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

[Cap'nChreest]

4. Except you are forgetting the fact there are no other options he could have done. Yes it punished him, but it will be great because you can't just wait for shield, and you can't just throw one out there, you need spot on timing and a good read, else your shield will break, or you will be grabbed. This makes the game very much risk vs. reward. Which is very, very exciting for competitive play. You can't camp in Smash 4 like a very certain Sheik player found out in the tournament, nor can you go in kamikaze like a very certain Tink player found out. They seemed to have reached a perfect balance here. Play smart, you will win, don't adapt, you lose. This makes for a very competitive game. As we have all seen in the stream.

A shield break from a jab? I don't think so. Bowser's jab won't get used if you can get a free punish off of it. Just like Gannons up tilit or a Falcon punch.

I don't think its fair to say that you can't camp in the game. In fact most of the newcomers rely on camping. Camping and gimmicks.. In addition to those who already have campy play styles or techniques..

Sheik isn't a character to camp with. I don't know who was playing but they obviously picked the wrong character to camp with. Picking one match like that and saying that its bad to camp isn't a very good argument.

"Play smart, you will win, don't adapt, you lose" is pretty much any smash bros game. Its not something unique to this one.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Honestly, I dislike the possibility that a jab combo is not safe on shield. That said, this also depends on what options you have out of jab. If you can jab once and grab the foe when they shield, that's pretty cool in my book. Otherwise, the jab really ought to be a safe move, unless the jab can lead to combo opportunities by itself. The thing about the jab in Smash is that it's "free", so to speak. You can poke with a jab with little chance of being punished.

Shields still do break noticeably faster compared to Brawl. It's easy from the gameplay footage to see the damage even Mario's jab combo does on a non-perfect shield.

 

[Lozjam]

Can someone elaborate on this please? Bowser bomb breaks a shield (good luck landing that on shield against a good player) and Marth's neutral B chunks a shield more than it did before. Is this the only evidence we have of shields breaking faster or did I miss something?



1. Really? That's awesome! If you have a link I'd love to see the reference here. I didn't catch that yesterday and its great to hear.
2. Okay.
3. I am aware of it; I simply don't think it affects the points raised here that defensive options are too strong. Even with this offensive option, they are just as strong.
4. First, please do note that shield grabbing between hits of the grab is BAD offensively because it discourages hitting players when they are able to shield, making offense less viable. Second, the Toon Link and Shiek were really bad at camping.

Shield damage has been buffed all around the board.

It doesn't make hitting bad. It makes weaker hits more of a risk. But you get a reward if you pull it off with moves with good hit stun or in Bowsers case, a ton of knockback. See. Risk Vs, Reward. Also, may I add that Bowser is the slowest character in that build? Of course you could punish between jabs. Toon Link wasn't camping, he was going in without using his head, and Sheik was doing nothing but Camping, which makes it bad. Did you also miss the part where projectiles have been nerfed? This discourages camping. Shields can break more easily, yet they are more utilized with less lag. Rolling gives a lot of characters great distance, but can be punished. Furthermore, have you even played the game? And did you miss the Smash Bros 101 where grabbing trumps shields? This is going to make grabbing a little more common, yet they can be punished if you do so. So is he going to shield and should I grab? Or is he going to attack. Should I shield, attack, roll, or escape? Can I use a projectile here? If he grabs the projectile will give me a chance for a good combo. Why not cancel his jab attack with my turn cancelled smash attack with super armor? Strategy. Risk Vs. Reward, even more so than other smash games. Gives you higher risk, but a great reward. It looks like Smash 4 will benefit all types of playstyles, and will benefit even more to people that can adapt to different situations.

 

[micstar615]

A shield break from a jab? I don't think so. Bowser's jab won't get used if you can get a free punish off of it. Just like Gannons up tilit or a Falcon punch.

I don't think its fair to say that you can't camp in the game. In fact most of the newcomers rely on camping. Camping and gimmicks.. In addition to those who already have campy play styles or techniques..

