After more than 4 months, how is Smash 4 competitively?

[TheMisterManGuy]

Now that both versions of the game has been out for a while, what is the general consensus on Smash 4's competitive play. I heard mixed opinions, some say it's a big improvement over Brawl, some claim it's Brawl 2.0. Also, let's try to judge the game on it's own merrits, I don't want to see any Melee or Project M bias here.

 

[xxEliteAlicexx]

I feel like combos are more fluent and that more characters are viable, it's gotten to the point where I can actually play my favorite character and still kick ass.

 

[Ultrashroomz]

Definitely not on the same level as Melee, but Smash 4 is still more than viable enough for competitive play.

It's a lot better than Brawl, that's for sure.

 

[Sean²]

I think it'll be close to on-par at some point - barring any discoveries of Brawl-like infinites or game-breaking techniques with vanilla Smash 4.

 

[PCHU]

I guess I'm the only one who appreciates Brawl and Melee/PM.

I think Smash 4 is its own thing, but it's hard to say how good it is in comparison.
It depends on who I'm fighting; some matches feel really fast-paced and fun, but some people make me put this game at the bottom of the list because I can't pressure them well enough or catch them when they're running away.
Not to mention I get a little tired of seeing everyone go for the same combos over and over again making me kinda miss when combos were less guaranteed and people tended to have their own little attack strings to "define" them, but the game still has potential.

With some buffs to lower tiers (some high tiers) and maybe some alteration to shield stun, this game can be up there with PM.
Maybe it won't be the same close wars of spacing and aerial pressure I enjoyed from Brawl or the fast-paced intensity of PM/Melee, but it'll be its own cool and fun thing.

 

[GSM_Dren]

Why are we still comparing these games to one another? Smash 4 has an entirely different gameplay engine than Melee/PM and with the introduction of customs, further widen the gap among the games. Each game has its own merits and we should be judging the game solely by itself, not in comparison to games that have been out for several years. Smash 4 is more akin to Brawl, but now with every character showing potential for competitive play. The game is still young, and we will surely see how much the meta will change with each new year.

 

[Kon]

In my opinion, Smash4 is different from what we had before with Smash64, Melee or Brawl.

1) As you can steal the ledge, this has had a huge impact on how you play. It's more important than ever to sometimes go for gimps and this also leads to a strong offstage game.

2) As it looks now, we may have many characters who can compete against the considered high/top tiers. Many characters are viable as it seems. This is still subject to change, but as for now anything can happen.

3) Many characters have now at least good recovery options. This is also important, because it encourages you too to go offstage for a gimp more than before.

4) The rage effect should be listed too. Will always be important for smash4, because without rage, some characters actually have a hard time to kill and with rage, they may have some reliable killoptions.

I like how smash4 is working out so far. I have a lot of fun with the roster and enjoy the playtime. I hope there will be more people putting in some work on so far underrated characters. Of course Diddy is a very strong character, but he is in my opinion not unbeatable.

edit: btw the survey is pretty much "Brawl is bad" opinion. Wouldn't compare the games one with another. More like "I may like the game competitively; will love the game; may dislike the game, will hate the game" This would be more "neutral" as a position than "Better than Melee; better than Brawl".

 

[Saikyoshi]

I like it and thought it had potential, but unfortunately, as of APEX, it's competitively dead.

In case you haven't figured it out, I still haven't forgiven what the Melee fanbase did to ZeRo.

 

[WwwWario]

It's great. I'm one of those that thinks a game doesn't need to have Wave Dashing, L-Canceling and general Melee speed to be competitive. Smash 4 is faster than Brawl, it has better combo potential, and is very balanced. After I've played a LOT these months, reading so much on Smashboards, watching tourneys etc., it looks like no character is below the rest or over the rest (except for *couch* Diddy's Uair *couch*). But seriously, even Ganondorf is on level with the rest this time around. You can finally use whoever you want and know that you can get good with that character and have a good chance competitively. And let's not forget about customs, which opens a WHOLE new world to the scene.

