<3 Depth Versus Complexity in Smash 4

[otter]

I fail to see the current era as a reason to disregard a personal code of honor, but others clearly disagree.

Either way, I think the spectator aspect of competitive Smash would be a great topic, as one need not be a competitive player necessarily to enjoy spectating.

its not a personal code if you actively mock players for breaking it. plus, your personal code of honor is the literal definition of scrubbery.

I honestly enjoy camping, especially if it gets a reaction from my opponent.

 

[dansal]

Runaway as a tactic is one reason i'd like to see some sort of king-of-the-hill style mode (or something similar) put into the game to allow slower and/or less mobile characters to punish more mobile characters for stalling. Something to act as an alternate victory condition alongside the normal stock/score goal.

something along the lines of:

A.) stand on the point to capture it, first player/team to hold the point for 3-4 minutes wins the match (TF2-style)

B.) stand on the point to recover damage over time. If already at 0% then gain +1 stock and 300% damage ('rollover' to a new stock) and resume the HoT.

C.) items start spawning on the point if you stand on it long enough, maybe even gain a final smash given a long enough time?


One thing I have to say though is I highly disagree with the "playing with honor" posts, one should always Play to Win. If that results in degenerate gameplay then that is no fault of the player, that is solely the game designer's fault for allowing it to happen within the rules of the game.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I need to be honest I sort of loathe "hype" speech commentating, just screaming and raising the voice to excite everyone, but that's the crowd pleaser.

After only reading the first page I've read this same statement reworded time and time again.

If you're suggesting that competitive Melee is all tech skill then you couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the new-school-tech-heavy-scrubs have gotten wrecked time and time again by top players who have superior mindgames and reads. Beyond a beginner intermediate competitive level, Melee is so much more than "speed and reflexes".

I'm not suggesting that Melee is all tech skill.

Of course I and others of the same opinion recognize the importance of mind games, if that's what you think we're trying to say you're missing the point.

It's more rather that I believe tech skill should be less important toward your success in competitive play. This is Smash after all, Sakurai has said himself (as a director/developer of every entry in the franchise) that he recognizes Melee as the exception, not the norm.

It's probably a good idea for you to start accepting that.

 

[Killimano23]

I think it's incredibly stupid to say that the winner of matches should be determined less by skill

 

[dansal]

Less by execution skill. There are skills that smash tests other than execution.

edit: Please stop using "skill" to refer to just execution and muscle memory.

 

[HeavyLobster]

I think it's incredibly stupid to say that the winner of matches should be determined less by skill

The argument isn't that the winner shouldn't be determined less by skill, just less by tech skill as opposed to other kinds of skill like mindgames. Melee rewards both kinds of skill, though you'll at least need to be passable on both fronts to make it. Brawl heavily emphasizes reads, precise spacing and mindgames, but the level of tech skill required to be successful in Brawl is significantly lower. Some is still needed, and technical players can still choose highly technical characters like Ice Climbers, but it's not as important as in Melee. All Smash games reward both kinds of skill to some extent, though how much relative emphasis should be placed on each is debatable.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

The argument isn't that the winner shouldn't be determined less by skill, just less by tech skill as opposed to other kinds of skill like mindgames. Melee rewards both kinds of skill, though you'll at least need to be passable on both fronts to make it. Brawl heavily emphasizes reads, precise spacing and mindgames, but the level of tech skill required to be successful in Brawl is significantly lower. Some is still needed, and technical players can still choose highly technical characters like Ice Climbers, but it's not as important as in Melee. All Smash games reward both kinds of skill to some extent, though how much relative emphasis should be placed on each is debatable.

Exactly.

It essentially is the debate here, lol.

I'm okay with not going all the way to Brawl. I l'd like a decent middle ground where mind games : tech skill are at either a 50:50 or a 60:40, as opposed to Melee's 30:70 or Brawl's 80:20, respectively.

It's a good thing that's exactly what we seem to be getting.

 

[Killimano23]

Less by execution skill. There are skills that smash tests other than execution.

edit: Please stop using "skill" to refer to just execution and muscle memory.

Melee rewards both tech skill and mind-games to a very high degree. There is no reason that smash shouldn't have a very high skill cap in both of these areas. If I am a casual player who does not like to play that way, well then I'll play with my friends, I won't learn the advanced skills, and I really won't pay it much attention. However, if i'm a competitive player it then opens up the game for me to do much more then just mind-gaming opponents. It requires much more skill to play at a high tech skill AS WELL as balance that with mind-gaming through the fast-paced game play.

And to say that execution and muscle memory is not real skill is extremely close-minded and just incorrect. If I'm a very good piano player should I not be considered skillful even if basically all of piano is muscle memory and execution? Strategy is only one aspect of smash and many other games. Tech and practice is the other half. To truly be one of the best players you can't just say the other is dumb and ignore it, you have to master both.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

Camping can be exciting. To me it only is, if there is a level of tenseness and a clear goal. If someone is camping for the sheer sake of camping, that's boring. If someone is camping because they're trying to pull something off (like a "Chudat") and it could theoretically happen at any point then it places thoughts of "will they or won't they?" in my mind. That's interesting and engaging.

