After the SDCC tournament yesterday... I'm having doubts Smash 4 will be a good competitive game.

[Big-Cat]

I won't disagree that the spam of TL's dair and dash attack on every character was pretty bad. I can only presume against the really weak players in the early rounds it was working, and we were seeing these players stuck in the trap of never having learned the new game right and having to win against players who had learned something useful. I'm trying really hard to be charitable about that one, but yeah, TL dair spam was definitely a pretty bad look from that tournament.

My response was a joke. I wasn't expecting a very high level of play SDCC.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

The quicker shield drop does not mean the game will be harmfully defensive. Every other fighting game has no cooldown when it comes to blocking. If Smash 4 or any game becomes harmfully defensive, it will not be because of fast shield drops. It will be other aspects of the game that will bring that about. So far, we have no planking, random tripping, or hitstun cancelling. So far, Smash 4 has fixed some of the key issues with Brawl's design. Seriously, Brawl killed the reputation of defensive play. The way people praise offensive play makes me wonder if they would be happier playing Marvel.

When I was watching the matches, I found nothing really strange in regards to frame data. The main thing is that everyone was spamming roll dodges for movement and playing it like previous games. The SDCC featured a lot of low level play with only Raikou being a decent player. As for Bowser punishing out of shield, the moves he was able to punish were probably unsafe on block to begin with.

While I respect your opinion that shield dropping faster won't be harmfully defensive for Smash 4, I'm not sure why you feel that way. Care to elaborate why you don't find it a problem? Smash and other fighting games are completely different beasts, and the decreased shield stun does have a direct correlate with blockstun in fighting games. I think the only tranditional fighter with a correlation to Smash's shield would be Mortal Kombat's block button but I don't know if there is a "block drop" lag.

And I specifically avoided talking about the matches on purpose. I was going on watching the shields and the speed of punishes. I did sprinkle a bit of sensationalism in the section where I talk about Bowser punishing Sheik, but I put no emphasis on the matches themselves. Day -65 of Smash 4, everyone is equally garbage.

 

[Osric]

I should make a big post later but something I'd like to throw in: Part of our defense viewing, in my opinion, is that Smash works a bit differently than every other fighting game (Or just about) because of movement and other options. I have some friends who *love* watching fighting games yet don't care for Smash, in-which there's nothing wrong with that, but most of it boils down to moving. Defensive play can look a lot more boring than actually playing the game.

I'm not saying for us to drop these arguments but this is something to consider as a variable that I can elaborate a lot more if needed.

I've been lurking for a while now and this has been something that I've wanted to talk about. Hopefully I can mention some of the things you had in mind.

I was reading this thread a while ago and noticed a lot of people comparing smash to other fighters, especially insofar as it pertains to defensive options/spacing/etc. I'll try to briefly outline some problems with doing this:

One of the biggest and most obvious differences between smash and other fighters is that smash does not direct the two characters to face each other. In most other fighters, you move faster going toward your opponent and significantly slower when trying to backstep. So in other fighters, you simply cannot run away. At some point you will be forced to block or space with an attack of your own. In addition there are no platforms (no vertical run away) and there is usually either a hard corner that limits further backstepping (and often gives better combos) or a hard ring out (instant round loss as in soul calibur).

Most other fighters have some sort of "true" mix-up system of high/low or something similar. This means that simply shielding isn't enough to block an attack. The person trying to defend has to react to the aggressor which almost always puts the advantage to the aggressor. You still reward the blocking person if they react correctly, especially if they block an incredibly unsafe move. But rewarding a 50/50 is much more satisfying for both players than rewarding edge-camping or run away tactics.

A lot of people have pointed toward the campy/poke style of street fighter as a way in which defensive play can be a rewarding competitive experience, but it's still incredibly shallow to think that smash would operate in the same way. Poking in neutral in fighting games almost always means using moves that are relatively safe-on-block. This is true in smash as well but the difference is in the pay-off for landing a successful poke. Successful poke in fighting games almost always leads to combos, significant frame advantage (for further mix-ups), or okizeme situations (further mix-ups). It's less about the poke and more about breaking through the defense for further momentum. Since there aren't true high/low mix-ups in smash, the reward for successful poke is either damage (usually very low > slow games > unsatisfying) or combos. For combos you need sufficiently fast physics and long enough hitstun. (Okizeme exists in smash when reading techs but teching away is usually pretty safe...I would like to see more moves that force this honestly).

So the problem with comparing defensive/spacing/poke metagames in other fighters is that these games reward reactive, calculated blocking and not simple keep away tactics. In smash (brawl in particular), there is nothing inherent in the way the game works forcing someone in the lead to face their opponent (besides honor haha). This makes comebacks incredibly difficult and strong early leads almost impossible to surmount. With low speed and low hitstun, the risk of running in and being aggressive rarely outweighs the risk of reading your opponent's aggression with strong defensive options. If both players think this way, then neither player wants to be aggressive. This is usually pretty lame...

Most of this is pretty intuitive to anyone who follows fighting games, but I just wanted to explicitly outline some of the basic problems with trying to compare smash with other fighting games.

One last point I want to make is that this is why I want Smash 4 to be faster and with more combo-potential. A faster game means less time to react to approaches which strengthens smash's psuedo-mix-ups. So while smash doesn't have high/low mixups, it does have mental games (e.g. running up and doing nothing/shielding). More speed strengthens mental games (less time to read/react). There's nothing wrong with poke/spacing/camping in neutral, but once a move lands, most people want to feel a pay-off. It shouldn't be enough to just throw out a jab for 5% damage and return to neutral. Landing poke should at least allow an opportunity for follow-up damage through increased hitstun which rewards the player for successfully breaking the defense. If the defensive player DIs correctly or reads the mind-game-mix-up correctly, then they are rewarded by only taking the poke damage.

In summary: There's nothing inherently wrong with spacing/poking/camping/being generally defensive in competitive fighting games. However, I don't think this is a valuable comparison to make with competitive smash because the latter is simply too different to work in the same way due to the lack of a number of mechanics seen in other fighting games that better reward successful aggression and punish failed defense.