It doesn't have Melee speed, but so what? You must read your opponents and the game has generally a good speed. So, at least after my opinion: Yes, it definitely is competitive.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

It's getting there, I mean, it's not at Melee's level...yet. The thing is, there are all sorts of new ATs to be discovered, new strategies and so on. As of now, it's still in development, but it's not showing any signs of slowing down. If anything, it's growing faster than we've ever seen a Smash game grow before, and I think competitively speaking, that's a great thing!

 

[Deleted member]

I think it's still rather lacking, but still a fun game to play multiplayer with. I feel Melee and Smash 64 are still much better games, but yeah.

 

[PCHU]

It's getting there, I mean, it's not at Melee's level...yet. The thing is, there are all sorts of new ATs to be discovered, new strategies and so on. As of now, it's still in development, but it's not showing any signs of slowing down. If anything, it's growing faster than we've ever seen a Smash game grow before, and I think competitively speaking, that's a great thing!

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but I'm starting to view things differently, and I wonder why people are focused so heavily on new ATs, partially because the ones we've found thus far haven't benefited everyone so much as they've benefited characters that are already decent.
Don't get me wrong, all I used to care about were new ATs because I love pushing buttons between stocks and putting in a bunch of manual work rather than cerebral work (outside of playing as heavies), but I've found that nothing's changing the pace of the game for me and I'm still forced to wait for my opponent to make a bad move; I still can't pressure my opponent like I could in Melee or Brawl, and while that's alright, it'd be nice to have some substance outside of that.
It's like my hurtboxes are always a lot bigger than my hitboxes and the stuff I'd like to use to combo is laggy on startup or cooldown, or flat-out doesn't work effectively because my shorthop is way too high yet not high enough to autocancel, and that's where I feel some lower characters could use buffs.

That being said, I'm glad others are enjoying the game, but I kinda wish it wasn't so defensive, or I wish that I had more options against people who constantly run away from me/camp me/turtle.
I've been playing some Jiggs and she works wonders against roll spammers, but when people wanna start running, I don't have much to make them regret it aside from playing smart and slow.

 

[Yorsh]

Two things i'm pretty sure about :
- Much more balanced, at least no ultra bad characters (The main problem of the bad characters in brawl was a really poor recovery, zelda for exemple was doing ok on the ground, but it's just that once you get hit and fly offstage you can't come back) + Nintendo can patch the game from time to time.
- More interresting edgeguarding, with crazy plays. I'm not a pro of melee and N64, but it looks like it's really hard to come back on the stage. And in brawl, it's not too hard to come back with most characters because people are scared to loose their stock if they fail edgeguarding offstage. In Sm4sh, if you are confident in your tech ability, there is no way you can die edgeguarding offstage, so you risk like 15% from the ennemy upB but you can get a stock.

So I think it can only be better than Brawl, but it's too soon to tell how much better (Brawl was fine imo, just not really exiting to watch).

 

[PCHU]

- More interresting edgeguarding, with crazy plays. I'm not a pro of melee and N64, but it looks like it's really hard to come back on the stage. And in brawl, it's not too hard to come back with most characters because people are scared to loose their stock if they fail edgeguarding offstage. In Sm4sh, if you are confident in your tech ability, there is no way you can die edgeguarding offstage, so you risk like 15% from the ennemy upB but you can get a stock.

So I think it can only be better than Brawl, but it's too soon to tell how much better (Brawl was fine imo, just not really exiting to watch).

I find it ridiculously easy to come back, even against players on my skill level.
Like you said, if you're confident in your tech ability, you can do pretty much anything, but the same goes for the person recovering -- I've turned around edgeguards with hardly any sweat because I can tech.
Even so, you have to put them in a really, really bad position to actually get the KO; most of the time you'll just hit them up and over, giving them even more room to mess around before they have to come back to the stage.
The only characters that have trouble varying their recoveries to evade the edgeguarder are few and far between; many characters have been gifted with great tools to come back to the stage and even fight back (Ganondorf included).

 

[Munomario777]

In a word, it's...
great.

In multiple words, it's fast, fluid, open-ended, more action-packed with edgeguarding, easy to pick up and play, the roster is bigger, better, and more varied than ever, and there's some great competitive stages. Like I said, it's great. Easily my favorite entry in the series, and one that has some great competitive potential.