Speaking of Chu, having good commentators can help as well. I know that EE knows how to make Chu camping absolutely hilarious.

 

[Raijinken]

And to say that execution and muscle memory is not real skill is extremely close-minded and just incorrect. If I'm a very good piano player should I not be considered skillful even if basically all of piano is muscle memory and execution? Strategy is only one aspect of smash and many other games. Tech and practice is the other half. To truly be one of the best players you can't just say the other is dumb and ignore it, you have to master both.

However, setting skill requirements arbitrarily high makes competition inaccessible (whether people want it to be that niche or not). Things like that are why Dota is even harder to play than League (though the majority who try and learn it feel it's more rewarding over all), and consequently has a harsher newcomer experience that frequently results in people quitting outright instead of improving.

 

[Killimano23]

However, setting skill requirements arbitrarily high makes competition inaccessible (whether people want it to be that niche or not). Things like that are why Dota is even harder to play than League (though the majority who try and learn it feel it's more rewarding over all), and consequently has a harsher newcomer experience that frequently results in people quitting outright instead of improving.

Smash has and always will have a large casual fanbase that won't really care about the high level skill. And I don't think that lowering the amount of skill required to play a game is the correct way to get people into a competitive sport. Melee has a high skill cap and that's the reason a lot of people are drawn to it over brawl. Whereas Brawl you can become comparatively better without as much practice (although admittedly still a lot). The main problem is that Melee has been out so long that if I wanted to get into it now i'll be going up against tons of people who have already mastered the game and I will get wrecked. In a game like league there is a program that puts me against people at my skill level and I can gradually increase in skill without ever feeling like i'm nowhere near the top. This is a system that can't really work in a game like smash because you can't really split tournaments into various skill levels. Removing the difficulty and the practice serves to do nothing more then reward those who don't really want to try hard to be good. Those people won't succeed and it's just do to a lack of drive to accomplish the most they can.

Simply put, smash is the type of game that will reward you if you practice a lot and try hard. Those people that quit are just the type of people who shouldn't be playing it anyways, as they want to rush to being the best without working their way there.

 

[Raijinken]

Smash has and always will have a large casual fanbase that won't really care about the high level skill. And I don't think that lowering the amount of skill required to play a game is the correct way to get people into a competitive sport. Melee has a high skill cap and that's the reason a lot of people are drawn to it over brawl. Whereas Brawl you can become comparatively better without as much practice (although admittedly still a lot). The main problem is that Melee has been out so long that if I wanted to get into it now i'll be going up against tons of people who have already mastered the game and I will get wrecked. In a game like league there is a program that puts me against people at my skill level and I can gradually increase in skill without ever feeling like i'm nowhere near the top. This is a system that can't really work in a game like smash because you can't really split tournaments into various skill levels. Removing the difficulty and the practice serves to do nothing more then reward those who don't really want to try hard to be good. Those people won't succeed and it's just do to a lack of drive to accomplish the most they can.

Simply put, smash is the type of game that will reward you if you practice a lot and try hard. Those people that quit are just the type of people who shouldn't be playing it anyways, as they want to rush to being the best without working their way there.

Matchmaking aside (which is notoriously iffy especially in team games like that), those are all good points.

That said, like you mentioned, it can be extremely difficult to make one's way into the pro Melee scene (for instance) due to its skill demands. Some people's lifestyles simply don't facilitate being able to put that much time into a single game (full time jobs, family, school, and travel ability are some reasons that are all valid). While I do believe a level of technical skill should be rewarded, I don't think the level of technique Brawl had was too low (the competitive issues rather arose from balance and gameplay choices, not the lack of mechanics), rather, as someone else said, it is easy to play Brawl frequently (but not so much as if it were a career) and still feel like you were constantly improving. Putting Melee-level barriers has (certainly in my friend circle, and I've seen others say it here on the boards) made people feel like no matter the effort, their improvement is not notable or significant.

It's a sort of meta reward system that, structured wrongly (whether deliberately or otherwise) can be more likely to turn people off to continuing their attempts at improving past their level of play. Thus, even if the technical barrier for competition is fairly high, it is helpful for that barrier to be able to be tackled in distinct layers that each add an attainable sense of accomplishment. While it is nigh-impossible to implement a skill-based tournament in Smash (with regards to ceilings, not floors), I feel like the skill disparity should be more along the lines of:
"I am a decent player. I have mastered shielding, dodging, and counterattacking from shield. I can perform reasonably in tournaments, but would perform better if I, a Link player, could at least Glide Toss fairly consistently. After that, I can work on DACUS and then learn the matchups. I should be at least able to place a bit better the next time I compete if I can improve my recovery with some aerial glide tossing."

instead of:
"I am a decent player. I have mastered shielding, dodging, and counterattacking from shield. However, I cannot hope to compete in tournaments, because I can neither L-cancel, wavedash, nor dash dance, and must in many cases do all of these in quick succession. While I've been working on wavedashing, that alone doesn't improve my chances, as I can't use it in conjunction with the other necessary techniques. Once I know all of that, maybe I'll have time to learn matchups. I guess I can compete in this next tournament, but the odds that I'll make it past round one are slim."