Sheik isn't a character to camp with. I don't know who was playing but they obviously picked the wrong character to camp with. Picking one match like that and saying that its bad to camp isn't a very good argument.

"Play smart, you will win, don't adapt, you lose" is pretty much any smash bros game. Its not something unique to this one.

Camping has always been a tactic used for many characters in almost any Smash game though, and I would say that the Sheik player did a pretty solid job camping and spamming needles and grenades in the match right before the one he had against Damien (or was it Larry?). The match he had on Battlefield was a different story because Damien/Larry adapted to the play style and punished accordingly. I think that's the point Lolzjam was trying to make, camping is still a tactic but may or may not be as effective as it was in Brawl thanks to the new mechanics.

 

[Ulevo]

On a side note, regarding Bowser's jab being interruptible mid sequence, certain characters in Brawl had this problem, like ZSS and I think Squirtle. This is an incredibly frustrating flaw to the characters and actually makes many match ups frustrating to play. One of the many oversights that shouldn't happen.

 

[Cassio]

You tell me that projectiles and spacing, which are both incredibly defensively oriented tactics in Brawl, are ways to counteract shields. How does this help your position exactly? I'm resorting to defensive tactics to beat out other defensive tactics? Right.

All you manage to do here is tell me my argument is self rationalizing without actually telling me why I'm wrong. Can you not waste my time, please.

But your argument is self rationalizing, which in itself makes it circular. Your argument boils down to shields are defensive because shields are defensive and thats the way it is.

I also made this post later that you migthve not seen:

Eh, gonna elaborate on this a little more. Basically the statement implies that if I dash at someone, shield an oncoming attack, then apply a guaranteed punish; that this interaction was defensive just because a shield was involved.

This is something more likely to work if I dash at someone because I move into their attack or projectile. But pretty much any halfway decent character can space an attack or projectile on my shield if use it without any movement.

Also, youre trying to change the parameters of the discussion. This wasnt about how offensive or defensive shielding and projectiles are, but whether or not shielding is a good defensive option in comparison to its offense. You said, and I quote:

Shields in Brawl do promote defensive play.

Which now by your own implication indicate defensive shielding solidly loses to multiple other options. Is there some other point youre trying to prove here?

First, please do note that shield grabbing between hits of the grab is BAD offensively because it discourages hitting players when they are able to shield, making offense less viable. Second, the Toon Link and Shiek were really bad at camping.

Well let me ask about this scenario real quick. If I dash at someone and shield, and they jab1 me which I punish, would you consider that to be defensive?

 

[Ulevo]

But your argument is self rationalizing, which in itself makes it circular. Your argument boils down to shields are defensive because shields are defensive and thats the way it is.

I also made this post later that you migthve not seen:


Also, youre trying to change the parameters of the discussion. This wasnt about how offensive or defensive shielding and projectiles are, but whether or not shielding is a good defensive option in comparison to its offense. You said, and I quote:

Which now by your own implication indicate defensive shielding solidly loses to multiple other options. Is there some other point youre trying to prove here?

Thanks for telling me why I'm wrong. Again.

I'm not arguing that shields promote defensive play because they're defensive by definition (they are), but because their defensive qualities are too strong. I'm not elaborating on this in detail because I'm flabbergasted at how I'm wasting my time talking to someone in the BBR about the properties of shields, as if I have to explain to them how and why they are overbearingly powerful in Brawl, and as a consequence promote defensive play. Like, this is ridiculous. It's like having to explain to a scientist what the scientific method is.

 

[Senario]

Well let me ask about this scenario real quick. If I dash at someone and shield, and they jab1 me which I punish, would you consider that to be defensive?

Yes, because you used your shield to punish an attempt at offense by the opponent. Whether you were dashing in or not is irrelevant.

Look at other fighting games, if you dash in for an attack but the opponent hits you first that is offensive. But if you dash in, let them attack you, then punish them because your ability to do so is very high that still is a defensive mechanic.

 

[JV5Chris]

Complaining about an outdated demo wont do you much good bro!