 

[HeavyMetalSonic]

I don't know if it'll generate the same amount of hype that Melee has, but it's certainly good. Because it's so accessible, a lot of players are jumping on the game. This allows it to build up competitively as the community learns more about the game. But even though it's accessible, it's still so diverse. More and more things are being found about it on a regular basis. I'm definitely enjoying it, and I'm pushing myself a lot more in this game than I am in previous Smash games.

It's not Melee, but that's a good thing, we don't need another Melee, Smash 4 is a great game in itself. Why not have two good games?

 

[Downdraft]

It's great. I'm one of those that thinks a game doesn't need to have Wave Dashing, L-Canceling and general Melee speed to be competitive. Smash 4 is faster than Brawl, it has better combo potential, and is very balanced. After I've played a LOT these months, reading so much on Smashboards, watching tourneys etc., it looks like no character is below the rest or over the rest (except for *couch* Diddy's Uair *couch*). But seriously, even Ganondorf is on level with the rest this time around. You can finally use whoever you want and know that you can get good with that character and have a good chance competitively. And let's not forget about customs, which opens a WHOLE new world to the scene.

It doesn't have Melee speed, but so what? You must read your opponents and the game has generally a good speed. So, at least after my opinion: Yes, it definitely is competitive.

Wavedashing, L-Canceling, and general Melee speed increase one's movement options. Some people enjoy having a greater degree of "control" over their character. You mention that the game has better combo potential, but it didn't take much for that since Brawl's lack of hitstun and hitstun cancelling limited one's ability to combo. Most the Smash 4 combos I've seen don't excite me and seem comprised of the same things like D-throw -> ... or chained U-tilts or U-airs. Essentially, combos in Smash 4 are limited to the extent that they seem lackluster. As far as character viability is concerned, the game does offer more options than Brawl by virtue of having a larger roster and no broken characters, however there are several underwhelming characters that have to work a lot harder for wins or don't have the tools to warrant competitive use at the highest levels, so I wouldn't call the game well balanced. I strongly disagree with the notion that one can finally use whoever they want and know that they have a good shot competitively. From my impression, the game shifts players towards more mobile characters like ZSS, Sheik, Sonic, Captain Falcon, etc. Zelda and Palutena are my favorite characters in Smash 4, but I won't play them competitively because they are not well designed or balanced, and I know that other characters give me a much better shot in the long run. I'm of the opinion that customization doesn't add much to the game.

I think it's still rather lacking, but still a fun game to play multiplayer with. I feel Melee and Smash 64 are still much better games, but yeah.

I completely agree with your first sentence. As a matter of fact, Brawl was also a fun game in multiplayer.
I'd argue that Project M feels like a much better game than either.

 

[DavemanCozy]

>No option for Brawl is the best #praiseTrippingGods

And you say you "don't want to see any Melee or Project M bias here" tsk tsk

 

[Purple_Anteater]

Over all its fun, and a good game, but its the worst competitive smash to date. If Brawl had a more balanced character roster and didn't have tripping I'm convinced Smash 4 would be considered universally "worse than brawl".

I completely agree with your first sentence. As a matter of fact, Brawl was also a fun game in multiplayer.
I'd argue that Project M feels like a much better game than either.

Project M feels great, but weird. There is something about it i can't quite put my finger on that makes it feel so much different from every other smash game. Maybe its the well thought out and balanced roster that Nintendo never intended...

 

[Raijinken]

Having played each game recently, here're my thoughts:

Project M (and Melee) are certainly good, but unless you've got the executional skill to consistantly perform L-cancels/wavedashes/whatever else, they feel really clunky when compared to Smash4. Consequently, as I'm generally not very good at those techniques, I find I prefer Smash 4 at all levels of play. I am especially fond of the lack of infinites when compared to Melee (a trait shared with PM), and the large character roster (exceeding PM's, which I also enjoy more than Melee's). I still find the revised edge mechanics to be the best change ever (aside from removing tripping, of course).

I like 'em all, but I'd definitely personally lean towards Smash4 as the most fun for me.