Of course, the first is rather idealized, and the second is exaggerated, but I feel like a technical skill curve should be a series of ramps with steps every so often, rather than taller steps with larger plateaus.

 

[HeavyLobster]

Exactly.

It essentially is the debate here, lol.

I'm okay with not going all the way to Brawl. I l'd like a decent middle ground where mind games : tech skill are at either a 50:50 or a 60:40, as opposed to Melee's 30:70 or Brawl's 80:20, respectively.

It's a good thing that's exactly what we seem to be getting.

Melee actually is closer to 40:60 to 50:50. Characters like Jigglypuff aren't really super technical, though you'll still need to master l-cancelling and play smart to win. You could honestly make it the 60:40 ratio simply by making l-cancelling automatic and the wavedashing input simpler. It's not unusual for less technically skilled players to have an exaggerated view of the relative importance of tech skill to smart play in Melee/PM because it's the difference between them and pros that they notice the most. (It certainly used to be true for me) As for Smash 4, it's impossible to tell for sure just how technical it is right now, but it appears that there's a bit more nuance involved in Smash 4's movement than Brawl's. I suspect it's being designed similar to Brawl in that the universal tech skill barrier is intended to be relatively low, if somewhat higher than Brawl's, and most of the more difficult AT's will be character specific and often situational.

 

[Raijinken]

and most of the more difficult AT's will be character specific and often situational.

If that's the case for most advanced techs, I'd call that a successful way to add technique to the game without making the skill floor too high. Not only does it help players narrow down what they have to learn (from past games, a Marth player has no use for learning Double Jump Canceling, as Marth can't use it at all, for instance), but it also can allow for characters lacking in one area to make up for it elsewhere. Bowser's wavedash (and general everything) was miserable in Melee, but if he had a similarly powerful (but Bowser-specific) technique to gain an edge when played well, that could help keep the meta from primarily favoring characters with good specs on a particular technique, and open it more to direct character skill and knowledge (for instance, letting Bowser chase with Bowser Bomb in PM by making the move cancelable).

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Melee actually is closer to 40:60 to 50:50. Characters like Jigglypuff aren't really super technical, though you'll still need to master l-cancelling and play smart to win. You could honestly make it the 60:40 ratio simply by making l-cancelling automatic and the wavedashing input simpler. It's not unusual for less technically skilled players to have an exaggerated view of the relative importance of tech skill to smart play in Melee/PM because it's the difference between them and pros that they notice the most. (It certainly used to be true for me) As for Smash 4, it's impossible to tell for sure just how technical it is right now, but it appears that there's a bit more nuance involved in Smash 4's movement than Brawl's. I suspect it's being designed similar to Brawl in that the universal tech skill barrier is intended to be relatively low, if somewhat higher than Brawl's, and most of the more difficult AT's will be character specific and often situational.

Well of course making the wavedashing input simpler and L-cancelling automatic would make the game much more mindgame-focused. Heck, I'd play that! I'd still be annoyed by the insane falling speeds that mean that one mistimed aerial over the edge = quick death if your name isn't Jigglypuff, Samus, or Mewtwo (and by the lack of any sort of ledge auto-snapping whatsoever meaning that if your character's hurtbox misses the ledge by so much as an in-game inch you die), but other than that it'd be great.

 

[Killimano23]

I guess in the end it essentially comes down to what we already knew. Melee is much better for competitive players while Brawl is much better for getting people into the competitive scene and making them feel like they compete. Really we can just hope Smash 4 can have a playstyle that can ease people into the higher level more while still maintaining potential for a high skill cap

 

[Renji64]

Brawl doesn't feel rewarding. Melee at least gives you something to work to you have so much options how to play and control your character. Brawl is pretty much standing around waiting for a read and that is about it.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Brawl doesn't feel rewarding. Melee at least gives you something to work to you have so much options how to play and control your character. Brawl is pretty much standing around waiting for a read and that is about it.

I think you're talking about Meta Knight dittos. Other matchups tend to be significantly more interesting to watch.

 

[<π]

I guess in the end it essentially comes down to what we already knew. Melee is much better for competitive players while Brawl is much better for getting people into the competitive scene and making them feel like they compete. Really we can just hope Smash 4 can have a playstyle that can ease people into the higher level more while still maintaining potential for a high skill cap

I'm on my phone so bare with me...

