<3 Depth Versus Complexity in Smash 4

[LancerStaff]

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.

Further proving my point, thanks.

I asked people not to confront each other like this.

Don't do it, last warning.

Where would I go if I wanted to discuss this?

 

[Renji64]

Further proving my point, thanks.



Where would I go if I wanted to discuss this?

Welcome

 

[<π]

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.

There is nothing stopping from trying I guess... but even that is a good thing, that adds depth too.

I mean Ike generally is gonna have more range and thus a larger zone than the person recovering so if the other player commits to entering that zone they have risk Ike attacking before they can effectively attack him.
If the opponent DOES get ike first though they hit him back on stage and potentially force themselves even lower than if they had just air dodged, or went for some other option.

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.

That just isn't true... I could link you to a TON of matches when players have to approach in melee (where there is only strong committal options) in fact... here is a play list of my matches. Even against ICs as sheik I approach very frequently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0f2ut5FMGY&index=2&list=PL2FBE127F1911A9C8

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.

The smash series is not a very complex one to begin with, especially compared to other fighters. I said it in the video, but I think THAT is why it sells so well. Large pools of people prefer intuitive low complexity... I mean look at the best selling games in the world and how simple they are... tetris, mario... wii sports... There IS a market for complex games, but that is a nitch market; a much smaller group.

 

[JV5Chris]

IIn 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.

Attacking shields in Melee requires good spacing to avoid shield grabs, general conversions, and depending on the opposing character, OoS attacks. The latter two dictate the on hit shield gameplay more in Brawl given the changes, but the mobility in Melee adds plenty of risk as well. Dash dancing, run in shield, wavedash in shield, and wavedash back all mess with the attacking player's spacing which frequently leads to hard punishes. The risk comes less from the shield properties by itself and more from the varied options defending players have at their disposal to create punishable situations for the approaching player.

 

[otter]

That just isn't true... I could link you to a TON of matches when players have to approach in melee (where there is only strong committal options) in fact... here is a play list of my matches. Even against ICs as sheik I approach very frequently.

I don't see how that helps your argument. So you approach ICs with Shiek. If it works, you do 15%. If not, you lose a stock. That is exactly why people don't like Brawl, and why you can't provide footage of a Shiek winning a tournament that way.

The smash series is not a very complex one to begin with, especially compared to other fighters. I said it in the video, but I think THAT is why it sells so well. Large pools of people prefer intuitive low complexity... I mean look at the best selling games in the world and how simple they are... tetris, mario... wii sports... There IS a market for complex games, but that is a nitch market; a much smaller group.

You're still not attempting to explain why complexity is inherently bad. I agree that fringe players don't like it. Nintendo has incentive to care about that, I don't. Smash is special because it is for everyone, but you seem to think that people who like complexity should just stick to Melee.

 

[KaZe_DaRKWIND]

Snip

Can I ask what happened in the clip in your sig?

 

[Raijinken]

You're still not attempting to explain why complexity is inherently bad. I agree that fringe players don't like it. Nintendo has incentive to care about that, I don't. Smash is special because it is for everyone, but you seem to think that people who like complexity should just stick to Melee.

This is why complexity is inherently bad: It isn't. Complexity is a side effect of technique, and well-designed technique adds depth and skill. To a certain extent, a game that includes feats of accomplishment on the dexterity of the player may feel more rewarding to some players.

This is why adding complexity simply for the sake of more complexity is inherently bad: It forces the skill floor higher, reduces accessibility, and in some cases (Melee Fox/Falco players may attest to this) can actually physically injure you in the long run. Unless it's well-designed, it will not inherently improve the depth of the game, it strictly acts as a barrier to skilled play. Even if it is well designed, physical health is still a concern. Thus, an argument that "the game is poor because it is not complex" sounds less like an argument about the depth offered by a complex maneuver, and more like an argument that a physically harder to play game is innately deeper, which is untrue.

Thus, it is fair to suggest that players who prefer complexity should stick to Melee (pending the actual release of Smash4 and permanent confirmation that it is less complex). It is more complicated than Brawl and Smash64 from a technical standpoint, and if that's their cup of tea, then they should certainly play the game that caters most to that. It's not that they're not allowed to want complexity in Smash4, but it is a bit like hoping Kirby becomes a technically complex game - Sakurai's goal is for everyone to be able to play and enjoy the game, and complexity for the sake of adding difficulty to control simply opposes that goal.

 

[<π]

Attacking shields in Melee require proper spacing to avoid the shield grabs, conversion followups, and depending on the opposing character, OoS attacks. The latter two dictate the on hit shield gameplay more in Brawl given the changes, but the mobility in Melee adds plenty of risk as well. Dash dancing, run in shield, wavedash in shield, and wavedash back all mess with the attacking player's spacing which frequently leads to hard punishes. The risk is less the shield properties by itself and more the varied options defending players have at their disposal to create punishable situations for the approaching player.

thats true for a lot of the lower tier characters, but peach sheik fox falco they can do what every they wany on sheild and then jab or shine before a sheild grab is possible.