 

[stancosmos]

Things it has going for it competitively:
- Very well balanced, a lot of viable character choices
- Pretty deep metagame so far, a lot of very difficult to pull off combos
- Functional online should increase the number of top level pros
Things that it's lacking competitively:
- Too defensive, Shields are too hard to break and regen too quick.
- A lot of camping stragies
- Diddy is looking a tad too strong

All things considered, it's my favourite smash game casually and competitively. I can see the top tier being a much larger selection than any previous smash game. Melee is a bit played out for me, by no fault of the game itself, i've just seen too many marth/fox/falco matches, But i think that's more because the metagame has widdled the game down to the absolute best of the best. Brawl i would have enjoyed competitively if not for MK. Smash 4 for me, is the most watchable and playable competitive smash game yet, especially since game mechanics and balancing can still be done.

 

[Downdraft]

Having played each game recently, here're my thoughts:

Project M (and Melee) are certainly good, but unless you've got the executional skill to consistantly perform L-cancels/wavedashes/whatever else, they feel really clunky when compared to Smash4. Consequently, as I'm generally not very good at those techniques, I find I prefer Smash 4 at all levels of play. I am especially fond of the lack of infinites when compared to Melee (a trait shared with PM), and the large character roster (exceeding PM's, which I also enjoy more than Melee's). I still find the revised edge mechanics to be the best change ever (aside from removing tripping, of course).

I like 'em all, but I'd definitely personally lean towards Smash4 as the most fun for me.

So you prefer a weaker execution barrier? L-cancelling and wavedashing aren't the most important aspects of Project M. You could get pretty far without mastering either. If one isn't invested in winning major tournaments or being among the best at their character(s) then one doesn't need to stress Project M AT's. I don't wavedash much or L-cancel, and the game is still enjoyable at my level. Project M and Melee's AT's should not deter low and mid-level players from playing the game. Regarding infinites, could you give me a few examples of infinites in Project M? I don't recall seeing or experiencing any.

In life, I'd generally argue that quality > quantity. Character rosters is one of the areas where that line of thought holds. While Smash 4 has 10 more characters. Project M allows one to choose a minimum of 38/41 and succeed at a high level. I've heard that Jigglypuff, Olimar, and Ice Climbers need some serious work, but other than them I haven't heard major complaints about viability. Contrarily, Smash 4 cannot match that percentage of viable characters and may not even be able to match that total amount. The revised edge mechanics take away edgehogging, but is that really a good thing? Believe it or not, edgehogging is a significant risk. If you mess up or mistime your edgehog, you'll die. There seems to be an understanding that blast zones are farther out in Smash 4, so even if you go offstage, you might not kill the opponent since recoveries are so strong or automatic for many characters. Contrast that with Project M where characters living to 200+% isn't a common occurrence especially when playing on the great selection of small stages like Yoshi's Story, WarioWare, Green Hill Zone, or Fountain of Dreams. Furthermore, recoveries were toned down in 3.5 and there are edgeguarding options that aren't possible in Smash 4.

 

[Raijinken]

So you prefer a weaker execution barrier? L-cancelling and wavedashing aren't the most important aspects of Project M. You could get pretty far without mastering either. If one isn't invested in winning major tournaments or being among the best at their character(s) then one doesn't need to stress Project M AT's. I don't wavedash much or L-cancel, and the game is still enjoyable at my level. Project M and Melee's AT's should not deter low and mid-level players from playing the game. Regarding infinites, could you give me a few examples of infinites in Project M? I don't recall seeing or experiencing any.

In life, I'd generally argue that quality > quantity. Character rosters is one of the areas where that line of thought holds. While Smash 4 has 10 more characters. Project M allows one to choose a minimum of 38/41 and succeed at a high level. I've heard that Jigglypuff, Olimar, and Ice Climbers need some serious work, but other than them I haven't heard major complaints about viability. Contrarily, Smash 4 cannot match that percentage of viable characters and may not even be able to match that total amount. The revised edge mechanics take away edgehogging, but is that really a good thing? Believe it or not, edgehogging is a significant risk. If you mess up or mistime your edgehog, you'll die. There seems to be an understanding that blast zones are farther out in Smash 4, so even if you go offstage, you might not kill the opponent since recoveries are so strong or automatic for many characters. Contrast that with Project M where characters living to 200+% isn't a common occurrence especially when playing on the great selection of small stages like Yoshi's Story, WarioWare, Green Hill Zone, or Fountain of Dreams. Furthermore, recoveries were toned down in 3.5 and there are edgeguarding options that aren't possible in Smash 4.