 

[TTTTTsd]

I think all of what you said is why having real hitstun makes it better. The overwhelming defensive option of dodging out of hitstun and regaining momentum is gone, instead the opponent has to suck it up and take the hit. I think that leads to more reward being placed into offensive play which should inspire more of it.

 

[Cassio]

While I respect your opinion that shield dropping faster won't be harmfully defensive for Smash 4, I'm not sure why you feel that way. Care to elaborate why you don't find it a problem?

I actually meant to ask this at some point too. What specific examples are you thinking of in regards to the issues youre stating? Either gameplay scenarios or maybe specific MUs or videos if you have them. One of the bigger issues I had with Hugs post too is that the analysis doesnt match what happens in gameplay.

Watch the first matches of these sets (you can watch the rest too but it doesnt change much)

ADHD vs 9B at SKTAR 3 - Though I only glanced quickly I only see one situation where defensive shielding led to a to decent assist and vs ICs is a MU you would most expect to see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO3nAOLuxIk

ESAM vs Ally at SKTAR 3 - This is the campiest match of the tourney (spoiler that ally lost the set even trying to camp so hard). Again camping came as a result of many things that were not related to shield.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mijuVqioX-4

Part of the reason this criticism suprises me so much is because Ive followed Brawl for a very long time and cant really think of the problems described as issues (there are other things I mightve agreed with).

In summary: There's nothing inherently wrong with spacing/poking/camping/being generally defensive in competitive fighting games. However, I don't think this is a valuable comparison to make with competitive smash because the latter is simply too different to work in the same way due to the lack of a number of mechanics seen in other fighting games that better reward successful aggression and punish failed defense.

I would say thats a good analysis of Fighting Games but the issue has to do with the way people incorrectly portray smash. There was another post earlier in the thread that was like this if you happen to see it. Im sorry your post is very detailed, but this threads been going for a long time so my stamina for detailed responses is lowered.

 

[A2ZOMG]

While I respect your opinion that shield dropping faster won't be harmfully defensive for Smash 4, I'm not sure why you feel that way. Care to elaborate why you don't find it a problem? Smash and other fighting games are completely different beasts, and the decreased shield stun does have a direct correlate with blockstun in fighting games. I think the only tranditional fighter with a correlation to Smash's shield would be Mortal Kombat's block button but I don't know if there is a "block drop" lag.

And I specifically avoided talking about the matches on purpose. I was going on watching the shields and the speed of punishes. I did sprinkle a bit of sensationalism in the section where I talk about Bowser punishing Sheik, but I put no emphasis on the matches themselves. Day -65 of Smash 4, everyone is equally garbage.

Punishes in Smash are really hard to do even factoring that everything is negative on block because aerial spacing exists. Lower shield drop time especially prevents ground based spacing from being really abusive (aside from spammable D-tilts that absolutely shouldn't exist). That's the reason why Marth is "fair" in Brawl as we discussed earlier.

I actually wonder if Perfect Shielding is healthy for Smash. One argument is that it allows reads, but at the same time it also risks invalidating a lot of slower attacks that aren't projectiles which in a way restricts viable character design. I feel perfect blocking mechanics also make slightly more sense in games where attack strings more often are slightly positive on block for a duration.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Now we come to Smash 4. This has the absolute fastest shield drop and lowest shield stun we have ever seen. Running up and shielding is extremely effective. A Bowser player completely shut down a Shiek and a Toon Link because nearly everything they did on his shield could be punished by dropping it and using one of his (compared to the rest of the cast) slow attacks. Bowser was punishing Shiek for too much lag. Let that sink in for a second. Now throw in increased landing lag on aerials... Okay, now add on spotdodging being even better and rolls being faster than ever.

Every single defensive tactic in Smash 4 has been buffed from Brawl. The scales of offense vs defense will very easily shift to defense unless characters have ways of beating shields. With shield breaking being slightly more viable (damaging shields seems easier now with certain attacks), that could add an additional way of dealing with shields. But if a character doesn't have range, a good grab game, speed, decent projectiles, or options of breaking the shield... then they may not be very viable. Even though I think he was a lot of fun when I played him, Villager is a good example of a character like that.

I re-watched these games.

I was watching Bowser punishing Toon Link Dair and dash attacking his shield constantly. Shiek in turn was doing the same if she wasn't running away throwing needles and grenades. I almost never saw them use any move for spacing or just shield pressure.

If they did use aerials on shields and had massive lag, where was this at SDCC, because I'm not at all seeing this in any of the matches played.

 

[Big-Cat]

While I respect your opinion that shield dropping faster won't be harmfully defensive for Smash 4, I'm not sure why you feel that way. Care to elaborate why you don't find it a problem? Smash and other fighting games are completely different beasts, and the decreased shield stun does have a direct correlate with blockstun in fighting games. I think the only tranditional fighter with a correlation to Smash's shield would be Mortal Kombat's block button but I don't know if there is a "block drop" lag.

Virtua Fighter, widely regarded as the deepest fighting game, also has a block button. I've never noticed any time required for the guard to drop or come up even though the animation may suggest this.

The reason I don't find a fast shield drop an issue is because the whole thing lies on frame advantage. If Sheik attacks a shielding Bowser and the move is unsafe, it's unsafe period. If frame advantage is balanced to where pressure isn't dominant or that there aren't abundant OoS options, I think we'll be fine. That's another thing. People keeping wanting so many options on offense without thinking of how unfair that is.

Using Tekken as an additional example, launchers come out at least in 15 frames with certain exceptions. If the vast majority of attacks were -15 on block, then the game would be super defensive as no one would approach as failing to land the hit means you'll get combo'd. However, that has never been an issue.

 

[Johnknight1]

Honestly, defense seems to be generally nerfed, with defensive based punished.
-Grabbing has being nerfed, thanks to the elimination of chain grabs. Chain grabbing was possible to various extents in all 3 previous smash titles.
-The elimination of edge stalling. Edge stalling was possible to various extents in all 3 previous smash titles.
-Running being more of a commitment, and thus, the reward for being defensive while running is marginalized, especially with the running speeds having a less drastic difference between the best and worse characters.

The only defense that is rewarded generally is good timing-centric defense (which can be done via sidestep dodging, air dodging, shielding, rolling, moving, grabbing, clanking attacks, or using an attack with higher priority, good spacing-centric defense (which should always be rewarded, unless it is super campy), shielding well, and obviously grabbing after shielding, as well as other such similar things.