Melee being a better competitive game is all subjecture and opinion. Does it do some things better than brawl. But saying it is a better competitive game is like saying it is a better game in general.
Which game is better for speed runs? Metroid prime or super metroid?
Which fruit is better? Apples or bananas?
Even if there is a popular opinion an apple is just as much of a fruit as an orange, just like brawl is just as much a competitive game as melee. You are either competing or you aren't.

Melee has more attendants: True
Melee gets more views on stream: True
Melee is more exciting to watch: opinion
Melee requires "more skill": opinion.

We need to get past this logic that melee is a competitive game and brawl is a casual one. These facts do not exclude one another. Both games fall into both catagories.

The melee community worked hard to see their 12 year old game become relevant again.
When was the last time you saw the brawl community come together for anything. 1 stock vs 2 stock vs 3 stock. Mk ban a no ban. Legal stages.... And the lit goes on.

Melee isn't "a better game" but it does have A more focused community. And that shows in the things the community accomplished.

Brawl had the potential to be just as big as melee is now. Their community dropped the ball; melee picked it up and ran.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Melee actually is closer to 40:60 to 50:50. Characters like Jigglypuff aren't really super technical, though you'll still need to master l-cancelling and play smart to win. You could honestly make it the 60:40 ratio simply by making l-cancelling automatic and the wavedashing input simpler. It's not unusual for less technically skilled players to have an exaggerated view of the relative importance of tech skill to smart play in Melee/PM because it's the difference between them and pros that they notice the most. (It certainly used to be true for me) As for Smash 4, it's impossible to tell for sure just how technical it is right now, but it appears that there's a bit more nuance involved in Smash 4's movement than Brawl's. I suspect it's being designed similar to Brawl in that the universal tech skill barrier is intended to be relatively low, if somewhat higher than Brawl's, and most of the more difficult AT's will be character specific and often situational.

Disagree.

Mastery of l-cancelling, wave dashing, and other advanced techniques character specific and not are absolutely a necessity in Melee in order to not get 2-4 stocked. This makes technical mastery a priority over mind games. Certainly Melee requires mind games too, but you can only even work on those mind games against experienced players until after you've got a fundamental understanding of how to execute and perform ATs consistently.

Let me make this clear. Removing ATs does remove depth. It most certainly does. Nobody can argue that.

The proposition however is that it is a loss of depth that is overall a positive movement in the long running for the series and it's potential growing scene on the release of Smash 4.

In any case, Melee is anything but forgiving to those who cannot properly utilize the technical aspects of the game, especially against experienced players, which is why it overbalances mind games. Conversely, Brawls ratio isn't very favorable to me either.

That's why I'm excited for Smash 4.

 

[shapular]

Brawl doesn't feel rewarding. Melee at least gives you something to work to you have so much options how to play and control your character. Brawl is pretty much standing around waiting for a read and that is about it.

"Melee is pretty much running in mindlessly and spamming unpunishable aerial approaches and then comboing the rest of their stock off while they can't do anything."

See how I can generalize Melee too? You just don't understand Brawl. It's not standing around waiting for a read. If that was the optimal strategy then both players would just stand there and nothing would happen. I dare you to find me a match like that. Brawl is all about constant, minute adjusting of spacing, while looking for the smallest openings to land an attack. By the way, Brawl has its own control options that Melee doesn't have. Melee has wavedashing and dash dancing; Brawl has RAR, pivot grabs, DACUS, and glide tossing. Brawl's are more situational in general, but they still offer more control than Melee at times. For instance, say in Melee I knock my opponent off the stage from the middle and want to run to the edge and edgehog them. Melee doesn't have a pivot mechanic, so unless I'm one of a few characters then Melee's mechanics are going to slow me down trying to grab the ledge. In Brawl, I just run off, fastfall, hold back, and grab the ledge (with proper timing, of course, since Brawl's edgehogging is actually relatively difficult unlike Melee's). In PM, I run toward the ledge, pivot jump, and either grab the ledge from my jump or wavedash back to grab the ledge.

I think Melee doesn't feel rewarding when you get beat by someone who you know you're a smarter player than, just because they can use a fast spacie. And fyi, I've practiced Melee enough to the point to where I can beat most of the people I should beat. I have a fairly good Jigglypuff and a decent, non-technical but patient Falco, but I get beat pretty badly whenever I have to play a spacie who can run circles around me. It's frustrating and makes me feel like I'd rather play against a Meta Knight.

So, you see, whether you think a game is rewarding or not or whether you like the playstyle is all a matter of bias. I think both games are great, but Melee is harder to get into competitively, which makes it feel less worth practicing for me. That doesn't mean Brawl takes less skill either. Good Brawl players will still bop the inferior ones.

 

[<π]

@Zipzo
removing ATs doesn't always remove depth... it can but not always. Removing L-canceling for example does nothing to remove depth as it is ALWAYS the best option.

BTW:
I'm putting my skype info into my profile status if anyone wants to chat smash with me while I paint.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

@Zipzo
removing ATs doesn't always remove depth... it can but not always. Removing L-canceling for example does nothing to remove depth as it is ALWAYS the best option.

