watch this discuss again but I know without a doubt it would explode into a flame war.

Anyways the only good point I have to add to this thread is that to a certain point increasing speed does increase depth of the game more so then complexity. By giving characters the options to move faster it allows them to easier punish disrespectful mistakes, follow up limited combo opportunities better and best of all increase the chance of their opponents messing up when defending. In Brawl with excluding attacks that come out before 10 frames (and there's a lot of these) you could (or at least I felt like I could) pretty much react instantly to any attack because you could figure out what attack they might use and most importantly where. Because you knew where it was going to come from you could sort of pre program yourself to respond. This cannot be done to such a level in Melee. Although I'm not 100% confident with this next statement of mine I'm pretty sure Melee frame data on a lot of attack are actually slower then Brawls, you should be able to react just as well but due to the increase speed that all characters are constantly moving in and different shield mechanics this is not the case. It's just too difficult to predict what direct for sure your opponents are going to attack you in so you have to play it more by ear which means fake outs are extra devastating.

~sighs~ Then again I've never been 'good' at melee and was only decent at Brawl if that years ago so maybe that's just my limit outlook holding me back
note: the reason why I say that is because if I don't I'll think I'm much greater then I ever was >.<'

edit: Although I know this wont happen but it would be fantastic if every move in the game could be canceled but only before the hit box came out. It would add such a nice level of depth and complexity to the game and make some really interesting flints to give everyone heart attacks.

 

[<π]

I've never had an issue with meta knight... but I "grew up" playing against what would become some of the best foxes in the nation (colbo, PC chris) at one point or another.

I also during my brawl career had the opportunity to play against some of the best MKs in the nation. Spet hours playing against M2K (he said sheik had the best recovery in the game, about 900 times ) RedHalbred, Seibrik. SO I guess coming out of those and going fairly even (and winning a few) made me feel confident MK wasn't some unstoppable God. or at the very least not worth getting banned... Not if melee fox wasn't worth a ban...

I think Brawl feel apart for a number of reasons, but I sight the ban as one of the final nails. The brawl community was split, between what stages should be available, Ledge grab limits, and the big ban which was nearly a 50% split. And THEN people continued to play with MK anyway. I mean @Tristain_win , how frustrating was it to have MK banned and then he still shows up in tournaments anyway? Or on the flip imagine after the (literal) years you put into perfecting sheik you finally start winning constantly and people decided she was broken and banned her from competitive play. Would you still go out to events?

That's my take on it... Maybe I should do next week's video on that subject.

 

[otter]

Hi just wanted to make a few points
Even if that wasn't the case... like I didn't have an aerial that was less than a second... lets say I'm Ike. I can jump off stage and threaten an aerial with my range alone and try and scare them into air dodgeing and then hitting them while they are still in their animation but no longer invulnerable.

I don't understand how that is okay. What is stopping the recovering player from just hitting Ike while he is baiting? Why should he be put in a mix up after earning the better position? Why should hitting someone's shield be a risky position? You don't think a better position should exist. You get your one hit, and then kill another 30 seconds and try again. Competition aside, that is boring as hell. I think you sweep game speed under the rug too easily. Plenty of gamers besides competitive Melee players are attracted to game speed. If a RPG has slow text speed, slow walk speed, and lengthy shallow battles, I am going to lose interest.

Regarding celebrating a lack of dash dashing. If you make commitment a big deal in the game, and then don't provide any good approaches, you just end up with camping. I'm glad you're so proud of being a mid level player with a sub optimal character (no, really, that's hard to do) but it doesn't help what the game looks like at a top level.

You don't do a very good job of explaining why less complexity is inherently good. You explain why a lack of complexity is good for Nintendo, but not that large pool of players who enjoy it. I think it's totally reasonable for someone to want the best game possible, and that the number of people playing it is secondary. If a large community was my main concern over game quality, I would have switched to League of Legends years ago. I realize you don't personally like complexity, but that's not the point you were making.

One more point.... Street Fighter had degenerating shielding before Smash.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Not exactly giving the Melee fans a good name there. You act elitist in the sense that you say the base game isn't good enough for you, you say that every other mechanic should be like Melee, and you say Brawl and 4 are trash on a regular basis. Unless you want people think all Melee players are like this, which I am seriously believing at this point, you ought to stop.

Question: Do you want people to respect Melee fans?

I asked people not to confront each other like this.

Don't do it, last warning.

What? Taking risks is a big part of both Melee and Brawl, there's just differences in them. Keep in mind too high tier characters in each game have movesets and standout qualities that reduce their risk factor.

In Melee, you can kinda hit people's shield and not really give a damn with most of everyones moveset.

There isn't really a risk here unless you made a technical error, this isn't true risk in terms of gameplay.

There isn't really commitment in Melee, making reads? Yes players still make good reads and trying to find ways to use this. A lot of melee as a whole though doesn't have commitment compared to Brawl even though Melee is faster and hits harder overall.

I'll get to this though when I make my big post on gameplay.

I don't get a sense of someone being a more skilled player in brawl just feels like the more patience player wins rather than the better player to me.

This isn't true at all.

 

[ferioku]

Although there is one problem I have in brawl, which is it's replay value. I can enjoy play 64 and Melee and never get bored, though Brawl is a good game admittedly, it does have some thing's that bore me out way too quickly, I have hope on Smash 4 and I hope that Sakurai could make a game where everyone can enjoy. It's actually scary thinking about it, in a few weeks, Japan get's Smash 4, sincerely hoping that this game tops the other 3 in a way no one would expect it to!

 

[Deleted member 245254]

My ultimate issue with Melee is that while there is a little wiggle room it narrowed what some see Smash as down to a competition of speed and reflexes. It's about reaction times, out-maneuvering, and mastery of your buttons. This is a completely valid form of play, but why does it have to complete envelop the entirety of competitive play? There should be viable characters that are maybe slow, but strong with safe options, or quirky characters who's mobility is awful but have unique properties to their moves that allow them to still control a fight.

In Melee it's about who can be the quickest, for almost every single situation. L-cancel to cancel your lag, wave dash to move quicker or attack quicker out of movement.

This is actually something that PSASBR did pretty good on. Characters like Sack Boy were incredibly unique. Sack Boy wasn't fast at all, and his attacks were all unique with odd properties to them, but when you used him properly he was annoying as all hell. In fact a lot of characters in PSASBR are like that. That game has it's own set of coarse hair to traverse and criticize but all in all they managed to make characters incredibly unique from one another.

This is something that Smash 4 has me pretty excited over. Characters like Villager and Rosalina speak volumes about the design direction of the combat they intent us to experience in the upcoming game. A varied, unique experience from match to match that is noticeable below the "meta" level of viewing. Room for play styles other than "fast with low punish choices".