I apologize for my poor wording, the lack of infinites is an appealing trait PM and Smash4 share.

I've always hated edgehogging, so regardless of its risks or other properties, I see its removal as a benefit, and enjoy the new stage-spiking and other resultant offstage play that results from the rework. Those strong recoveries work both ways, making my offstage play safer. And personally, I liked having the strong recoveries of 3.02PM, as it further differentiated it from the "you're offstage and basically dead" aspect of Melee I don't care for.

And again, I don't argue that there's a lot to like about all of the games at all levels of play. But for me personally, I feel like I can play at a higher level in Smash4 on a larger variety of characters. I still enjoy PM, and Melee, and 64, but if I had to pick one to further my career in (or start my career in, as the case would rather be), I'd pick Smash 4, since it presents the lowest barrier to entry. I'm at the top of my friend circle in at least all but Melee (maybe PM now since another friend has been practicing it more), but the knowledge of what I can't currently do and would need to do consistently to be a valid competitive threat in the others is just not appealing to me. Perhaps if I placed greater stock in (or was better at) advanced techniques and quick gameplay and movement options I would feel otherwise, but none of PM's offerings (besides Roy, Mewtwo for now, and the music customization) really draw me to it over Smash4.

In short, I prefer Smash4 because it's easier to play, and by extension, I'm better at it, and many of PM/Melee's selling points don't appeal strongly to me. And if I'm to compete, I would like to at least stand a chance to recoup the entry costs, so I would indeed rather be a strong competitor. I can play and have fun with friends for free, after all.

 

[Downdraft]

In short, I prefer Smash4 because it's easier to play, and by extension, I'm better at it, and many of PM/Melee's selling points don't appeal strongly to me. And if I'm to compete, I would like to at least stand a chance to recoup the entry costs, so I would indeed rather be a strong competitor. I can play and have fun with friends for free, after all.

I understood your post, but this part really stands out to me. Since Smash 4 has the lowest entry barrier, you do realize that it may be easier for other players like you to excel at the game? Greater accessibility may make the game more fun, but the tradeoff is that it may be much harder to gain separation from other players since the mechanics and techniques are easy. Project M and Melee's difficulty allows people to really distinguish themselves once they become dedicated to their mains. The execution barrier and complexity of Project M and Melee make many players quit or not even try, so while it may be harder to climb the mountain, there is an actual mountain to climb. Smash 4 is more like a hill. The game is simpler and more limited, so it's far more in the head. Despite the Melee and PM's complexity and fast execution, they still require strong mental play. Strong mental play + strong mechanics versus simply strong mental play. Which is more satisfying? From my observation, the mental play in Smash 4 isn't remarkably strong since it is a defensive game where movement and offensive options are kept in check.

 

[Raijinken]

I understood your post, but this part really stands out to me. Since Smash 4 has the lowest entry barrier, you do realize that it may be easier for other players like you to excel at the game? Greater accessibility may make the game more fun, but the tradeoff is that it may be much harder to gain separation from other players since the mechanics and techniques are easy. Project M and Melee's difficulty allows people to really distinguish themselves once they become dedicated to their mains. The execution barrier and complexity of Project M and Melee make many players quit or not even try, so while it may be harder to climb the mountain, there is an actual mountain to climb. Smash 4 is more like a hill. The game is simpler and more limited, so it's far more in the head. Despite the Melee and PM's complexity and fast execution, they still require strong mental play. Strong mental play + strong mechanics versus simply strong mental play. Which is more satisfying? From my observation, the mental play in Smash 4 isn't remarkably strong since it is a defensive game where movement and offensive options are kept in check.