I don't see how that helps your argument. So you approach ICs with Shiek. If it works, you do 15%. If not, you lose a stock. That is exactly why people don't like Brawl, and why you can't provide footage of a Shiek winning a tournament that way.

That same exact thing can happen in melee versus ICs too. My point was melee isn't really a game about waiting (except in the IC match up, and even there I approach)
I have footage of me getting second, loosing against HRNUTs pit. I was in one of the strongest brawl (well smash in general) regions in the country. I'm confident that if I was in a different region I'd of been consistently getting top 4 finishes. (my IC roommate left FL went to CT and was power ranked within a month... and never placed top 8 down here)
OUR top 8 never had 6 MKs though MK was definitely the most popular character... but I'm kind of going off on a tangent here...

You're still not attempting to explain why complexity is inherently bad. I agree that fringe players don't like it. Nintendo has incentive to care about that, I don't. Smash is special because it is for everyone, but you seem to think that people who like complexity should just stick to Melee.

I'm not saying complexity is bad. I've never said that, I never will. What I did say is complex things are less appealing than simple things are to the masses.
Nintendo is a video game company, their goal is to sell copies the most copies. The best way for them to do that is to appeal to the largest audience possible. And the best way to do that is to make a game that is not complex. Look at Nintendo games! Look at their consoles! That's ALWAYS been their goal. simple game play.
I understand how that can be seen as "throwing us under the bus" but because that complexity is gone doesn't mean they hate you. It means they feel their trade offs are worth it in the over all scheme of things. And I agree with them.

I don't think people who like complexity should stick to melee. Because I'm sure it will still be there in the new games. (It was in brawl... trust me) But I DO think people who prefer melee to smash 4 should continue to play melee.
I DON'T feel like people who enjoy melee, or even the complexities of brawl for that matter, should try to re-target smash 4's much larger focus audience on the minuscule group of "competitive smash players" (Its seriously like less than 1 percent across ALL of the smash games) just so that they feel comfortable.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Attacking shields in Melee require proper spacing to avoid shield grabs, general conversions, and depending on the opposing character, OoS attacks. The latter two dictate the on hit shield gameplay more in Brawl given the changes, but the mobility in Melee adds plenty of risk as well. Dash dancing, run in shield, wavedash in shield, and wavedash back all mess with the attacking player's spacing which frequently leads to hard punishes. The risk is less the shield properties by itself and more the varied options defending players have at their disposal to create punishable situations for the approaching player.

If you L-Cancel properly, or float cancel, you really don't need good spacing to make it work.

I'm not saying you can't punish a fox nair/shine etc. I'm saying in terms if commitment there isn't a whole Lot of taking a risk.

OoS punishes don't really happen in Melee unless someone really commits to something, Fox Usmash on shield.

~

Complexity isn't bad in itself unless it's depth is shallow where isn't really making the game deep.

L-canceling really doesn't make Melee deep, it alienates players and really is just a tech barrier.

Complexity and execution should matter on a fighting game.

But when you make execution and complexity the main focus, suddenly reads and interaction matter very little if at all.

L-Cancelling doesn't add choice or make the game deeper, Wavedashing does.

 

[JV5Chris]

thats true for a lot of the lower tier characters, but peach sheik fox falco they can do what every they want on shield and then jab or shine before a shield grab is possible.

It's true for the entire cast at varying levels. I would agree that Fox, Falco, and Peach's down-smash particularly can provide a tremendous amount of shield pressure if they get in close. It's not like they're free to do whatever in the overall neutral game though. It's not the only effective way to win either as seen through the other top tier characters.

If you L-Cancel properly, or float cancel, you really don't need good spacing to make it work.

All I can really say to this is I completely disagree as it relates to majority of aerials in the game. There are moves that have less risk, but they typically also have less range and shield kockback which makes spacing still plenty important. Exceptions exist, but they are exceptions, not the norm.

OoS punishes don't really happen in Melee unless someone really commits to something, Fox Usmash on shield.

That's actually for the better IMO.

 

[PCHU]

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?

As many threads as you've seen me in, you'd still go so far as to say "Unless you want people think all Melee players are like this, which I am seriously believing at this point"?
You should know by now there are a myriad of level-headed players that just don't enjoy Brawl because of its pacing and general system of balancing aggressive and defensive play.
I play rushdown in both Brawl and Melee, but the only things that really upset me about Brawl were the inability to cancel dash with crouch and momentum as a whole being pretty much discarded; I really don't see the point of the latter, but I play the game anyway because there are definitely aspects of it that I appreciate.