BTW:
I'm putting my skype info into my profile status if anyone wants to chat smash with me while I paint.

L-cancelling is a different subject. There are competitive players who will argue that l-cancelling does provide depth. That's not really the point in the end. There are other topics for us to argue about l-cancelling (that we've rehashed a million times).

 

[Road Death Wheel]

@Zipzo
removing ATs doesn't always remove depth... it can but not always. Removing L-canceling for example does nothing to remove depth as it is ALWAYS the best option.

BTW:
I'm putting my skype info into my profile status if anyone wants to chat smash with me while I paint.

Thats because l cancelling did not add any depth to begin with.

 

[DairunCates]

So, just want to say that I've been following this thread, and I find most of the discussion here pretty fascinating. I actually have a Masters in Game Design. So, some of this conversation isn't just relevant to fighting games, but game design in general (especially the bits about accessibility of higher level play and the skill ceilings that can be applied to games). Still, it's very interesting to see how other people approach the issue on both extremes, and it actually explains a lot about different player types.

I'd add more to the conversation, but most of my actual opinions on the issue have pretty much been parroted already.

So yeah. Just wanted to say, great thread, guys.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

So, just want to say that I've been following this thread, and I find most of the discussion here pretty fascinating. I actually have a Masters in Game Design. So, some of this conversation isn't just relevant to fighting games, but game design in general (especially the bits about accessibility of higher level play and the skill ceilings that can be applied to games). Still, it's very interesting to see how other people approach the issue on both extremes, and it actually explains a lot about different player types.

I'd add more to the conversation, but most of my actual opinions on the issue have pretty much been parroted already.

So yeah. Just wanted to say, great thread, guys.

WHAT? You have an opinion? Spit it out! I must know weather to buy you a drink or stab you with a pitch fork.
*edit* YAY 700 post :D

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

WHAT? You have an opinion? Spit it out! I must know weather to buy you a drink or stab you with a pitch fork.
*edit* YAY 700 post :D

I get this was a joke, but with the way the Smash community is often viewed, this sort of post is a little unwholesome. We really don't need to be seen as any more touchy than we already are.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

I get this was a joke, but with the way the Smash community is often viewed, this sort of post is a little unwholesome. We really don't need to be seen as any more touchy than we already are.

Lol sorry you feel that way.(at least you knew it was a joke)
But that joke was more catered to internet forums in general. Though the smash community is quite known for a rather, "adamant" stature.
*edit* Did you get a chuckle out of it though.

 

[κomıc]

I had to read what you getting at in this video because I was SO distracted and inspired by the art you were drawing on screen. Like seriously, watching your video there was a time for like a few seconds where you didn't say a word... I was too focused haha.

But your points are spot on and the way you presented it in the least hostile way possible that it should make sense to those who disagree with those sentiments I'd hope.

Honestly, I just want my Lady Palutena. Melee doesn't have my Goddess

 

[Killimano23]

Melee has more attendants: True
Melee gets more views on stream: True
Melee is more exciting to watch: opinion
Melee requires "more skill": opinion.

It isn't an opinion which game requires more skill. Skill can easily be measured by how difficult it is to learn the techniques and practice and which requires more effort and focus to master. But arguing for either one being more skillful angers too many people to get everyone to agree which one that is.

 

[shapular]

It isn't an opinion which game requires more skill. Skill can easily be measured by how difficult it is to learn the techniques and practice and which requires more effort and focus to master. But arguing for either one being more skillful angers too many people to get everyone to agree which one that is.

You're just talking about tech skill. There's a lot more than that. Brawl requires more reading skill because your opponent has more options after getting hit, and more consistent spacing since a lot more things are unsafe on block or even on hit. Edgeguarding is harder, and there's probably more stuff too. Smash 4 could end up requiring more skill than Brawl or Melee if it's as balanced as it seems, just because it would take a lot more matchup knowledge to be successful.

 

[<π]

How do you measure how difficult it is to learn something or how much focus an action takes?

You can measure practice times, but those vary wildly from person to person. I guarantee you I've put more time, energy and effort into my technical brawl play than a lot of high level players have put into melee. Does that speak negatively for melee's tech skill levels?

What skill are you measuring though? because there are lots...

Technical skill - accurately pushing a bunch of buttons to get a desired effect.
Zoning - Finding positions where your opponent can't comfortably approach
Spacing - Using moves so that on block or wiff they can't be punished
Mind Gamez - Using high risk plays in situations that don't make sense...
Reading - Know what you opponent will do.
Baiting - Faking openings in your defenses so you opponent will expose a weakness of their own

Or game specific stuff like
edge gaurding - Killing an opponent while they are off stage trying to recover
Juggleing - hitting your opponent so that they can't get to the ground.
Stalling - Evading you opponent without trying to attack them
camping - finding an advantageous position and forcing your opponent to come to you.