Neither will waiting for the final product to come out to speak up about the issues.

Anyways, I do agree with Samuari Panda, these shield drop and shield approach options are going to become a very big part of the game. On a similar note, grabbing doesn't seem so adequate of a counter anymore. Too slow when someone can shield drop so quickly, too much delay if you miss, and too little return.

I see people have already used other examples of defensive fighting games as a counter point, but do consider this, Street Fighter II awards an initial one frame advantage to the attacker on block. Imagine what SFII would turn into if you could drop block/shield stun like this.

This is really an issue more about shield related tactics having room to dominate. Smash 4 could use some some counter-balance in the current state, or just have the shields scaled back a bit.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Camping has always been a tactic used for many characters in almost any Smash game though, and I would say that the Sheik player did a pretty solid job camping and spamming needles and grenades in the match right before the one he had against Damien (or was it Larry?). The match he had on Battlefield was a different story because Damien/Larry adapted to the play style and punished accordingly. I think that's the point Lolzjam was trying to make, camping is still a tactic but may or may not be as effective as it was in Brawl thanks to the new mechanics.

That makes sense. But if the Sheik was good than the Sheik would have adapted as well.

And theres the whole match up thing too. It could be that specific match up that just doesn't work for camping. Sheik's new moves certainly seem to favor using spacing and punishing after. Not simply just camping.

But what do I know. I'm not a Sheik player in any Smash game. though I do know she's not the camping type. Unless your M2K

 

[Cassio]

Yes, because you used your shield to punish an attempt at offense by the opponent. Whether you were dashing in or not is irrelevant.

Look at other fighting games, if you dash in for an attack but the opponent hits you first that is offensive. But if you dash in, let them attack you, then punish them because your ability to do so is very high that still is a defensive mechanic.

I'd argue if I approach an opponent and they react by tossing out an attack, theyre acting defensively. Which adds to the discussion that attacking is not always offensive.

I'm not arguing that shields promote defensive play because they're defensive by definition (they are), but because their defensive qualities are too strong. I'm not elaborating on this in detail because I'm flabbergasted at how I'm wasting my time talking to someone in the BBR about the properties of shields, as if I have to explain to them how and why they are overbearingly powerful in Brawl, and as a consequence promote defensive play. Like, this is ridiculous. It's like having to explain to a scientist what the scientific method is.

Higher-level thinking in games and in general is always specific and takes nothing for granted. But instead of forming an argument or providing counter-examples to ones Ive given, youre going to complain about how I dont agree with your opinion because its "so obvious"?

Indeed, the idea that shields do not inherently promote defensive play is counter-intuitive. But if youre not in the habit of questioning "the obvious" then you are correct, we have nothing left to discuss.

 

[micstar615]

That makes sense. But if the Sheik was good than the Sheik would have adapted as well.

And theres the whole match up thing too. It could be that specific match up that just doesn't work for camping. Sheik's new moves certainly seem to favor using spacing and punishing after. Not simply just spacing or camping.

But what do I know. I'm not a Sheik player in any Smash game. though I do know she's not the camping type. Unless your M2K

I think we can safely say that the Sheik player wasn't great (he got 4 stocked!) but he definitely used camping to his advantage quite well at first during the quarter(?) finals, tried it again during the semi(?) finals and got punished fairly hard.

You are definitely correct though, Sheik seems more like a spacing/punishing character, I think she can pull off a camp game too but with the faster shields, and with projectiles (apparently) being weaker, maybe not?

 

[TewnLeenk]

Does it HAVE to be a competitive game to be good? What's wrong with just having a fun new Smash Bros game to play? If you want to play something like Melee, go play Melee.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Games that orient and tilt themselves to the offensive spectrum are more successful games from a spectator and tournament point of view, and they are more fun to play based on a majority consensus. Popular appeal is important to a games success.