As far as complexity goes, I feel like a lot of people don't really know how to work to improve themselves when tech skill presents a barrier (then again, improvement as a whole is tough).
The relevance of wavedashing and l-canceling depend on a character and style of play you choose to commit to; back in the days of BlazBlue, I wanted to be good with Taokaka, but with the introduction of the taunt loop from CT to CS, I was quickly surpassed by others and had to either learn the taunt loop or adopt a different style of play until I could learn it, or just disregard it and continue to work to improve.
I tried it, but wasn't really interested in trying to perfect it, so I picked characters with more simple inputs and less strict timing in their links; I still used Tao every now and then, though, finding different approaches to matchups and not really caring much about the loop.
Fox, on the other hand, is a very demanding character by nature if you want to be solid on offense, yet you can still get by with proper spacing and chaingrabs (if I find that my opponent has the better offense, I capitalize on that by playing a heavily throw-oriented game -- they start to focus on avoiding the grab, which almost tends to make things even easier).
Regardless, I didn't start off by defaulting to that -- I worked for a good long while on perfecting tech skill because it was something that I wanted to learn and I was dedicated to it.

The issue with discussing complexity is that you can't necessarily address every character with it; some characters are naturally more demanding than others (Ness/Ice Climbers) and can't usually be picked up day 1 because of the way they work, not to mention other characters are just solid in general and don't need these techs to thrive (Sheik, Jigglypuff).
The game doesn't need to be another Melee, but complexity certainly isn't a bad thing.

 

[<π]

The more I think about it the more I feel like every aerial was safe on shield regardless on spacing in Lcanceled, at least with all the characters I played. even with Pichu I could pressure shield and never have to worry about if I was spacing correctly.

I think people may space so follow up ground attacks are still safe but most aerials were't big commitments.

 

[Senario]

The more I think about it the more I feel like every aerial was safe on shield regardless on spacing in Lcanceled, at least with all the characters I played. even with Pichu I could pressure shield and never have to worry about if I was spacing correctly.

I think people may space so follow up ground attacks are still safe but most aerials were't big commitments.

Again spacing is key if you do not space well it isnt safe on shield. Play the game and L cancel, lets see if you can make air moves safe on block without spacing. And in the case of fox and falco it is pretty hard to get to the point where you cant be punished for shine combos.

 

[<π]

I did play the game... And I did that stuff. Pichu the character with the worst range was safe on sheild with aerials. I could sh nair lcancel and then grab jab uair or nair again before my opponent could do an offensive option. assuming it wasn't bowser or samus.
Their only options were to roll away, wavedash out, spot dodge or (what most people would do) hit me before I got to their sheild.

Even slow dudes like gannondorf could dair and fair on sheild Lcancel and have their jab to shut up offensive actions, even if their spacing was WAY off.

EDIT:
And you don't even have to commit to THOSE options, you can wavedash or just run away after a successful lcancel as well.

 

[otter]

Sakurai's goal is for everyone to be able to play and enjoy the game, and complexity for the sake of adding difficulty to control simply opposes that goal.

Melee is not difficult to control. That's like showing someone a car and saying "look, it's automatic transmission. It's very simple." And they like it.

Then you say "if you want a little more control, there is a hidden shifter underneath the arm rest so you can have manual options" and now they hate the car. They say "I dont want to learn that."

"Fine. thats why there are multiple options. This has no bearing on you cruising around with your friends." It takes a certain amount of lunacy for them to reply "No! I want it removed from all models because I can't enjoy the car anymore."

I think a lot less people would attempt to stretch logic that far if Sakurai wasn't directly telling them that Melee was to hard for them despite their memories of loving it.

 

[<π]

I don't think thats a good example...

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

Can I ask what happened in the clip in your sig?

Ah I didn't update my acc for several years... it's just a silly joke along the lines of Luigi winning by not doing anything, or in this case spamming a move in place and somehow winning.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

All I can really say to this is I completely disagree as it relates to majority of aerials in the game. There are moves that have less risk, but they typically also have less range and shield kockback which makes spacing still plenty important. Exceptions exist, but they are exceptions, not the norm.

I'm not saying spacing doesn't matter, reading what I said I may have come off wrong on this.

What I meant was, you don't really need top notch spacing to really do this. I've done and seen people get away with mediocre or bad spacing because they L-cancelled alone.

Spacing makes it harder to punish, that is true. But in terms of safety, you can get away with a lot more while not necesarily spacing well, this is more so true with the higher up characters to be fair but still.

That's actually for the better IMO.

I agree but I think Melee has a lot more safety in this regard for most moves on shield and even wiffed. Basically a lot of movesets, this is more so true in PM, don't really have to commit.

Shield is honestly a really ****ty option in every smash game but Brawl.

 

[yume_nikki]

Melee is not difficult to control. That's like showing someone a car and saying "look, it's automatic transmission. It's very simple." And they like it.

Then you say "if you want a little more control, there is a hidden shifter underneath the arm rest so you can have manual options" and now they hate the car. They say "I dont want to learn that."