Both games take a lot of skill., but the skills that are valued in each game and by each player change so much depending on you talk to that "skill" as a blanket term is really hard to pin down. And even once you do, actually finding a metric to measure them become difficult.

 

[DairunCates]

Lol sorry you feel that way.(at least you knew it was a joke)
But that joke was more catered to internet forums in general. Though the smash community is quite known for a rather, "adamant" stature.
*edit* Did you get a chuckle out of it though.

Nah. It's perfectly fine. I did get a chuckle out of it, actually.

For this entire rant, assume I'm talking about tech skill when I say skill. I know that reading and psychological skill are also important, but that's not what I'm discussing here.

I'm on the side of things where I think a lower skill floor for a competitive game is not only healthy for its sales but healthy for its community as well. Online gaming communities thrive on fresh blood coming in and mixing things up. This not only ensures there's enough people at tournaments in fighting games to not only have a tournament but allow some players to consistently hit near the top, but ensures there's enough people to play against period. If a player that puts in a decent chunk of time towards a game can at least feel like they're at least some form of threat or competent, they'll stick around even if they lose a lot. This not only keeps the community lively, but gives professional players more people to play against so they can have more data and get even better. You never know when some random newbie is gonna try something so bizarre that it actually works and leads to a new technique.

I feel this is the biggest short-coming with Melee as a professional game (and a hurdle it surpassed purely through the insane passion of its community). The base level of entry for basic skill in competitive melee is absolutely ridiculous. You can have played 200 hours of Melee and still not have the skill to avoid getting 4-stocked in a serious tournament setting, much less win any matches. There are some techniques that are difficult enough that some players, no matter how hard they practice, will never actually get it down either due to just not having the innate timing or the basic manual dexterity for it. It's hard to build muscle memory if you can't even manage something in the first place. In short, there are people that, with a hundred years of practice, still wouldn't get wavedashing down. I'm not a competitive player by any means, but I still can't either, and I put plenty of hours into melee.

In most games, this would actually kill the game. Overly technical games frequently fall by the way-side despite high critical acclaim from their target audience. It's not just in fighting games either. For every Schmup like Touhou that's highly successful, there's dozens of well-designed ones that fell by the wayside because they lack a tutorial mode or an easy enough difficulty. One of the genius things of Ikaruga and Radiant Silvergun were that you gained continues or stats every time you died so that every player would EVENTUALLY beat the game. The same can't be said for something like oh... THIS.

As cool as that is, almost no one outside of Japan has ever heard of that game because of how patently difficult it is. That's an extreme example, of course, but it still makes the point. Games that want to have large communities either need to be passionate or accessible to keep new people coming in (and preferably both). In a sense, this is also an argument for why having skill based match-making for Smash 4 is an insanely good thing, but that's a discussion for another time.

Point is, someone that's really passionate about a game and put in over a hundred hours into it but is perhaps just not as skilled as other people needs to feel like they can at least give a professional player a warm-up and not just perfected or 4-stocked twice in a row. I've put a decent amount of Street Fighter IV in. I'm, by no means, a professional player, but I feel like I could maybe at least hold my own (not win, but at least do some damage) in the first rounds of a minor tournament. That's honestly just not true with Melee, and practicing with people of a skill level high enough that I could get there is going to mean a lot of lop-sided matches that just aren't fun for most players. When this kind of scenario happens, the player pool stagnates and you just don't get any new blood.

Once again, this hasn't happened to Melee because of how ridiculously passionate the community is, but it's far from the norm, and it's not actually reasonable to expect lightning to strike twice here.

So yeah. I'm highly in support of a lower skill floor for the game. That said, there actually isn't really anything wrong with a much higher skill ceiling. Carl Clover from Blazblue is an interesting example of this (albeit a bit overboard for reasons that'll be obvious in a second). Blazblue is actually a pretty accessible fighting series and it's seen some decent success because of the interesting mechanics they put on their characters. Carl Clover is a puppet character, which means he control a second character as part of his moveset (like Rosalina and Luma). Carl Clover is low tier in the original Blazblue, because most people just can't get used to his playstyle. He's highly technical, his character has a low health bar, and he does little damage. That said, there's like a handful of good Carl players and they are all absolutely insane. These people have put thousands of hours into this character, and they've been rewarded with being allowed to do some absolutely amazing things in the game that, while not game-breaking, are decently potent. Of course, Carl is an extreme example because he's still pretty low tier and Carl players don't win tournaments often, but this year's EVO was actually won by another highly technical character, Litchi (who isn't low tier, but still requires a pretty high level of skill).

There's similar characters in other games. Spencer in Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 isn't played very often because he's somewhat difficult to link his combos for, but when someone like Combofiend is good at them, their comeback potential is insane.