These are all defensive options in previous smash games that worked.

On the flip side, offense is stronger. Pokes are more effective, hard hits now hit harder, smash attacks in general appear more useful, and the new way stale move negations works can compliment moves by either making them effective KO moves or moves that can potentially combo.

Also, there are lagless aerials (like all Z-airs I think), and they are very easy to use and land to setup combos.

Also, combos flow more like 64, but works generally in between (non janky parts of) Melee and Brawl.

With less DI (it's like Marvel vs. Capcom DI, lol), defense not being super janky and easy to abuse, and the removal of air dodging, side stepping, and edge stalling mechanics that quite frankly hinder the game.

===

All this adds up to a scenario that I had hoped for: Good offense mostly beats good defense, Great offense always beats good defense, and Great defense mostly/always beats good offense.

As for what this does gameplay-wise, it forces defense and offense to be smart.

If the offense player in a situation uses merely pokes, the defensive player should be smart enough to use a specific style of defense based on evasions and counter-attack or by shielding and grabbing after shielding to beat it.

If the defensive player in a situation merely relies on shielding, the offensive player should be smart enough to grab the specific defensive player.

In order to win on offense, you have to mix up things. You have to use pokes, strong attacks, fades, fakes, baits, grabs, projectiles, spikes, use proper stage defense tactics and go for foe's weaknesses, aerials, tilts, use proper movements to be unpredictable, and especially combo and KO foes well.

In order to win on defense, you have to mix up things. You have to use proper shielding, great timing, great spacing, air dodge right, side step dodge right, use proper movements to be unpredictable, time your recoveries right, properly counter moves right, use moves with higher priority to cancel offensive moves with lower priority, properly clank moves from time to time, get your defensive grab game going, and especially avoid getting combo'd and KO'd by foes well.

===

Now onto my biggest problem with all Smash 4 demos: People play the game like it's Brawl.

It's not Brawl, it's Smash 4.

People who played Toon Link hurt my brain. In 6 minutes with the character, I was a hundred times better than Westballz was with him, lol.

YOU DON'T USE DOWN AIR!!!! Use nAir, fAir, and ESPECIALLY Z-air!!!

Stop spamming arrows, start using the boomerang sparingly to setup combos. Oh, and don't worry about grabs, either.

Seriously, I found about 3 combos no one else found with Toon Link because I used my previous smash experiences and an open mind to find things that other people couldn't find. I didn't do anything spectacular. I'm not even good at any smash game, quite honestly. I just understand the mechanics of all past smash games (plus Project M), I read up on Smash 4, and I figured out how to apply things such as buffering, lagless landing, the new form of stale move negations in a better and more effective way than most people can.

It's not hard to learn a lot when you're open to learn a lot.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I actually meant to ask this at some point too. What specific examples are you thinking of in regards to the issues youre stating? Either gameplay scenarios or maybe specific MUs or videos if you have them. One of the bigger issues I had with Hugs post too is that the analysis doesnt match what happens in gameplay.

I have none. Mine is based solely on analyzing and pouring hundreds of hours into breaking down Brawl when I was a competitive player. Its difficult to find examples of what I'm talking about because nobody competitively plays characters that have issues with shields. And if they do, they spam attacks that don't have issues vs shields and ignore the rest of their moveset for the most part. Its how the metagame evolved.

If they did use aerials on shields and had massive lag, where was this at SDCC, because I'm not at all seeing this in any of the matches played.

I didn't take too much note myself but I was just going on the general consensus for aerial lag. Everyone, even people that have played the game extensively (like Hugs for example) have issues with intense aerial lag.

Virtua Fighter, widely regarded as the deepest fighting game, also has a block button. I've never noticed any time required for the guard to drop or come up even though the animation may suggest this.

I've heard the same about Virtua Fighter but I unfortunately haven't played the series enough to make a correlation with Smash.

The reason I don't find a fast shield drop an issue is because the whole thing lies on frame advantage. If Sheik attacks a shielding Bowser and the move is unsafe, it's unsafe period. If frame advantage is balanced to where pressure isn't dominant or that there aren't abundant OoS options, I think we'll be fine. That's another thing. People keeping wanting so many options on offense without thinking of how unfair that is.

Using Tekken as an additional example, launchers come out at least in 15 frames with certain exceptions. If the vast majority of attacks were -15 on block, then the game would be super defensive as no one would approach as failing to land the hit means you'll get combo'd. However, that has never been an issue.

Being a fighting game designer myself, I can completely understand what you're talking about for offensive pressure. At the same time, I guess the issue isn't neccesarily shield dropping being too fast but that because of the shield mechanics and decreased blockstun, the fear is that most moves in the game will be severely negative on block. THAT is the gist of the actual issue. Attacks in Smash have a decent amount of lag after them, especially some aerials now.

So this entire thread is about Smash 4's blockstun being too low (blockstun in Smash's formula being shield stun + shield drop time unless using OOS options that bypass drop time) so very little will be safe on block anymore.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Honestly, defense seems to be generally nerfed, with defensive based punished.
-Grabbing has being nerfed, thanks to the elimination of chain grabs. Chain grabbing was possible to various extents in all 3 previous smash titles.

Chain grabs aren't neccessarily eliminated just haven't been discovered if there are any yet. Comboing after grabs may still be possible (see: Luigi's dthrow). And one can argue that grabs are both offensive and defensive in nature so its not necessarily a good thing that grabs are nerfed.

-Running being more of a commitment, and thus, the reward for being defensive while running is marginalized, especially with the running speeds having a less drastic difference between the best and worse characters.

Running being more of a commitment is a nerf to offense not defense. It makes approaching more difficult in the neutral positions. Increased speed is a buff to some things offensively like following up (potentially).

On the flip side, offense is stronger. Pokes are more effective, hard hits now hit harder, smash attacks in general appear more useful, and the new way stale move negations works can compliment moves by either making them effective KO moves or moves that can potentially combo.