There is an innumerable amount of problems with Brawl that doesn't just boil down to the shields and defensive mechanics, but people seeing that Smash 4's shields are just as bad or worse then Brawl's is very disappointing to see because it essentially tells us that Sakurai and the development team are ignoring our criticisms and not listening to our opinions.

Ulevo has a point, from a spectator point of view to be quite frank.

Campy play tends to be less hype unless it's Street Fighter/League/Dota.

 

[Senario]

Does it HAVE to be a competitive game to be good? What's wrong with just having a fun new Smash Bros game to play? If you want to play something like Melee, go play Melee.

Melee fans want new content as well, the problem is if the game does not support competitive play it becomes hard to play the game for longer than your standard 1 month that you play most games for. You play it, you get bored, you put it down. Long lasting fun should not be tossed down the drain.

Melee fans are also smash fans, people keep forgetting that. They would love to see a new competitive game to play and enjoy for many years to come but that'll only happen if the game has the basis for competitive play.

@#HBC|Red Ryu To add to that, League and Dota are much slower paced games overall. Falling more into the realm of strategy games. So aggression to them is maybe 6-10 minutes in. Though it is still very exciting because of the suddenness and contentiousness of the aggressive play. It isn't like the person can flash out all the time every single time they are in trouble. And even if they do the other people can chase them down still.

 

[san.]

I personally think of the act of approaching as offensive and the focus on preventing approaches defensive, no matter what tools are used. Is there an error with this kind of thinking? I would consider preventing an approach with your own attack defensive, same thing with spacing projectiles, as long as there was no effort to close the gap between you and your opponent.

I also view the shield as a tool that can be used for both offense and defense. If the changes to the shield provide sufficient approaching options for the player with a balanced risk and reward, that is fine with me. I don't see a quicker shield drop as a purely defensive tool unless the character already possessed the qualities to stave off the approach regardless.

Shield stun is an entirely different issue. Hopefully, strong attacks would deliver the amount of stun or knockback to shields that they deserve.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

I think we can safely say that the Sheik player wasn't great (he got 4 stocked!) but he definitely used camping to his advantage quite well at first during the quarter(?) finals, tried it again during the semi(?) finals and got punished fairly hard.

You are definitely correct though, Sheik seems more like a spacing/punishing character, I think she can pull off a camp game too but with the faster shields, and with projectiles (apparently) being weaker, maybe not?

It's actually pretty clear that multiple things have happened to nerf projectiles. They appear to have lower priority, many characters have crouches and crawls lowered even further than in Brawl, going into or out of crouch looks to be a little faster than in Brawl, and many characters have dash animations that are lower to the ground than in previous games so that some projectiles pass straight over their heads. Also, buffs to things like shield drop speed, spotdodge speed, and rolling dodge speed appear to be an attempt to limit the effects of camping.

To me, what might help the balance more is to globally increase the amount of shield stun caused by close-combat attacks, especially ones without disjointed hitboxes.

 

[Ulevo]

So instead of forming an argument or providing counter-examples to ones Ive given, youre going to complain about how I dont agree with your opinion because its "so obvious"?

The only complaint I have is that you continue to waste my time. I'm not going to provide a counter-example to the limited examples you've given when the premise of the example is both wrong (assuming shields do not promote overly defensive play merely because they have simple offensive application) and in retort to something completely different than what I was explaining (hinging the example on the idea that I am arguing shields are defensive, ergo Brawl's shields promote defensive play, which is missing the point I made).

Indeed, the idea that shields do not inherently promote defensive play is counter-intuitive. But if youre not in the habit of questioning "the obvious" then you are correct, this discussion is over.

No, the idea that Brawl's shields don't inherently promote defensive play is counter intuitive.

 

[Deleted member]

Campy play tends to be less hype unless it's Street Fighter/League/Dota.

Going off topic for a second, you obviously weren't around for TI3. People complained about split pushing and teams passively farming constantly.

Back on topic I agree to an extent, but it doesn't seem like Smash 4 is as rewarding of defensive play as Brawl was, and offensive play seems to be perfectly viable.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Shields still do break noticeably faster compared to Brawl. It's easy from the gameplay footage to see the damage even Mario's jab combo does on a non-perfect shield.