So, I'm not against there being advanced techniques that are circumstantial or individual characters that are highly technical. These don't have nearly as big of an impact on keeping new players out as universal advanced techniques like wavedashing do, and a high skill ceiling is very rewarding to those players that do want to reach insane levels of player skill. Hard to learn characters often suffer from a lot of variability in play level until you master them (since a dropped combo or attack goes from unfortunate to devastating), but you gain flexibility and options and the satisfaction of having more room to improve into.

As such, I'm actually pretty happy with the direction Smash 4 is going. Characters like Rosalina and Robin look VERY technical and there's a much higher variety of playstyles in this one. Similarly, the sheer variety of characters is gonna lead to some interesting match-up potential and might require really serious players to learn 2 or even 3 characters. Either way, I think a really good Rosalina and Luma player will be able to take the game to new levels while a very dedicated casual Bowser will be able to occasionally win a match or take a stock from a professional player. It's a good balance between being accessible to people that are on the fence about becoming competitive without completely removing every chance of highly competitive players getting to expand the game and how its played.

Aaaaand... That's a wall of text. Scary thing is, I could've gone longer.

Anyway, TL;DR. Low skill ceilings nourish healthier and more active communities, but high skill ceilings can still be added into such games to appeal to the hyper competitive players.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Brawl doesn't feel rewarding. Melee at least gives you something to work to you have so much options how to play and control your character. Brawl is pretty much standing around waiting for a read and that is about it.

Being the Cat in 90% of your Match-ups is fun in Brawl right?

totally not promoting what Lucario does in Brawl or that his camping is crap in that game.

 

[Senario]

Being the Cat in 90% of your Match-ups is fun in Brawl right?

totally not promoting what Lucario does in Brawl or that his camping is crap in that game.

Not saying that this isn't evidence but honestly I think Brawl's problems are far more problematic than almost any evidence can support otherwise. A lot of people simply do not find the game fun, sure that is totally subjective opinion, sure you can be mad about it, but the sad thing is when a big chunk of the competitive community doesn't find the game fun it doesn't help the game no matter how much the metagame develops. Plus there are a lot of random factors which no matter how much you try you cannot ignore them. And even then I feel like something such as a long string like the first gif would be based off several errors made by the opponent. It is like watching an insane Marth Juggle on any non spacy character leading to a ken combo at the end. It usually doesn't work on non spacies and much less so on platform stages.

Blazblue 1 was fun, but the problem was the main dominant playstyle was map control, personally the game was still playable but by far is it not as fun as later releases due to how much aggression is rewarded. Even the least skilled player could memorize inputs and do well with a character as they would know so and so link together 100% due to hit and blockstun.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Not saying that this isn't evidence but honestly I think Brawl's problems are far more problematic than almost any evidence can support otherwise. A lot of people simply do not find the game fun, sure that is totally subjective opinion, sure you can be mad about it, but the sad thing is when a big chunk of the competitive community doesn't find the game fun it doesn't help the game no matter how much the metagame develops. Plus there are a lot of random factors which no matter how much you try you cannot ignore them. And even then I feel like something such as a long string like the first gif would be based off several errors made by the opponent. It is like watching an insane Marth Juggle on any non spacy character leading to a ken combo at the end. It usually doesn't work on non spacies and much less so on platform stages.

Blazblue 1 was fun, but the problem was the main dominant playstyle was map control, personally the game was still playable but by far is it not as fun as later releases due to how much aggression is rewarded. Even the least skilled player could memorize inputs and do well with a character as they would know so and so link together 100% due to hit and blockstun.

Would I be wrong to say I agree with you, but still would like to see smash 4 or something be somewhat close to what I liked about Brawl. Still...the game really isn't as good for comp play and I hate to admit that, mostly because when Brawl is played at it's best, it's not always fun to watch if at all.

Trela makes hype happen, that really what got be excited for Brawl Lucario seeing him do upsets and legit combos in the game.

For me personally on game preference.

Brawl>or=Melee>>>P:M>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>64.

For me at least, also the fact I wanna play my favorite smash character again without a mod completely 180ing him and getting me annoy every time I try to play him.

This is why I want a game in the middle, at least what smash 4 is attempting to do and at worst it's not worse than Brawl...no way with what they removed is what a ton of people complained about and even what I agree needed to be removed.

But to be frank, I don't want L-canceling back at all. I don't want the idea of me hitting someone to be unsafe because they crouch cancelled it, yes I main Peach but still I hate this when it happens. I hate how safe a lot of the top tiers in Melee are in terms of being aggressive. I actually like fighting the "OP" people on PM more than Melee tbh even if I like Melee more.

Just my thoughts on this in terms of gameplay, complexity and Depth.