"Fine. thats why there are multiple options. This has no bearing on you cruising around with your friends." It takes a certain amount of lunacy for them to reply "No! I want it removed from all models because I can't enjoy the car anymore."

I think a lot less people would attempt to stretch logic that far if Sakurai wasn't directly telling them that Melee was to hard for them despite their memories of loving it.

The problem with Melee is that it doesn't have an automatic transmission. Most non competitive players spend years driving only with the first gear because the manufacturer tells nothing about the hidden shift. And it is really hidden.

 

[Senario]

I did play the game... And I did that stuff. Pichu the character with the worst range was safe on sheild with aerials. I could sh nair lcancel and then grab jab uair or nair again before my opponent could do an offensive option. assuming it wasn't bowser or samus.
Their only options were to roll away, wavedash out, spot dodge or (what most people would do) hit me before I got to their sheild.

Even slow dudes like gannondorf could dair and fair on sheild Lcancel and have their jab to shut up offensive actions, even if their spacing was WAY off.

EDIT:
And you don't even have to commit to THOSE options, you can wavedash or just run away after a successful lcancel as well.

Pretty sure you werent playing vs people who could punish you. Ganon fair and dair arent very safe if you do not space and hit their shield. L cancelled or not. A lot of moves have commitment to them in melee and to suggest otherwise is silly. There are still landing lag frames and often times those are very punishable hence you dont see ganon and other characters using some moves because they are punishable. Pichu is an odd example considering pichu and his l cancelled nair has some of the lowest landing lag in the game outside of float or auto cancelling.

 

[Turokman5896]

Going to quickly leave my two cents here. Personally I love both complexity and simplicity. A relevant example (that has been used before) is street fighter. I have been playing it almost nonstop lately; I just can't get enough of it. However, when I do play, I don't feel like I'm "getting" everything. There is this other level of play that is beyond my ability. But instead of feeling progress as I attempt to reach it, I feel frustration. Why? The complexity of the controls make it difficult to pull off combos (see akumas jhk into hp to tatsu into shoryuken fadc ex hado).

Now back to smash. In smash bros brawl, as I played I felt improvement. There were not any extremely difficult techniques or fast button inputs like the wave dash. Instead, it was about mental games, precision, and play style. Am I a pro? No, but I play to win, and unlike project m or street fighter or melee, I felt real progress as I played brawl: there was nothing outside of my reach: I was always improving. If smash 4 can create this effect, I'll be sold on it 100%

 

[Tagxy]

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.

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.

Arguing your opinion is one thing. What you are doing is different, youre making verifiably uninformed and false claims (such as your later statement). Thats not sharing your opinion that's spreading your ignorance. If you like 64 because of your own personal preference, cool. But if you want to imply 64 has more depth than other smash titles any player knowledgeable of smash game mechanics will show you out the door.

 

[Raijinken]

Melee is not difficult to control. That's like showing someone a car and saying "look, it's automatic transmission. It's very simple." And they like it.

Then you say "if you want a little more control, there is a hidden shifter underneath the arm rest so you can have manual options" and now they hate the car. They say "I dont want to learn that."

"Fine. thats why there are multiple options. This has no bearing on you cruising around with your friends." It takes a certain amount of lunacy for them to reply "No! I want it removed from all models because I can't enjoy the car anymore."

I think a lot less people would attempt to stretch logic that far if Sakurai wasn't directly telling them that Melee was to hard for them despite their memories of loving it.

Your metaphor is reasonable. But it leaves out the vocal professional racers online saying that, no matter how great automatic may be for cruising with your friends, cars are meant to be raced, and if you try racing in automatic, you will lose to even the worst manual racer.

And again, it's a matter of the depth added by complexity. As has been pointed out, L-canceling is always the best choice when landing during an aerial, and thus adds no depth, only a barrier to a weaker (or unknowing) player being able to compete. Wavedashing is useful complexity, because it opens up a choice that is not universally superior (even if it is better in the majority of cases). However, wavedashing still has a tight (and character-specific) window of implementation that makes it hard to do for some players (to say nothing of existing strictly as what appears to be a deliberately unpatched glitch - CPUs never use it, and if one manages to do so accidentally, it's easy to shrug it off as an odd occurrence instead of a deliberate act). Even though it offers extra depth, the timing window is tight enough to be a barrier to implementation. Having advanced techniques like that is great (unless certain ones are so powerful as to be required for decent play), but there is no reason to make them so specifically timed except to make the game harder to be good at. Character matchups, stages, and simply fighting an intelligent human opponent is already enough barrier to skilled play without making it senselessly harder to do moves.

Imagine if by pressing B exactly three frames after pressing A, you could use the move instantly. It's arbitrary, would likely become vital (unless there were a significant tradeoff), and there is no benefit to delaying it thus after A instead of making it something either wider (any time in the first three frames after A), or closer to a "natural" press (press at the same time as A).