I find that accessibility to be a strong positive trait. More players can play well, which in turn expands the playerbase and likelihood of any given player finding another player of comparable skill (I think of it like a larger matchmaking pool in an online game, since one of my favorites was killed by poor matchmaking divisions between skilled and unskilled players). That's an appealing trait, to me. It also helps that I'm terrible at picking mains (ever since PM, actually), and would rather play a lot of characters that I like well instead of 1-2 characters perfectly.

Satisfaction from mechanics versus mental is yet another thing that largely boils down to player preference. Like I mentioned, my mechanical mastery is rather mediocre, so I'm more satisfied playing a simpler game that I'm more capable of performing to a self-satisfied level in. And again, I'm sure if I was a more mechanically gifted player who'd spent more time learning the techniques and whatnot, I'd probably have a greater appreciation and enjoyment from it. But as I am now, that doesn't appeal to me as much as playing a simpler game that I already feel competent at. I also disagree with remarks about Smash4 being defensive, everything I've seen indicates that it's matchup-based at worst and evenly split otherwise, whereas past games are almost universally offense-biased. With the partial exception of Project M, which is both unofficial and undergoes more frequent changes in balance, that offense bias tends to result in certain playstyles being infeasible over-all. i.e. Robin's bad enough in Smash4 against the top picks, I'd hate to try using him against the unbridled rushdown power in other games.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

I think it's the best Smash game competitively since it takes the best from both worlds, as well as offering us an extremely balanced cast in comparison to the previous entries in the series.

 

[Duck SMASH!]

Way too early to call it.
Wait for Evo with customs on THEN make this thread.

I understood your post, but this part really stands out to me. Since Smash 4 has the lowest entry barrier, you do realize that it may be easier for other players like you to excel at the game? Greater accessibility may make the game more fun, but the tradeoff is that it may be much harder to gain separation from other players since the mechanics and techniques are easy. Project M and Melee's difficulty allows people to really distinguish themselves once they become dedicated to their mains. The execution barrier and complexity of Project M and Melee make many players quit or not even try, so while it may be harder to climb the mountain, there is an actual mountain to climb. Smash 4 is more like a hill. The game is simpler and more limited, so it's far more in the head. Despite the Melee and PM's complexity and fast execution, they still require strong mental play. Strong mental play + strong mechanics versus simply strong mental play. Which is more satisfying? From my observation, the mental play in Smash 4 isn't remarkably strong since it is a defensive game where movement and offensive options are kept in check.

Sure, it looks flashier, but I don't think making the game artificially difficult to pick up for newcomers makes it better as a game. I'm sure that people could do without the crazy inputs you need for Melee if there was a simpler way to pull it off or even if it wasn't possible in the first place. It's also dangerous for players' hands (see Hax as an example)
The main issue is that smash 4 is slower. But if it were just as fast as Melee, I think it would actually be a better smash game, even if it isn't as flashy all the time.
Remember we are evaluating it as a game, not a spectator sport.

 

[SirIanAsh]

Well, Smash 4 is totally getting there... People are discovering more techniques everyday, so one day the game might actually be what we all wanted to see.

 

[Downdraft]

Way too early to call it.
Wait for Evo with customs on THEN make this thread.



Sure, it looks flashier, but I don't think making the game artificially difficult to pick up for newcomers makes it better as a game. I'm sure that people could do without the crazy inputs you need for Melee if there was a simpler way to pull it off or even if it wasn't possible in the first place. It's also dangerous for players' hands (see Hax as an example)
The main issue is that smash 4 is slower. But if it were just as fast as Melee, I think it would actually be a better smash game, even if it isn't as flashy all the time.
Remember we are evaluating it as a game, not a spectator sport.

What do you mean by artificially difficult? Good practice makes one better. Things like jump-cancelled grabs, dash-dancing, and wavedashing are not artificially difficult to pick up. The inputs for those aren't crazy. Speed isn't the only issue with Smash 4 (Brawl); that's a misconception. No aerial momentum preservation. Limited movement options. Laggier. Lack of hitstun. Multiple air dodges. Ridiculous recovery lengths. The list goes on.

I was evaluating the game's merits seeing as to how I'm a player first and a spectator a distant second.