If this is true (not saying it isn't, just that I haven't personally noticed this) then shield recovery speed would also make a large difference in if this is important to balance.

Does it HAVE to be a competitive game to be good? What's wrong with just having a fun new Smash Bros game to play? If you want to play something like Melee, go play Melee.

I actually think Melee wasn't a great game for various reasons. And this discussion is about the competitive viability of the title, not about how fun it is to play. If you don't need it to be competitive to be fun then great. I for one know that I would get bored of the game far more quickly if it isn't a balanced game because thats how I personally enjoy them.

Well let me ask about this scenario real quick. If I dash at someone and shield, and they jab1 me which I punish, would you consider that to be defensive?

No. Approaching is not defensive.

 

[micstar615]

It's actually pretty clear that multiple things have happened to nerf projectiles. They appear to have lower priority, many characters have crouches and crawls lowered even further than in Brawl, going into or out of crouch looks to be a little faster than in Brawl, and many characters have dash animations that are lower to the ground than in previous games so that some projectiles pass straight over their heads. Also, buffs to things like shield drop speed, spotdodge speed, and rolling dodge speed appear to be an attempt to limit the effects of camping.

To me, what might help the balance more is to globally increase the amount of shield stun caused by close-combat attacks, especially ones without disjointed hitboxes.

That's interesting, thanks for the clarification again, it seems like this game is a nice balance of offence and defence, hopefully the final product will be even better.

 

[Turokman5896]

Lets just ignore shield breaking I guess..

 

[TewnLeenk]

If this is true (not saying it isn't, just that I haven't personally noticed this) then shield recovery speed would also make a large difference in if this is important to balance.



I actually think Melee wasn't a great game for various reasons. And this discussion is about the competitive viability of the title, not about how fun it is to play. If you don't need it to be competitive to be fun then great. I for one know that I would get bored of the game far more quickly if it isn't a balanced game because thats how I personally enjoy them.

Fair enough. I just think people need to lay off the "This isn't competitive Brawl 2.0 hurrduurrrrr" talk until they have the game itself and some mechanics have been tested in the lab. We can't jump to conclusions based off of what we saw from an early build demo being played by Nintendo PR people.

 

[BelowZer0]

Does it HAVE to be a competitive game to be good? What's wrong with just having a fun new Smash Bros game to play? If you want to play something like Melee, go play Melee.

Umm did you ever think about the competitive players wanting new content as well? It shouldn't just be the casuals who get new content. It's unfair. After all, it is the competitive players who make a game last long.

 

[Pyra]

Umm did you ever think about the competitive players wanting new content as well? It shouldn't just be the casuals who get new content. It's unfair. After all, it is the competitive players who make a game last long.

Then play the game with the new content.

 

[TewnLeenk]

Umm did you ever think about the competitive players wanting new content as well? It shouldn't just be the casuals who get new content. It's unfair. After all, it is the competitive players who make a game last long.

I agree, but unfortunately the competitive community is the minority here. The game will sell more if it appeals to everybody.

 

[Senario]

Fair enough. I just think people need to lay off the "This isn't competitive Brawl 2.0 hurrduurrrrr" talk until they have the game itself and some mechanics have been tested in the lab. We can't jump to conclusions based off of what we saw from an early build demo being played by Nintendo PR people.

To be fair, people ALSO need to lay off all the melee hate. Or "Just go play melee" or "Melee elitists" and so on and so forth, constructive criticism is fine imo but when players hate the competitive scene openly it just hurts the community and the game from being competitive. I wouldn't want to "Move on", and I use that term lightly, when the new community doesn't even want me around and openly hates me. I haven't seen many "Brawl 2.0" Comments, and the ones I've seen have been in jest.

 

[Turokman5896]

Umm did you ever think about the competitive players wanting new content as well? It shouldn't just be the casuals who get new content. It's unfair. After all, it is the competitive players who make a game last long.