In summation, complexity is fine. But it should only exist in such quantities as to enable further options, not as a deliberate barrier to skilled play. I want the pro scene to grow, and that's easier if the game is easier to play well.

Edit: As another example, imagine if L-canceling simply required holding L on your way to the ground. No frame-specific or narrow-range timing windows, but a technique beyond landing without input. It is still a level of complexity that will separate a total beginner from an expert, but it is simple enough to allow a learning player who wishes to improve to master the technique and move on to their next goal.

 

[Renji64]

Arguing your opinion is one thing. What you are doing is different, youre making verifiably uninformed and false claims (such as your later statement). Thats not sharing your opinion that's spreading your ignorance. If you like 64 because of your own personal preference, cool. But if you want to imply 64 has more depth than other smash titles any player knowledgeable of smash game mechanics will show you out the door.

64 has alot more depth than brawl. I can free move my character both in n64 and melee.

 

[Tagxy]

64 has alot more depth than brawl.

I was seriously waiting for you to say this.

And yes, Armda's was on the stream saying the same thing. I only point them out because these are smart people who are making an obvious statement. But if you honestly want to get into the details Im more than happy to oblige. But again you dont seem to care about that, typically making false statements that have nothing to do with opinion. Not to say that 64 isnt a great game or that people cant enjoy it more, but just to point out how far removed your statements are from reality and the lack of awareness of game mechanics.

Now if you want to start posting well, with clearly identified opinions, or factual points that are either supported with evidence or yielded then Ill be the first to be thankful for improving this forums conversation. Until then, you need to drastically improve your posting habits and do harm in fostering poor competitive conversation.

 

[Senario]

I was seriously waiting for you to say this.

And yes, Armda's was on the stream saying the same thing. I only point them out because these are smart people who are making an obvious statement. But if you honestly want to get into the details Im more than happy to oblige. But again you dont seem to care about that, typically making false statements that have nothing to do with opinion. Not to say that 64 isnt a great game or that people cant enjoy it more, but just to point out how far removed your statements are from reality and the lack of awareness of game mechanics.

Now if you want to start posting well, with clearly identified opinions, or factual points that are either supported with evidence or yielded then Ill be the first to be thankful for improving this forums conversation. Until then, you need to drastically improve your posting habits and do harm in fostering poor competitive conversation.

You seriously quoted leffen? Nobody likes leffen and he has been bad for the community in general. I do think it is more of an opinion thing though. 64 by its very nature was the better competitive game than brawl as it has interesting to watch gameplay where any character can be used to win. Look at isai. He plays with everybody and it doesnt matter. That said smash 64 and melee achieve similar things and melee being the more recent game it is thus more popular.

 

[Tagxy]

You seriously quoted leffen? Nobody likes leffen and he has been bad for the community in general. I do think it is more of an opinion thing though. 64 by its very nature was the better competitive game than brawl as it has interesting to watch gameplay where any character can be used to win. Look at isai. He plays with everybody and it doesnt matter. That said smash 64 and melee achieve similar things and melee being the more recent game it is thus more popular.

Its water under the bridge, peeps are cool with him nowadays and and hes one of the smartest players. Also afterwards I stated that Amada was saying the same thing through his stream too, which I think players understanding of smash mechanics would agree with. I dont think how a game is viewed matters to its depth actually, especially since that can be influenced by a lot of outside factors. Instead, its based on how the game can be played. In regards to character variety, what he was suggesting is that 64's metagame isnt super developed because it was never played competitively by tons of people for a lot of money which is a very fair assessment. As someone who's played 64 competitively, I dont fully agree that 64 is closer to melee than other smash installments but in the long run its probably not that important either way.

Also no worries about the topic, I respect people who like 64 more or the most. And it was more to get Renji to stop posting or point out stuff he doesnt know about especially without explaining, and hopefully improve the quality of his posts and posting in this forum. Lately you explain the things you say a lot more (like your last post) and post way better than he does.

 

[Senario]

Its water under the bridge, peeps are cool with him nowadays and and hes one of the smartest players. Also afterwards I stated that Amada was saying the same thing through his stream too. I dont think how a game is viewed matters to its depth actually, especially since that can be influenced by a lot of outside factors. Instead, its based on how the game can be played. In regards to character variety, what he was suggesting is that 64's metagame isnt super developed because it was never played competitively by tons of people for a lot of money which is a very fair assessment. As someone who's played 64 competitively, I dont fully agree that 64 is closer to melee than other smash installments but in the long run its probably not that important either way.

Also no worries about the topic, I respect people who like 64 more or the most. And it was more to get Renji to stop posting or point out stuff he doesnt know about especially without explaining, and hopefully improve the quality of his posts and posting in this forum. Lately you explain the things you say a lot more (like your last post) and post way better than he does.