I've been out of the loop for a little while so perhaps I missed some of these. Could you elaborate on some of the points here so we're on the same page? Specifically where you mention pokes being more effective and smash attaacks being more useful. Additionally, I haven't done any in-depth analysis, how do stale moves work now? I know in Brawl we were optimistic that the stale moves could create combos but outside of a few exceptions that didn't turn out ot be the case.

Also, there are lagless aerials (like all Z-airs I think), and they are very easy to use and land to setup combos.

Unfortunately this is character specific and not universal

Now onto my biggest problem with all Smash 4 demos: People play the game like it's Brawl.

It's not Brawl, it's Smash 4.

Hence why I never went into depth about the gameplay and focused on mechanics that we were able to appreciate.

 

[Big-Cat]

I didn't take too much note myself but I was just going on the general consensus for aerial lag. Everyone, even people that have played the game extensively (like Hugs for example) have issues with intense aerial lag.

The thing is that you can tell the game is taking more of a ground focus. Pivoting attacks makes this finally much easier to do. A good amount of aerials have been shown to have launcher or ground bounce properties. With this in mind, they may be laggier at the end in order to balance out the risk-reward. This seems to only apply to aerials done close to the ground though.

As for what I mean by pivoting and John saying pokes are buffed, I advise you to watch this video. It was found at E3, but this is the first time someone has done a video on this new technique. Considering the rather positive reception to this, I think it's safe to assume this is going nowhere.

Being a fighting game designer myself, I can completely understand what you're talking about for offensive pressure. At the same time, I guess the issue isn't neccesarily shield dropping being too fast but that because of the shield mechanics and decreased blockstun, the fear is that most moves in the game will be severely negative on block. THAT is the gist of the actual issue. Attacks in Smash have a decent amount of lag after them, especially some aerials now.

So this entire thread is about Smash 4's blockstun being too low (blockstun in Smash's formula being shield stun + shield drop time unless using OOS options that bypass drop time) so very little will be safe on block anymore.

Considering we have the guys who make Tekken on board, I don't think we have to worry. In Tekken, the vast majority of moves are unsafe on block in some capacity. This generally means that if someone tries to do piss easy pressure, they will get jabbed out of it at least. This does not effect the game negatively. The defending person won't be able to jab punish most of the time, but this depends on the move. Assuming blockstun like this is here to stay, the chief issue then is the OoS options.

 

[Veggi]

This is more of a side note, but I feel like when a Brawl match becomes campy it's because the opposing character has chain grabs almost 100% of the time. Because grabs are usually easier to land on the defensive, it makes it so that a lot of characters don't want to approach. With the way grabs work now, I would be surprised if there were any chain grabs in the game. Especially now that they have more people balancing the game. Another part of why some Brawl matches are campy is because a lot of the matchups that are closest to even against MK make MK afraid of getting grabbed. MK is also one of the best characters at not getting grabbed, but he has to do so by stalling.

Chain grabs give a skewed reward for playing defensively in Brawl and if they were removed (which it looks like they were) that would give less incentive for playing defensive and give people less incentive to stall in order to avoid them. If this game has no edge stalling and no chain grabs, we might be looking at a more offensive game already.

 

[Johnknight1]

Chain grabs aren't neccessarily eliminated just haven't been discovered if there are any yet. Comboing after grabs may still be possible (see: Luigi's dthrow). And one can argue that grabs are both offensive and defensive in nature so its not necessarily a good thing that grabs are nerfed.

"Chain grabs" that are automatic ("true chain grabs") are dead among the 24 characters that were shown, but tech chases certainly will live on. I doubt we'll have "true chain grabs", sans maybe for a specified percentage that isn't that big of a deal (20%-40%), at least post-patches.

Running being more of a commitment is a nerf to offense not defense. It makes approaching more difficult in the neutral positions. Its a buff to some things offensively like following up (potentially).

Not entirely. Running was in a lot of ways defense in Smash 64, the game with the closest DI to what we have in Smash 4. If you got in the air to be defensive, it better be to use a defensive attack (projectiles), and it better be a short hop (unless you're Jigglypuff or Pikachu in Smash 64).

Seeing as how the only other realistic defensive options are stabbing/poking with aerials/tilts, jumping on a platform, shielding into a grab (which is harder to do than in Brawl, due to the fact you get knocked back more), avoiding attacks (hard to do with less DI), edge stall (practically impossible to do), that's a big deal for defense.

After all, generally speaking if you jump, especially to go above your opponent, you get combo'd the crap out of (at least by the characters I played).

I've been out of the loop for a little while so perhaps I missed some of these. Could you elaborate on some of the points here so we're on the same page? Specifically where you mention pokes being more effective and smash attaacks being more useful. Additionally, I haven't done any in-depth analysis, how do stale moves work now? I know in Brawl we were optimistic that the stale moves could create combos but outside of a few exceptions that didn't turn out to be the case.

-With pokes, there is a "shield push back" system in place, at least at higher percentages. Also, shields break easier and the shield break punish is a lot more than what it was in previous smash games.

-Smash attacks are generally more useful because you can combo into them, do sequences that lead into them, and because a lot of them just are a lot quicker (like Bowser's new forward smash drop kick vs. The Gimpyfish combo).

-Stales moves negation is basically what we thought it was in Brawl: a way to get KO's or combos dependent upon how you use it. If you land a move the first time, it does considerably more knockback and hitstun. Marth's counter without stale moves negation KO's in the 80 percentiles.

Toon Link specifically has a up tilt that functions funny. The up tilt does 10% without stale moves negation and works as an aerial tech chase launcher as sorts. If you have stale move negations, the move does 5%, but you can combo the move into itself up to about 3 or 4 times, as well as follow up with precisely timed neutral airs, forward airs (that's a great and simple combo that can KO if forward air has no stale move negation), and especially Z-air. All of those moves can be buffered (it's the same buffer as Brawl), which allows them to be performed easier.

Also, you can follow up a Z-air and neutral air with a legitimate combo almost all of the time, and sometimes even forward air.

I actually "discovered" a few combos that way, namely side B (the boomerang is basically 64 Link status) > up tilt > up tilt > up tilt > neutral air > (lagless or near lagless landing into a) up tilt > z-Air > (lagless landing into a) forward smash > KO on a Marth that had too much damage (note: every 10% hitstun from moves goes up) to avoid the combo. I had all of those moves (sans the forward smash and side B) going into that have stale move negations, and via buffering (easier execution), proper timing, the right amount of hitstun, and simple luck I was able to find a deadly combo.