But the competitive community is relatively tiny... They make old games last, but the numbers are still small

Edit: yes people need to lay off melee players, but I've seen tons of "slower than brawl" and"what garbage" comments from them too. It's a two way street.

 

[BelowZer0]

Then play the game with the new content.

Oh don't get me wrong. I'll definitely be playing this game. I love the new stuff they added. Villager looks awesome! I just wish that they made it at least a little more competitive by at Least increasing the speed and reducing the landing lag. I can live with the other things like multiple air dodges, no edge hogging etc.

 

[TewnLeenk]

To be fair, people ALSO need to lay off all the melee hate. Or "Just go play melee" or "Melee elitists" and so on and so forth, constructive criticism is fine imo but when players hate the competitive scene openly it just hurts the community and the game from being competitive. I wouldn't want to "Move on", and I use that term lightly, when the new community doesn't even want me around and openly hates me. I haven't seen many "Brawl 2.0" Comments, and the ones I've seen have been in jest.

Melee hate is very rare. I'm actually a competitive Melee player myself (though I'm not very good...)

I'm just saying people need to at least give this new game a chance before jumping on the "not competitive" wagon.

 

[Senario]

But the competitive community is relatively tiny... They make old games last, but the numbers are still small

Well that doesn't mean their opinion is unimportant. Where would the world be if the majority always trumped the minority? Everybody's opinion matters.

That said, I would expect high level players to know more about game balance than a less skilled player. League often collaborates with their top players to try and fix things from what I heard. They do some of their own stuff too but listening always helps.

Oh, and if people say "have you ever made a game before" to discredit input...that is a poisoning the well argument and not addressing that they may know more about game balance than a lesser skilled player and instead insinuating that they should have no input due to their profession(which in many cases may actually be a professional gamer that is sponsored for the particular game they want to provide input for).

Edit: @ TewnLeenk Really? I see it ALL THE TIME. It is hard to avoid in any thread here that isn't a silly for fun thread that really is just a time sink. Every thread there is some kind of hate against the competitive community or melee. And usually from what I can tell a lot of posts on the other side of the fence have tried to be civil at first. (It is hard to continue though when people are acting like jerks).

 

[Turokman5896]

Well that doesn't mean their opinion is unimportant. Where would the world be if the majority always trumped the minority? Everybody's opinion matters.

That said, I would expect high level players to know more about game balance than a less skilled player. League often collaborates with their top players to try and fix things from what I heard. They do some of their own stuff too but listening always helps.

Oh, and if people say "have you ever made a game before" to discredit input...that is a poisoning the well argument and not addressing that they may know more about game balance than a lesser skilled player and instead insinuating that they should have no input due to their profession(which in many cases may actually be a professional gamer that is sponsored for the particular game they want to provide input for).

You misunderstand. I'm saying that they make games last, but sales wise they are not exactly a huge number. I'm not saying their opinions don't matter, but frankly: some act like they are the center of smashs success, and they need to remember that they are a part of it.

 

[Pyra]

Oh don't get me wrong. I'll definitely be playing this game. I love the new stuff they added. Villager looks awesome! I just wish that they made it at least a little more competitive by at Least increasing the speed and reducing the landing lag. I can live with the other things like multiple air dodges, no edge hogging etc.

That I can respect.

I personally am planning on making my competitive entrance with Smash 4 because it's competitive, just not to the standard that people are used to (from what they can tell from the demo gameplay so far, not to say whether or not it will change from that).

 

[APC99]

Umm did you ever think about the competitive players wanting new content as well? It shouldn't just be the casuals who get new content. It's unfair. After all, it is the competitive players who make a game last long.

What's the point of getting new content if people are going to whine about it being nonviable? When they give you new content, you (not you specifically, just an all-around term) still say it's not as good as Melee?