 

[Floati]

The main problem with smash4 is it's way too defensive. That's it in a nutshell. They buffed rolls, buffed spot dodges, buffed air dodges, and buffed counters (I actually think shields aren't too bad in it- maybe a wee bit too fast on the regen, but doable). All while making recoveries better. I love gimping in all smash games- I live for being offstage, and due to air dodges and high-priority up/side b recoveries, edge guarding offstage is much less rewarding than it should be.

I do miss movement options (thank god Peach has some), a tad more hitstun (to reward aggressors and increase combo potential), and preservation of aerial momentum (Why was this ever removed?) as Downdraft stated would help the game.

Honestly though, if they just downgraded the listed defensive options (one air dodge to helpless state would be great <sigh>) this game would be MUCH better in my opinion.

 

[Linq]

Sm4sh has just as much competitive merit as Melee and Project M, however the type of skill required to play it competitively is different. Melee has a huge focus on execution, whereas Sm4sh has a huge focus on the mental aspect of the game. If you feel like your crystallized skill with a controller is what makes a game competitive, Melee is for you. If you feel like your fluid/mental skill is what makes a game competitive, Sm4sh is for you. Both are equally competitive, just for different reasons, which is why you get people that feel so strongly one way or another and completely discredit the other.

 

[Deleted member]

It's going very well, it's faster paced than Brawl, combos are very possible, and it's not very difficult for new players to pick up.

 

[Deleted member]

It's pretty fun. It's not, in my own view anywhere near Melee by any means but, for what it is, it's pretty fun. It's certainly a huge step over Brawl's.

 

[Malkasaur]

Competitively, it's worse than Brawl. I take back everything bad I said about Brawl before Smash 4 came out. Smash 4 is easily the worst Smash game competitively.

 

[PlayerXIII]

Competitively, it's worse than Brawl. I take back everything bad I said about Brawl before Smash 4 came out. Smash 4 is easily the worst Smash game competitively.

Explain your viewpoint or risk yourself being seen as a troll.

I find Smash 4 to be as competitive as Melee/Project M. Now, the thing with the latter two is that they require an high degree of execution. This makes it so it's harder to play and get into competitively than Brawl or Smash 4. This is by no means bad: it caters to a certain niche of players kind of like other more traditional fighting games do. They are fast-paced and fun to watch, that's for sure. Smash 4, on the other hand, is no doubt slower. The execution needed is much less and, as a result of it among other things, it turns into a game about reading your opponent, punishing their habits while avoiding your own or even creating fake habits to condition your opponent. It's a game much easier to get into, leading to a larger player base and, as a result, a more "mainstream" appeal, so to say.

Both are great in their own right, with their pros and cons. Mind vs Fingers. Acessibility vs Complexity. Etc. Etc. They are two sides of the same coin and I enjoy them both - although I must admit I enjoy Smash 4 more.

 

[LunarWingCloud]

The main problem with smash4 is it's way too defensive. That's it in a nutshell. They buffed rolls, buffed spot dodges, buffed air dodges, and buffed counters (I actually think shields aren't too bad in it- maybe a wee bit too fast on the regen, but doable). All while making recoveries better. I love gimping in all smash games- I live for being offstage, and due to air dodges and high-priority up/side b recoveries, edge guarding offstage is much less rewarding than it should be.

I do miss movement options (thank god Peach has some), a tad more hitstun (to reward aggressors and increase combo potential), and preservation of aerial momentum (Why was this ever removed?) as Downdraft stated would help the game.

Honestly though, if they just downgraded the listed defensive options (one air dodge to helpless state would be great <sigh>) this game would be MUCH better in my opinion.

They actually nerfed air dodges from Brawl.

 

[Malkasaur]

Explain your viewpoint or risk yourself being seen as a troll.

I find Smash 4 to be as competitive as Melee/Project M. Now, the thing with the latter two is that they require an high degree of execution. This makes it so it's harder to play and get into competitively than Brawl or Smash 4. This is by no means bad: it caters to a certain niche of players kind of like other more traditional fighting games do. They are fast-paced and fun to watch, that's for sure. Smash 4, on the other hand, is no doubt slower. The execution needed is much less and, as a result of it among other things, it turns into a game about reading your opponent, punishing their habits while avoiding your own or even creating fake habits to condition your opponent. It's a game much easier to get into, leading to a larger player base and, as a result, a more "mainstream" appeal, so to say.