Aside from maybe the neutral air part, all of it was inescapable, too. Of course, combos are considerably easier at higher percentages with Toon Link based on what little experience I had.

Unfortunately this is character specific and not universal

I only managed to play Wii Fit Trainer (by accident; I wanted to play Mario, lol), Fox, Toon Link, and Mega Man, and all of them had at least one lagless or near lagless landing aerial.
-Wii Fit Trainer's I forget, but I think she had her neutral air and something else.
-Fox had his neutral Air, down Air, and maybe his back air, and he felt like a great mix of his Melee and Brawl build without the jankiness of either game, and had a lot of the same up tilt combos intact.
-Toon Link had his forward air, neutral air, and Z-air, all of which lead to combos.
-Mega Man I think had the neutral air, and that was it. The down air had a lot less landing lag than you'd think for a spike.

Hence why I never went into depth about the gameplay and focused on mechanics that we were able to appreciate.

That's where you didn't fail where others did, lol. It's pretty funny seeing that, considering my brother, a former top 10 NorCal Brawl player I was with named Ryan (I forget his gamer tag [I'm awful with remembering names btw]; all I know is he is one of the top Brawl Fox players), and this other guy we hung around (who I also know like Ryan from when I played Brawl competitively, and who is a famous smasher's relative [again bad with remembering names]) all didn't do that.

We discovered so many insane things that people never noticed it was mind boggling. Ryan discovered how to buffer (btw he is like a God of buffering; I thought I was good, but he's just WOW) into Z-air into various tilts Samus has in order to find a 0-80% combo that works on at least 3 characters (backing up Sakurai's claim that Samus was the strongest character). It was nuts the amount strategic and technical gameplay data we found.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

Well, with any luck Smash Bros will be able to prove itself to be just as competitive as Pokemon when these games come out and we can stop worrying.

Seriously, there's less than 200 official tournaments every year? The way you guys talk I thought they were always happening.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

To be honest, Johnknight, I'm not familiar with the majority of what you're saying. You clearly have had a lot of hands-on experience with the game while I've only had a 2 minute items-on ffa and a smash run. Did you happen to write up these impressions you're sharing in a thread of its own? Because if what you're saying ends up being how the final product plays, then it could address my issues and leave hope that Smash 4 is the most watchable and competitively viable Smash to date.

 

[ferioku]

Just hoping for the best =P

 

[MudkipUniverse]

Complaining about an outdated demo wont do you much good bro! Wait till the final product is out before you start freaking out okay?

It's almost out. BTW, a month isn't outdated. lol

Some of the information you have about Brawl is wrong. I play Mario as my main in Brawl and I have played against many power ranked players in Florida with him. I can tell you with a lot of confidence that Mario is one of the easiest characters in the game to shield grab because of his low range. However, I only get grabbed when I screw up or my opponent gets a read on where I'm going. If you think that shielding ruins all of the approaches in Brawl, then you need to work on your spacing. The shield in Brawl is a powerful option and because of the lower amount of shield stun it can be used as an approach tool. A game striking balance between offense and defense does not make a game more competitive. However, it does give more appeal because everyone can find something that they like. If the argument is that top level play is won by stalling, then I will provide you with links to the grand finals of the last three APEX grand finals.

I'm going to compare this game to Street Fighter 4 and Marvel vs. Capcom 3 because it's so easy to understand. Street Fighter 4 is a defensive game. Much of top level play consists of forcing the opponent to approach either through a superior projectile game (Ryu), a superior spacing game (Rufus), or a life lead. Top level play doesn't have many devastating combos. Most of the damage gets tacked on through outplaying the opponent in a neutral game or ruining the opponent's approach. Characters that are forced to approach like Zangief will spend a lot of the match walking slowly forward and blocking until they can get close enough to tear apart their opponent. This can be exciting to watch because watching Zangief work his way through hell can allow the viewer to both see into the mind of the approaching player and the defensive player. Then when the Zangief player gets in, it's exciting because Zangief finally got to the end of his long journey and he's ready to destroy. Street Fighter is a lot of mental work and an experienced player can appreciate that. It's super slow and campy, but that doesn't mean that it requires less skill. It has consistent players winning.

Marvel vs. Capcom 3 I feel is the Melee to Street Fighter being Brawl. Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is a super fast game with action constantly happening. There are teleports, assists, super fast attacks, extremely fast and devastating combos, and the offensive options far outweigh the defensive options. This is like the opposite of Street Fighter 4. However, it's laughable to say that Street Fighter isn't a competitive game considering its massive amounts of players and consistent winners. A lot of people say that Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is more exciting to watch because it's more flashy. I would almost agree with that. Even though I don't like Marvel as much as Street Fighter, it is fun to watch.

I think that people that enjoy watching Brawl more than Melee are people that understand Brawl very well and can get excited about the creative ways that players can consistently win at the neutral game. I don't get excited watching Melee because I find the neutral game to be by far the most skill based and intense of any position in fighting games. However, it is much harder to understand than a character being hit while in hitstun.

For an example of what I mean, watch Will's Donkey Kong. In Brawl, players have to be creative and make best use of psychology to land every single hit. That to me, is much more exciting than combos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9TSId6HhQ&list=UUthbFg5wym9kr07jkymY0wA

You don't enjoy watching melee because it is skill based? :L

 

[Bladeviper]

It's almost out. BTW, a month isn't outdated. lol

its not a month old the build was from at least march but i think someone from the tree house said it was from january

 

[Veggi]

You don't enjoy watching melee because it is skill based? :L

I think you misinterpreted. Both Melee and Brawl are skill based. High level play in Brawl is won by consistently being better at the neutral game than your opponent. The neutral game is when both players retain all of their options and use those options to get hits on the other player. A lot of players don't think that the neutral game is as exciting to watch as watching a player reap the rewards of winning the neutral game. That makes sense. I like watching the neutral game because players have to consistently be more creative to get hits in. I like watching Melee as well and I've seen a lot of it. Project M is my favorite to watch though because the characters are all so insane. I think I like watching Project M camping the most out of everything though.