To me I am still not cool with leffen. I simply do not like what he has done or how he has acted but that is just me.

I honestly dont care for a lot of things on smashboards nowadays. I prefer to watch streams or browse reddit so thus i try to avoid long and drawn out arguments. Part of this is because i am practicing more to get better and another part is that it feels very hostile to melee players on the smash 4 boards. Whether or not others believe it is is up to them but i dont feel like spending too much time here is worth the headache compared to the silliness of streams. Currently smash the record stream.

 

[HeavyLobster]

64 by its very nature was the better competitive game than brawl as it has interesting to watch gameplay where any character can be used to win.

I don't think it's fair to say that one Smash game is objectively superior based on what you describe as "interesting to watch," by which I presume you mean lots of combos, and I have to admit that 64 does have a lot of fun combos. What I personally consider "interesting to watch" is contrasting styles and character archetypes going head to head, and game speed is of secondary importance to me. I concede that I'm not an expert on Smash 64, so anyone who's more informed is free to correct me, but it never really captured my interest because it felt as though the characters were kind of generic and felt too similar to one another. Even if not all characters were equally viable in Brawl, each one felt unique and had different tricks to learn in order to maximize your effectiveness, and this kind of stuff is why I prefer Brawl competitively to Smash 64.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

64 has alot more depth than brawl.

Leffen and Armada aren't the only pro players that have said 64 isn't as deep as Brawl.

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Tagxy]

To me I am still not cool with leffen. I simply do not like what he has done or how he has acted but that is just me.

I honestly dont care for a lot of things on smashboards nowadays. I prefer to watch streams or browse reddit so thus i try to avoid long and drawn out arguments. Part of this is because i am practicing more to get better and another part is that it feels very hostile to melee players on the smash 4 boards. Whether or not others believe it is is up to them but i dont feel like spending too much time here is worth the headache compared to the silliness of streams. Currently smash the record stream.

Well I think healthy discussion is fine but I see what you mean, it does go on both ends but it might not be as noticeable from the opposite side. I also think its just particular people, but thats why I try to catch consistent posts that don't provide conversation since it eventually leads to the problems. I usually lurk more too though.

Hmmmm guess Ill respond to a couple of things.

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.

I don't see how that helps your argument. So you approach ICs with Shiek. If it works, you do 15%. If not, you lose a stock. That is exactly why people don't like Brawl, and why you can't provide footage of a Shiek winning a tournament that way.

lol, while were at it why dont we remove DI and give 0-deaths for everyone . Kidding, but thats in a sense the complaint thats being lodged. A defending player has options, but they arent free of pressure or punishment. It takes more effort and smart reading, but its fundamentally false to believe that Brawl is a game thats a hit for hit neutral game. Even the games slow speed is exaggerated, people only say this when compared to melee which could be argued to be too fast in terms of accessibility. The reason peeps complain about Brawls speed is due to this comparison, and also because games take long (which is a separate measure than its speed).

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.

In addition, overbalancing offensive, non-committal tools is not healthy either. Brawl didnt devolve to camping either, but Im not sure if you were saying that or not.

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.

You're still not attempting to explain why complexity is inherently bad. I agree that fringe players don't like it. Nintendo has incentive to care about that, I don't. Smash is special because it is for everyone, but you seem to think that people who like complexity should just stick to Melee.

Less complexity (mechanically) is better. Its actually a matter of accessibility. Much has been written on the topic by game design theorists, but basically a good competitive game is improved with its accessibility. The core idea behind it is something like "you shouldnt have to take classes just to play the 'real game'".

Attacking shields in Melee requires good spacing to avoid shield grabs, general conversions, and depending on the opposing character, OoS attacks. The latter two dictate the on hit shield gameplay more in Brawl given the changes, but the mobility in Melee adds plenty of risk as well. Dash dancing, run in shield, wavedash in shield, and wavedash back all mess with the attacking player's spacing which frequently leads to hard punishes. The risk comes less from the shield properties by itself and more from the varied options defending players have at their disposal to create punishable situations for the approaching player.

Sure, but the same thing could be said of the options presented with each games respective shield mechanics. In the end of both provide similar amounts of defensive options, is one better simply because it requires more button inputs? Id say it doesnt matter.

It's true for the entire cast at varying levels. I would agree that Fox, Falco, and Peach's down-smash particularly can provide a tremendous amount of shield pressure if they get in close. It's not like they're free to do whatever in the overall neutral game though. It's not the only effective way to win either as seen through the other top tier characters.

All I can really say to this is I completely disagree as it relates to majority of aerials in the game. There are moves that have less risk, but they typically also have less range and shield kockback which makes spacing still plenty important. Exceptions exist, but they are exceptions, not the norm.