And the game is trying hard to appeal to competitives. They've made it faster, added archetypes from other fighting games, removed tripping, and are balancing characters incredibly well, with the only exception so far being Zelda, apparently. They even dedicated an entire mode to competitive players so you didn't have to deal with banned stages and items. And yet all I see is "lol Brawl 2.0 not worth it" from a demo that was made EXTREMELY early in the game's development, looking at it, likely finished a bit after E3 2013. It's definitely NOT final. Can we wait until it releases before we decide it's viability in competitions?

EDIT: Before I get hated on, I LOVE Melee and Brawl equally. Heck, I'm playing Melee right now! I want SSB4 to be better than both, though.

 

[Cassio]

The only complaint I have is that you continue to waste my time. I'm not going to provide a counter-example to the limited examples you've given when the premise of the example is both wrong (assuming shields do not promote overly defensive play merely because they have simple offensive application) and in retort to something completely different than what I was explaining (hinging the example on the idea that I am arguing shields are defensive, ergo Brawl's shields promote defensive play, which is missing the point I made).



No, the idea that Brawl's shields don't inherently promote defensive play is counter intuitive.

I've made no claim other then to deny the statement that "shielding is inherently defensive". This entire thread has been about shielding. If you believe, specifically, brawl's shielding to be defensive, that is your claim that you own and take with it the Burden of Proof. Now the only support you've given has been to repeatedly argue something along the lines of:
"No, the idea that Brawl's shields don't inherently promote defensive play is counter intuitive."
which is entirely circular. This would fail any test of logical soundness.

In spite of this I've still provided you examples which you've chosen to ignore for being "simple". Seemingly if I dont instinctually agree with you that Brawl's shields are inherently defensive tools that lead to campfests I must be some scrub that doesnt know anything about Brawl.

 

[BelowZer0]

What's the point of getting new content if people are going to whine about it being nonviable? When they give you new content, you (not you specifically, just an all-around term) still say it's not as good as Melee?

And the game is trying hard to appeal to competitives. They've made it faster, added archetypes from other fighting games, removed tripping, and are balancing characters incredibly well, with the only exception so far being Zelda, apparently. They even dedicated an entire mode to competitive players so you didn't have to deal with banned stages and items. And yet all I see is "lol Brawl 2.0 not worth it" from a demo that was made EXTREMELY early in the game's development, looking at it, likely finished a bit after E3 2013. It's definitely NOT final. Can we wait until it releases before we decide it's viability in competitions?

EDIT: Before I get hated on, I LOVE Melee and Brawl equally. Heck, I'm playing Melee right now! I want SSB4 to be better than both, though.

Your grouping all the competitive melee players together and it's unfair that your saying that they would all whine (not all but the majority). I think a lot of people would appreciate it. Like I said, if they could just improve the gam speed and reduce landing lag that would be great.(and who knows, maybe they did from now till the game is released)

 

[Hong]

Campy play tends to be less hype unless it's Street Fighter/League/Dota.

Even with the last two, their merit as an exciting game is limited. I say this because analysis in the most commonly spectated games, while I can't speak for DOTA2 since I don't remember the numbers off-hand, LoL actually has one of the worst ratios of players-to-viewers.

To make sense of this, it has over 20 million active players (or so Riot claims). Anything less than 100k viewers is actually awful, since it suggests a very narrow appeal in proportion to its exposure. It's uncommon for a game to have more viewers than players, but that's a horrible ratio. Comparatively, a game like StarCraft (Brood War or StarCraft II) has had several times its existing player base in actual viewers. Even if its current player base of 300k+ users, if it can break 30k viewers that's fantastic. Even though both are really complex games, the latter has more tangible strategy (IE "It's like real-time Chess") and of course is insanely more aggressive in nature.

So for someone who has been monitoring competitive gaming at large, I must say Smash actually has great turnout for viewership right now with Melee. Even though Melee is a relatively dated product and having to use CRTs creates a tiny bit of a technical anomaly compared to the rest of gaming circuit, the events have still been rather fruitful and worth the investment. Putting nationals and big tourneys aside, GimR is getting insane numbers on his stream considering for how long he has been in the business. No surprise teams with sponsors have been getting into Smash, of all games. Even with a platform that affords meagre opportunity for exposure, it is still enough to provide fruitful return of interest for sponsors.