I really liked Brawl a lot because to be quite frank, I felt like I was better than other people from my own mindgames and adaptation. I don't feel that in anything else. but I want it to be more aggressive, if that makes sense.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Not saying that this isn't evidence but honestly I think Brawl's problems are far more problematic than almost any evidence can support otherwise. A lot of people simply do not find the game fun, sure that is totally subjective opinion, sure you can be mad about it, but the sad thing is when a big chunk of the competitive community doesn't find the game fun it doesn't help the game no matter how much the metagame develops. Plus there are a lot of random factors which no matter how much you try you cannot ignore them. And even then I feel like something such as a long string like the first gif would be based off several errors made by the opponent. It is like watching an insane Marth Juggle on any non spacy character leading to a ken combo at the end. It usually doesn't work on non spacies and much less so on platform stages.

Blazblue 1 was fun, but the problem was the main dominant playstyle was map control, personally the game was still playable but by far is it not as fun as later releases due to how much aggression is rewarded. Even the least skilled player could memorize inputs and do well with a character as they would know so and so link together 100% due to hit and blockstun.

Wouldn't a tightly linked combo be more impressive used on an opponent that can "opt" out mid combo than a combo that has a 100% chance of going the whole way through as long as you get a single hit confirm?

MOST Smash combos are reading DI and good follow-ups.

Your argument amounts to simply "people don't find it fun", and we can disprove that statement simply by showing you that people play it in the first place.

There's no tripping in Smash 4, so what other Brawl elements concern you that are "random"?

You basically said "Brawl has a lot of problems" and couldn't name a single one that's relevant to Smash 4.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

So yeah. I'm highly in support of a lower skill floor for the game. That said, there actually isn't really anything wrong with a much higher skill ceiling. Carl Clover from Blazblue is an interesting example of this (albeit a bit overboard for reasons that'll be obvious in a second). Blazblue is actually a pretty accessible fighting series and it's seen some decent success because of the interesting mechanics they put on their characters. Carl Clover is a puppet character, which means he control a second character as part of his moveset (like Rosalina and Luma). Carl Clover is low tier in the original Blazblue, because most people just can't get used to his playstyle. He's highly technical, his character has a low health bar, and he does little damage. That said, there's like a handful of good Carl players and they are all absolutely insane. These people have put thousands of hours into this character, and they've been rewarded with being allowed to do some absolutely amazing things in the game that, while not game-breaking, are decently potent. Of course, Carl is an extreme example because he's still pretty low tier and Carl players don't win tournaments often, but this year's EVO was actually won by another highly technical character, Litchi (who isn't low tier, but still requires a pretty high level of skill).

So, I'm not against there being advanced techniques that are circumstantial or individual characters that are highly technical. These don't have nearly as big of an impact on keeping new players out as universal advanced techniques like wavedashing do, and a high skill ceiling is very rewarding to those players that do want to reach insane levels of player skill. Hard to learn characters often suffer from a lot of variability in play level until you master them (since a dropped combo or attack goes from unfortunate to devastating), but you gain flexibility and options and the satisfaction of having more room to improve into.

These two paragraphs raise a point about complexity that I don't think I've ever posted about on these boards, despite it crossing my mind a few times.

I actually have a problem with characters requiring more technical skill than others.

So, it's all good that those who like helpings of character-specific ATs get their pleasure from such characters. The worry is that for the players who don't really care about how much tech a character has or lean away from ATs, it can influence their decision for their character choice. For example, I remember reading that one of the reasons cited for Meta Knight's temporary ban from competitive Brawl play was his ease of use relative to other characters. If the best character is notably easier to play as than characters below them, it will generally elicit thoughts like "well why would I play X when Y is better AND easier?".

Having reasonable competitive balance doesn't completely resolve this issue either. Because again, if all characters are roughly as good as each other, then it can and likely will turn players away from the more complex characters, thus (perhaps unintentionally) overcentralising the metagame. I believe this is one of the reasons why my local PM scene is filled with Marth and Roy players. "If X is as good as Y who is much harder to play, why would I play Y?"

Possibly to Melee's credit the "best" character in the game, Fox, is far more technically demanding than some other top tier characters like Jigglypuff.

It's for these reasons that, in my opinion, all characters in a game should ideally be as technical as each other. Whether that be hardly technical at all, or extremely technical, is the choice of the developer. I'm fine with characters having unique quirks and abilities, heck I encourage it, but I believe the number of them and the way in which they are performed should not outweigh that of another character.

But I dunno, maybe I just feel this way because I gravitate towards midtiers in Smash and in my old unintentionally-competitive community I was a "low tier hero".

There's no tripping in Smash 4, so what other Brawl elements concern you that are "random"?

Well forced tripping is still in the game, if the E3 demo is any indication. And yes, it's still random. I saw Kirby's Dtilt trip an opponent twice and then not trip them on another occasion.

 

[shapular]

Being the Cat in 90% of your Match-ups is fun in Brawl right?

totally not promoting what Lucario does in Brawl or that his camping is crap in that game.

Dude, what happened to Lee Martin and Trela and the other Lucarios? I haven't seen a Lucario in tournament in forever.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Dude, what happened to Lee Martin and Trela and the other Lucarios? I haven't seen a Lucario in tournament in forever.

They all retired or other issues happened.