Both are great in their own right, with their pros and cons. Mind vs Fingers. Acessibility vs Complexity. Etc. Etc. They are two sides of the same coin and I enjoy them both - although I must admit I enjoy Smash 4 more.

Alrighty then. Brawl is a better competitive game than Smash 4 because it has stuff to give it depth. Advanced tech makes a big difference. With advanced tech, it creates new options that you have to think about. You can only go so far without tech. There is a LOT more thought that goes into Brawl than Smash 4. Smash 4 requires much less thought than any other Smash game. It rewards bad players with mechanics like ledge trumping and rage, not to mention how many free combos there are.

 

[Munomario777]

Alrighty then. Brawl is a better competitive game than Smash 4 because it has stuff to give it depth. Advanced tech makes a big difference. With advanced tech, it creates new options that you have to think about. You can only go so far without tech. There is a LOT more thought that goes into Brawl than Smash 4. Smash 4 requires much less thought than any other Smash game. It rewards bad players with mechanics like ledge trumping and rage, not to mention how many free combos there are.

Tripping.

Seriously though, both Brawl and Wii U/3DS have depth. Brawl has the ATs going for it, sure, but that's not all that "depth" is. In Smash 4, it's a game about mind games. You're always baiting the opponent, reading their habits, and getting them off your own trail. Brawl has the technical skill, whereas Smash 4 has the mental skill. For this reason I would argue that there is more "thought" put into Smash 4 than in Brawl, at least in that sense. Throw in unmatched character variety, great ease of entry, a focus on action-packed edge guarding, a greater general sense of speed, a fair share of ATs, and custom moves to boot, and I'd say that Smash 4 is miles better, from both a casual and competitive perspective, than Brawl. As I said months ago in this very same thread:

In a word, it's...
great.

 

[Malkasaur]

Tripping.

Seriously though, both Brawl and Wii U/3DS have depth. Brawl has the ATs going for it, sure, but that's not all that "depth" is. In Smash 4, it's a game about mind games. You're always baiting the opponent, reading their habits, and getting them off your own trail. Brawl has the technical skill, whereas Smash 4 has the mental skill. For this reason I would argue that there is more "thought" put into Smash 4 than in Brawl, at least in that sense. Throw in unmatched character variety, great ease of entry, a focus on action-packed edge guarding, a greater general sense of speed, a fair share of ATs, and custom moves to boot, and I'd say that Smash 4 is miles better, from both a casual and competitive perspective, than Brawl. As I said months ago in this very same thread:

No, just, no. Smash 4 isn't about mental skill. I have played and seen so many players who just blindly rush in and try to do a combo they've practiced endlessly. Yes, there is thought required to play, but not much. Brawl was all thought. You couldnt just rush in blindly, do one guarenteed combo, and then run away. Whenever I hear someone say "Smash 4 is all about thinking and mindgames and reading your opponent" it annoys me. What mindgames? What thinking? When are you reading your opponent? All I see are players who's new to Smash that thinks they know what they're doing. The players I see that do well are all from Brawl.

 

[Munomario777]

No, just, no. Smash 4 isn't about mental skill. I have played and seen so many players who just blindly rush in and try to do a combo they've practiced endlessly.

Yes, some people do that. Your point?

Yes, there is thought required to play, but not much. Brawl was all thought. You couldnt just rush in blindly, do one guarenteed combo, and then run away.

Would you like to provide examples of this?

Whenever I hear someone say "Smash 4 is all about thinking and mindgames and reading your opponent" it annoys me. What mindgames? What thinking? When are you reading your opponent?

You're reading your opponent when you try and sense their patterns, and trying to throw them off your own path. That's what reading and mind games are, respectively. Here's a video both explaining reads and showing how they're rather prominent in these new games.

All I see are players who's new to Smash that thinks they know what they're doing. The players I see that do well are all from Brawl.

Then you may want to start looking.