[/quote]That's actually for the better IMO.[/quote]
I actually think its the same for Brawl too. Even in regards to oos defensive punishes, thats not more common than what occurs in melee imo if you exclude spacies. The biggest difference for Brawl is theres more options to escape shield pressure, though youre still in a bad position but not able to be taken advantage of with the same level of guaranteedness as melee. Oh, and theres no spacies because screw spacies and their stupidly broken "I beat shields for free" shine (exaggeration, but really shine is unfair).

Melee is not difficult to control. That's like showing someone a car and saying "look, it's automatic transmission. It's very simple." And they like it.

Then you say "if you want a little more control, there is a hidden shifter underneath the arm rest so you can have manual options" and now they hate the car. They say "I dont want to learn that."

"Fine. thats why there are multiple options. This has no bearing on you cruising around with your friends." It takes a certain amount of lunacy for them to reply "No! I want it removed from all models because I can't enjoy the car anymore."

I think a lot less people would attempt to stretch logic that far if Sakurai wasn't directly telling them that Melee was to hard for them despite their memories of loving it.

I agree with the sentiments of the example, but I think a more accurate comparison is automatic transmission vs a jet engine. Achieving top level play is a bit unreasonable for people simply because to an extent its technical play can only be achieved with natural talent (players like m2k and others complain about how the game does hurts their hands. Is that really a reasonable design goal for technical competitive play)?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Its water under the bridge, peeps are cool with him nowadays and and hes one of the smartest players. Also afterwards I stated that Amada was saying the same thing through his stream too, which I think players understanding of smash mechanics would agree with. I dont think how a game is viewed matters to its depth actually, especially since that can be influenced by a lot of outside factors. Instead, its based on how the game can be played. In regards to character variety, what he was suggesting is that 64's metagame isnt super developed because it was never played competitively by tons of people for a lot of money which is a very fair assessment. As someone who's played 64 competitively, I dont fully agree that 64 is closer to melee than other smash installments but in the long run its probably not that important either way.

Also no worries about the topic, I respect people who like 64 more or the most. And it was more to get Renji to stop posting or point out stuff he doesnt know about especially without explaining, and hopefully improve the quality of his posts and posting in this forum. Lately you explain the things you say a lot more (like your last post) and post way better than he does.

No he doesn't. Scenario is equally lacking in evidence or supporting facts to back up his sweeping claims he just makes it more wordy sometimes to hide it.

These are minority type players. People who outwardly express their disinterest in playing Smash 4 at all due to specific mechanics not being implemented. Their viewpoint is inherently not really conducive to good discussion because it is by default irrational.

In any case I'm smelling a Brawl vs 64 debate (wtf), maybe we should try to go back to the discussion of depth vs complexity and the appropriate proportions of it in Smash 4.

 

[Raijinken]

In any case I'm smelling a Brawl vs 64 debate (wtf), maybe we should try to go back to the discussion of depth vs complexity and the appropriate proportions of it in Smash 4.

Particularly with the diversity of character mechanics (Robin's tomes, Luma, Little Mac's very polar play, the apparent buffing of multihiit moves, and the new strength of heavy characters), I think it's fair to guess that Smash4 will have a sufficient level of depth. Of course, we can't judge yet, neither version of the game is out (and certain control differences, such as the lack of c-stick, may actually make the depth level between the two versions somewhat different).

From what I've seen, the current most complicated technique is the pivot tilt, which isn't saying much for complexity. I like this, as pivot tilting appears to be a technique that is simple to execute, versatile in application, and can increase versatility in ground-based initiations. Dash-dancing was also shown to be present, but very hard to do, if VGBootcamp's 3DS vids are anything to judge by. If its presence is intended, I think the window should be widened (though the footage I saw was on the 3DS, which is a bit harder to joystick-slam than a Gamecube controller), since the apparent window is extremely picky and hard to transition from at best. If it's unintended, we'll have to see how it plays out (whether it's a character trait or an engine trait).

And of course, there's always the chance of patches later to fix things. Who knows, something may end up adding a new technique or making existing ones easier or harder to perform.

 

[Fierce Deku]

This is a great post, every smasher should read this. It's extremely important to know this kind of thing if people are going to understand where others (or themselves even) are coming from with their preferences.

Also I've got to second the shoutout to Sakurai. Smash pulls off high depth with low complexity better than anything I've ever seen. I think it's probably the biggest reason our community has grown to such epic proportions, and has been able to do so as independently as it has.

 

[<π]

This is a great post, every smasher should read this. It's extremely important to know this kind of thing if people are going to understand where others (or themselves even) are coming from with their preferences.

Also I've got to second the shoutout to Sakurai. Smash pulls off high depth with low complexity better than anything I've ever seen. I think it's probably the biggest reason our community has grown to such epic proportions, and has been able to do so as independently as it has.

Thanks man! definitely share it with your friends and subscribe I have more insightful videos planed for the coming weeks.