Highly aggressive play is a lot of fun to watch. Plenty of people who don't even play at a high level can watch Smash, and thus this narrow scope of exposure is reaching more eyes than just the hyper-competitive player base who is able to understand what is going on at an advanced level. Even people who are involved with other products can speak very highly of the Smash community and appreciate the level of intensity in the gameplay. I don't think Smash 4 has to be like Melee, but I certainly hope the game will at least serve to be more exciting than Brawl for the typical viewer so that our scene can only serve to grow.

 

[Senario]

Even with the last two, their merit as an exciting game is limited. I say this because analysis in the most commonly spectated games, while I can't speak for DOTA2 since I don't remember the numbers off-hand, LoL actually has one of the worst ratios of players-to-viewers.

To make sense of this, it has over 20 million active players (or so Riot claims). Anything less than 100k viewers is actually awful, since it suggests a very narrow appeal in proportion to its exposure. It's uncommon for a game to have more viewers than players, but that's a horrible ratio. Comparatively, a game like StarCraft (Brood War or StarCraft II) has had several times its existing player base in actual viewers. Even if its current player base of 300k+ users, if it can break 30k viewers that's fantastic. Even though both are really complex games, the latter has more tangible strategy (IE "It's like real-time Chess") and of course is insanely more aggressive in nature.

So for someone who has been monitoring competitive gaming at large, I must say Smash actually has great turnout for viewership right now with Melee. Even though Melee is a relatively dated product and having to use CRTs creates a tiny bit of a technical anomaly compared to the rest of gaming circuit, the events have still been rather fruitful and worth the investment. Putting nationals and big tourneys aside, GimR is getting insane numbers on his stream considering for how long he has been in the business. No surprise teams with sponsors have been getting into Smash, of all games. Even with a platform that affords meagre opportunity for exposure, it is still enough to provide fruitful return of interest for sponsors.

Highly aggressive play is a lot of fun to watch. Plenty of people who don't even play at a high level can watch Smash, and thus this narrow scope of exposure is reaching more eyes than just the hyper-competitive player base who is able to understand what is going on at an advanced level. Even people who are involved with other products can speak very highly of the Smash community and appreciate the level of intensity in the gameplay. I don't think Smash 4 has to be like Melee, but I certainly hope the game will at least serve to be more exciting than Brawl for the typical viewer so that our scene can only serve to grow.

*claps* Good post Hong, favorite mod by far :D. I do agree in general, I'm not sure I can say it any better myself when it concerns competitive+Aggressive play.

 

[APC99]

Your grouping all the competitive melee players together and it's unfair that your saying that they would all whine (not all but the majority). I think a lot of people would appreciate it. Like I said, if they could just improve the gam speed and reduce landing lag that would be great.(and who knows, maybe they did from now till the game is released)

Sorry, I didn't see the previous posts.

Reducing landing lag would do it for me, but otherwise I think that the game is doing well. We know the actual build will feature a better combo game, so there appears to be a WAY better balance. I'm getting sick of hearing people ultimately decide the game is horrible after a year-old demo that's outdated.

 

[Lozjam]

Your grouping all the competitive melee players together and it's unfair that your saying that they would all whine (not all but the majority). I think a lot of people would appreciate it. Like I said, if they could just improve the gam speed and reduce landing lag that would be great.(and who knows, maybe they did from now till the game is released)

He is not acknowledging the Melee community, merely Below Zero. He said nothing against the Melee community as a whole, just against that one member. There are certain individuals that are unrealistic, irrational, and pig headed that are in the Melee community. Such as the people who say Smash 4 is Brawl 2.0 and is always attacking Brawl and Smash 4. Even going to the extent to bullying Brawl players in the competitive community, but that is a vocal minority. There are also certain members in the Brawl community who are the same thing. People who say Melee should die in a hole and such are equally guilty.