It's nuts.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

I think we just need to learn this game. I just watched Scar vs. Bill Trinen and it looked to me like scar just kept messing up his timing because the speed and movement is different. So we all need to keep in mind that what we see here is a poor representation of what later tournaments will look like.

 

[Hero of the Winds]

I think we just need to learn this game. I just watched Scar vs. Bill Trinen and it looked to me like scar just kept messing up his timing because the speed and movement is different. So we all need to keep in mind that what we see here is a poor representation of what later tournaments will look like.

Yeah, I agree to this.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

How did Scar lose with Mario? He's so good in this game.

 

[Senario]

How did Scar lose with Mario? He's so good in this game.

Ok first game, One SD, One items messing him up (drill killed him at low percent thanks to how far it sent him and mario's recovery), one stock was legit(though I'm none too happy that rosalina was able to roll out of mario's A jab, shouldnt' have been able to do that), and Scar lost his last stock to not grabbing the ledge because he was holding hammer.

Second game Scar vs Bill mirror match: Scar lost his first stock to Andross block thing, Second stock was legit being spiked by mario's forward air. Scar won that game.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

Don't get me wrong. It was clear that he was a more experienced player but he did not seem at all comfortable with the changes in momentum and distance. He did manage to win out in the end but I got the impression his inexperience with this iteration kept him from overwhelming Bill.

Also, Bill seens pretty decent himself but he's more used to Sm4sh.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Ok first game, One SD, One items messing him up (drill killed him at low percent thanks to how far it sent him and mario's recovery), one stock was legit(though I'm none too happy that rosalina was able to roll out of mario's A jab, shouldnt' have been able to do that), and Scar lost his last stock to not grabbing the ledge because he was holding hammer.

Second game Scar vs Bill mirror match: Scar lost his first stock to Andross block thing, Second stock was legit being spiked by mario's forward air. Scar won that game.

I mean like he didn't take advantage of Mario's ability to actually combo. Every aerial he has is lag less, except for Fair and you can auto cancel Dair. Mario has his Brawl mechanic where he can do double aerials in a short hop. He can double Uair, which by the way, is so lag less it's dumb. I saw Scar do a Uair close to the ground and shielded immediately. He shielded so fast that the attack streak effect on the move was still out while he was in shield. You can Uair>Bair, sometimes Uair>Nair and combo into whatever, or just chain Uair strings. Bair chains into itself and has great range. This and Mario's airspeed is so good. Mario is easily one of the better characters in this game. There's more stuff too, but from what I see he is very solid in this game

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

I mean like he didn't take advantage of Mario's ability to actually combo. Every aerial he has is lag less, except for Fair and you can auto cancel Dair. Mario has his Brawl mechanic where he can do double aerials in a short hop. He can double Uair, which by the way, is so lag less it's dumb. I saw Scar do a Uair close to the ground and shielded immediately. He shielded so fast that the attack streak effect on the move was still out while he was in shield. You can Uair>Bair, sometimes Uair>Nair and combo into whatever, or just chain Uair strings. Bair chains into itself and has great range. This and Mario's airspeed is so good. Mario is easily one of the better characters in this game. There's more stuff too, but from what I see he is very solid in this game

Like I said, I'm not sure how aware of this he was.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Like I said, I'm not sure how aware of this he was.

He was a commentator for the worlds first smash 4 tournament. How does he not know about it?

lol

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

He was a commentator for the worlds first smash 4 tournament. How does he not know about it?

lol

Keyword: First

Competitors is that tournament have also said characters like Samus and Bowser are weak while all these other people are discovering cool things they can do. So I think it's safe to say a lot of the guys just didn't know.

Also Maximum Potato.
Also Mario Kart Zap Thing.

Nah, I kid.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Keyword: First

Competitors is that tournament have also said characters like Samus and Bowser are weak while all these other people are discovering cool things they can do. So I think it's safe to say a lot of the guys just didn't know.

Also Maximum Potato.
Also Mario Kart Zap Thing.

Nah, I kid.

Lol I was rollin'

Maximum Potato would a great joke item. It looks kinda like a splotchy maximum tomato that looks dusty, but if water touches it, the red "paint" comes off and it's a brown Potato with an M on it. It recovers 5%, because raw potatoes are pretty gross.

It would also play well with that joke "Potato Tomato" or whatever, since it's the "same thing" lol

 

[Senario]

I mean like he didn't take advantage of Mario's ability to actually combo. Every aerial he has is lag less, except for Fair and you can auto cancel Dair. Mario has his Brawl mechanic where he can do double aerials in a short hop. He can double Uair, which by the way, is so lag less it's dumb. I saw Scar do a Uair close to the ground and shielded immediately. He shielded so fast that the attack streak effect on the move was still out while he was in shield. You can Uair>Bair, sometimes Uair>Nair and combo into whatever, or just chain Uair strings. Bair chains into itself and has great range. This and Mario's airspeed is so good. Mario is easily one of the better characters in this game. There's more stuff too, but from what I see he is very solid in this game

He did, look at the second game. He had a nice string of up airs going. He likely was still feeling around the physics as some things he did didn't seem to work as well as it would have normally (Jump neutral air out of shield). He also wasn't playing really aggressive and kinda safe.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Scar was also really bad at dealing with items which were on. Bill took a completely fresh stock from Scar with the drill, and in general, Bill was a lot better at using the items to make neutral difficult for his opponent which was really critical. I'm pretty sure Scar would have won both of those games decisvely with items off though it's not like Bill was a bad player at all.

 

[Snakeyes]

I still question things a bit in the long run, if Smash 4 does not succeed in a competitive sense, I wonder how many years the Melee scene can keep people's attention for I wonder. While most game communities are moving to their next titles, the Smash scene may eternally remain in the same place which will inevitably lead stagnation of some form. As I'm no tournament player myself I cannot claim to know entirely how it works, but I don't know if I would consider it a good sign.

"Just as planned." - Sakurai

 

[ArgentStew]

I'm sorry if this has been brought up or if I haven't been following the updates and news closely enough, but aren't games on the Wii U patchable? All this talk about the demo and the release and how it relates to the lifespan of the game doesn't mean much unless they said they won't be patching the game.