@ Raijinken
Yeah I KNOW this is going to be a super deep game. I'm so interested in robin in particular. The trade offs with her (cuz my robin is a girl) are so meaningful! "This is my last spell... I HAVE to make it count!" That level of depth even within the character is really cool to me.
Rosalina's trade offs with luma. I KNOW she will have that Ice Climber level damage if she has luma with her. but in exchange for sending luma out she gains a TON of zone control (and puts luma in much more risk). its very awesome character design. something I NEVER would have dreamed up for a smash game. Even after seeing nana running around for 15 years. I already know she is going to be too complex for me to main, but I can't wait to play against high level R&Ls and see the kind of things they can come up with after they put the time in.

I was also a big fan of stale move decay. It REALLY made you think about what moves your were using and why. I can extend my combo with this move... but I REALLY want to kill with it in another 20 percent... is it worth it?
Some characters like fox and falco could spam kill moves because they could just lazer off their decay.
Or with sheik I was always counting how many ftilts I had on my decay list because it determind what I could combo into. ftilt -> usmash was a true combo at certain percentage/decays.

It felt SO rewarding to master that and get kills with it. It looked simple but I always imagined people would be really impressed if they knew all of the work and effort I was putting in to get those combos.

 

[Raijinken]

Thanks man! definitely share it with your friends and subscribe I have more insightful videos planed for the coming weeks.

@ Raijinken
Yeah I KNOW this is going to be a super deep game. I'm so interested in robin in particular. The trade offs with her (cuz my robin is a girl) are so meaningful! "This is my last spell... I HAVE to make it count!" That level of depth even within the character is really cool to me.

On that note, I'm really wondering if/how the regeneration of tomes/sword will work, and if there even will be a visual indicator. If there is no indicator, it will be very important to keep track of and allow for error when interrupted trying to cast.

Also interested to find out if regeneration is passive (so, it recharges when not in use) or if it only regenerates after breaking. Thus, if I sit at 1 charge for a few minutes, will I restore to 5, or will I have to break the tome to get a new one? They both bring about different strategies. If it charges gradually, it's like a variant of stale moves to encourage diversifying your attacks. If they recharge after breaking, it could become tactical to break the extra casts when the fighting is low so that it'll be ready when it's needed. Whether or not the charges are restored upon respawn is a similarly interesting train of thought.

 

[Turokman5896]

This is a great post, every smasher should read this. It's extremely important to know this kind of thing if people are going to understand where others (or themselves even) are coming from with their preferences.

Also I've got to second the shoutout to Sakurai. Smash pulls off high depth with low complexity better than anything I've ever seen. I think it's probably the biggest reason our community has grown to such epic proportions, and has been able to do so as independently as it has.

Yea, I think people here forget how simple smash is. Ssf4 has complex inputs, many different normals, difficult linking, multiple hidden functions (ex focus canceling), and a focus on frame data and matchup memorization. Smash bros brawl has none of this. However, it still has depth and excitement, despite its vast simplicity. If anything, smash 4 looks to expand on this concept with its vast character play style selection. Honestly, we don't need difficult inputs or a "hidden shifter." We need more variety in playstlyes to keep the mid games and matchups fresh.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Game will be fine with depth.

It's a lot more improved from Brawl on things that needed to be fixed.

Brawl players will like it. Might even appeal to other non Brawl players but that is a wait and see thing.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

What I like most about Smash 4 so far is how just about all the characters seem to fight completely differently from one another. It's not just 'he who is fastest wins every time" like Melee often seems to boil down to. In particular, Bowser is so heavy now that it can actually make him difficult for weaker, quicker characters to combo as he just casually shrugs off their attacks. (It looks similar to using hacks to end up at negative damage percentages in Brawl. You actually end up taking reduced flinching due to having such a low percent.) He can play a punish game that other characters can't by forcing the opponent to go for their riskier options, as their otherwise "safe" and quick attacks just don't work on him.

 

[LancerStaff]

Welcome

So you really want to make competitive players to look bad, then. Not entirely sure how that'd help a competitive SSB64 player like yourself, but I'll make sure that others doing what you do understand the effects it has.

As many threads as you've seen me in, you'd still go so far as to say "Unless you want people think all Melee players are like this, which I am seriously believing at this point"?
You should know by now there are a myriad of level-headed players that just don't enjoy Brawl because of its pacing and general system of balancing aggressive and defensive play.
I play rushdown in both Brawl and Melee, but the only things that really upset me about Brawl were the inability to cancel dash with crouch and momentum as a whole being pretty much discarded; I really don't see the point of the latter, but I play the game anyway because there are definitely aspects of it that I appreciate.

I know. But does the average person? No. And does it justify the whining? Absolutely not. Like I said, I don't want people reversing the progress Nintendo has made for us in getting acceptance. Every time somebody bashes Brawl or SSB4 it slightly undoes that progress. The community will have to actively fix what others are breaking to keep us where we are, much less make progress.