Of course, given Sakurai's vision for Smash and all I wouldn't be surprised if they don't patch the game or the patches hinder gameplay. It may be my aversion to speculation, but I think it's impossible to make any accurate assumptions right now.

 

[Johnknight1]

To be honest, Johnknight, I'm not familiar with the majority of what you're saying. You clearly have had a lot of hands-on experience with the game while I've only had a 2 minute items-on ffa and a smash run. Did you happen to write up these impressions you're sharing in a thread of its own? Because if what you're saying ends up being how the final product plays, then it could address my issues and leave hope that Smash 4 is the most watchable and competitively viable Smash to date.

I've done write ups on the Toon Link thread about combos, offense, and just in general how offense functions.

Honestly, most of my theories for it came from past Smash game experience.

In 64 juggling is incredible. In Smash 4, generally speaking juggling is great, although there are more options than in 64 (just not as much DI).

In Melee there's a certain flow to the combat and combos. Smash 4 has that sort of flow.

In Brawl, there's a lot of basic defensive moves (that aren't any of the janky stuff) that translate to Melee that you see a lot of top Brawl players use when they play Melee competitively. Fiction immediately comes to mind when I think of that. A lot more of that Brawl defensive stuff (again, not the jank) translates to it.

Honestly, I just got all these views of the gameplay and whatnot from viewing the game. I viewed it, and I had all these theories in my head. I constantly wonder about gameplay ideas. I deep read all of the comments made by developers, I translate how the characters effect everything, and I look at the product as a whole. Then, during the E3 stuff I read everything from the players and applied it before playing the game.

I wanted to find out what "Super Smash Bros. for the Nintendo 3DS and WiiU" really are before I even played it. After all that, by the time I played the game, I knew what I was getting into while still having an open enough mind to be convinced otherwise.

Honestly, I feel almost every smash fan doesn't understand the totality of smash. Smash isn't just a fighting game. It isn't just a platformer. It isn't just a competitive game. It isn't just a party game. Smash outside of its' gameplay (via things like trophies and stickers) is seen as a museum of Nintendo, and now, it looks more like a museum of video games.

I realized after @ Thirdkoopa told me that this applies to smash's gameplay as well. Smash's gameplay is a love letter to video gaming. It has the functions of a fighting game. It has the feel and DI of a platformer (which in itself is an odd combination of Mario, Yoshi, Wario, Kirby, DKC, Sonic, and even Zelda II). It can be played solo, in teams, or one player versus multiple opponents. It has elements of a shooter/projectile-centric games/arcade shooting gallery games with the way certain weapons play. It has a damage percentage system and some moves similar to those found in RPG's. It has moves that look like flashy moves out of beat 'em ups and arcade games. It has certain spacing strategy that remind me of strategy games. Heck, Smash even has crawling similar to that found in steal series (namely Metal Gear).

In other words, Super Smash Bros., as a basic concept, is exactly like water. In the words of Bruce Lee when talking about water, it is "formless, shapeless." "You put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot."

Looking at the total spectrum of what Super Smash Bros. truly is (IMO) from this point-of-view, instead of looking for the essence of what the game is, I realize that:
1. I won't know everything about the game, just like we don't know everything about what's in water. However, generally speaking, it is the same
2. That I shouldn't look for the water. No, I should look for what the water is in.

What I found from the general direction is that the container for this water has "the greatest hits" of each of the 3 previous smash games (or at least it aims to have that) in its' build. The influences of past smash games are there as well (namely the series I named off a bit earlier, as well as the likes of Street Fighter, king of Fighters, and Guilty Gear). There are obvious influences from Soul Calibur, Tekken, and Virtua Fighter.

Despite all these past influences, it still is trying to pave its' own trail. The new edge game and the apparent (current) lack of chain grabs is a huge deal. At first glance, all I thought it meant was that defensive strategies based on minimal movement and action are dead.

What I found from viewing it, playing it, and thinking about what the next "step" of Smash Bros. would be, I found that these 2 simple but gigantic changes are going to make the previous 3 games' "greatest hits" functions work better.

In 64, we had the complexity of movement and heavy pressure-centric gameplay. Thanks to chain grabbing and edge stalling being dead, that's easier. We also had offense that made it to where comebacks were easier. Now, we have a similar combo-heavy gameplay, especially with juggling and less DI being a factor.

In Melee, we had a certain fast paced flow of movement and combos. Well, the flow of movement and combos is easier, but thanks to these 2 changes, defense (against grabs and against edge stalling) are significantly easier to punish, so that flow is easier than ever to obtain. Additionally we also had a lot of meteor smashes and only 2 true spikes, all of which kept players on their toes and could change a game in an instant. Now, we have both back, and meteor smashes are a lot harder to cancel.

In Brawl, there is a lot of importance put on spacing and poking. With edge hogging gone and chain grabbing being gone, the focus is put more heavily on the spacing and the poking. Defensive and counterattacking-centric tactics to beat spacing and poking now have to be a lot smarter and more involved. In other words, defense will nearly always be more exciting, engaged, and have risks and rewards. That also means defense can switch to pokes and grabs as well, but only great defense will get great offensive rewards out of it.

All of these things lead to one thing: MORE ACTION.

Thanks to having more action, we'll see more of a focus on risk/rewards (since nothing is truly safe), more movement, more very specific tactics, more in-game audibles (for example, changing from a poking-centric style to a counter-attacking-centric style), less technical barriers, and doing offense and defense that requires more thought. Offense and defense will have lots of pros and cons, as well as risks and rewards. There won't be that one thing that just is near impossible to punish (at least in theory).

All this is more true than ever and more possible than ever, with patches confirmed/de facto confirmed, DLC definitely happening, and obviously our experience in this water with a near endless spectrum called Super Smash Bros.

 

[pickle962]

Thanks @ Johnknight1 for your analysis on Sm4sh! Now then, I don't think there's much more to discuss about smash 4 right now competitive wise without being redundant so if a mod would ever so kindly lock this thread, that would be nice, but its the OP's call to make, not mine

 

[Cassio]

Actually, Sakurai has stated in interviews hes in favor of patching and DLC assuming its possible to do.

@ SamuraiPanda Heres a good video of what I was talking about earlier. I never actually watched it completely before, but it agrees with what I said earlier about dash>shield being very powerful, and grabs being the strongest element of the game.

Its a really good watch.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

I've done write ups on the Toon Link thread about combos, offense, and just in general how offense functions.

Honestly, most of my theories for it came from past Smash game experience.

In 64 juggling is incredible. In Smash 4, generally speaking juggling is great, although there are more options than in 64 (just not as much DI).

In Melee there's a certain flow to the combat and combos. Smash 4 has that sort of flow.

In Brawl, there's a lot of basic defensive moves (that aren't any of the janky stuff) that translate to Melee that you see a lot of top Brawl players use when they play Melee competitively. Fiction immediately comes to mind when I think of that. A lot more of that Brawl defensive stuff (again, not the jank) translates to it.

Honestly, I just got all these views of the gameplay and whatnot from viewing the game. I viewed it, and I had all these theories in my head. I constantly wonder about gameplay ideas. I deep read all of the comments made by developers, I translate how the characters effect everything, and I look at the product as a whole. Then, during the E3 stuff I read everything from the players and applied it before playing the game.

I wanted to find out what "Super Smash Bros. for the Nintendo 3DS and WiiU" really are before I even played it. After all that, by the time I played the game, I knew what I was getting into while still having an open enough mind to be convinced otherwise.

Honestly, I feel almost every smash fan doesn't understand the totality of smash. Smash isn't just a fighting game. It isn't just a platformer. It isn't just a competitive game. It isn't just a party game. Smash outside of its' gameplay (via things like trophies and stickers) is seen as a museum of Nintendo, and now, it looks more like a museum of video games.

I realized after @ Thirdkoopa told me that this applies to smash's gameplay as well. Smash's gameplay is a love letter to video gaming. It has the functions of a fighting game. It has the feel and DI of a platformer (which in itself is an odd combination of Mario, Yoshi, Wario, Kirby, DKC, Sonic, and even Zelda II). It can be played solo, in teams, or one player versus multiple opponents. It has elements of a shooter/projectile-centric games/arcade shooting gallery games with the way certain weapons play. It has a damage percentage system and some moves similar to those found in RPG's. It has moves that look like flashy moves out of beat 'em ups and arcade games. It has certain spacing strategy that remind me of strategy games. Heck, Smash even has crawling similar to that found in steal series (namely Metal Gear).

In other words, Super Smash Bros., as a basic concept, is exactly like water. In the words of Bruce Lee when talking about water, it is "formless, shapeless." "You put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot."

Looking at the total spectrum of what Super Smash Bros. truly is (IMO) from this point-of-view, instead of looking for the essence of what the game is, I realize that:
1. I won't know everything about the game, just like we don't know everything about what's in water. However, generally speaking, it is the same
2. That I shouldn't look for the water. No, I should look for what the water is in.

What I found from the general direction is that the container for this water has "the greatest hits" of each of the 3 previous smash games (or at least it aims to have that) in its' build. The influences of past smash games are there as well (namely the series I named off a bit earlier, as well as the likes of Street Fighter, king of Fighters, and Guilty Gear). There are obvious influences from Soul Calibur, Tekken, and Virtua Fighter.

Despite all these past influences, it still is trying to pave its' own trail. The new edge game and the apparent (current) lack of chain grabs is a huge deal. At first glance, all I thought it meant was that defensive strategies based on minimal movement and action are dead.

What I found from viewing it, playing it, and thinking about what the next "step" of Smash Bros. would be, I found that these 2 simple but gigantic changes are going to make the previous 3 games' "greatest hits" functions work better.

In 64, we had the complexity of movement and heavy pressure-centric gameplay. Thanks to chain grabbing and edge stalling being dead, that's easier. We also had offense that made it to where comebacks were easier. Now, we have a similar combo-heavy gameplay, especially with juggling and less DI being a factor.

In Melee, we had a certain fast paced flow of movement and combos. Well, the flow of movement and combos is easier, but thanks to these 2 changes, defense (against grabs and against edge stalling) are significantly easier to punish, so that flow is easier than ever to obtain. Additionally we also had a lot of meteor smashes and only 2 true spikes, all of which kept players on their toes and could change a game in an instant. Now, we have both back, and meteor smashes are a lot harder to cancel.

In Brawl, there is a lot of importance put on spacing and poking. With edge hogging gone and chain grabbing being gone, the focus is put more heavily on the spacing and the poking. Defensive and counterattacking-centric tactics to beat spacing and poking now have to be a lot smarter and more involved. In other words, defense will nearly always be more exciting, engaged, and have risks and rewards. That also means defense can switch to pokes and grabs as well, but only great defense will get great offensive rewards out of it.

All of these things lead to one thing: MORE ACTION.

Thanks to having more action, we'll see more of a focus on risk/rewards (since nothing is truly safe), more movement, more very specific tactics, more in-game audibles (for example, changing from a poking-centric style to a counter-attacking-centric style), less technical barriers, and doing offense and defense that requires more thought. Offense and defense will have lots of pros and cons, as well as risks and rewards. There won't be that one thing that just is near impossible to punish (at least in theory).

All this is more true than ever and more possible than ever, with patches confirmed/de facto confirmed, DLC definitely happening, and obviously our experience in this water with a near endless spectrum called Super Smash Bros.

Let's hope the things you're saying hold true in the final build.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

DLC and Patches are possible in theory/with the Wii U system. It's all a team question.

Get the game selling.

 

[Overswarm]

lol, thanks for the support guys. And this isnt my first account, I actually joined in 2007 and was lurking since '05, lol. Also my first game played was 64. Pika was broken in that game so its obv my favorite.

In regards to that post, all Ill say is like others said I respect the right of people to not enjoy the game if the mechanics dont suit their taste. But there are plenty of people who will enjoy the game too, if not as their favorite then at least as something that provides a different flavor. And its not just going to be new players. I think overswarm put it best:

"He wasn't asking you to blindly accept the new game. He was asking you to taste the food and, if you don't like it, leave the restaurant without flipping a table due to your disappointment."

Overswarm says a lot of smart things