All-stars competition?

[SmashChu]

I wonder how Melee would have done if it wasn't essentially a launch title.

Not that there weren't a couple good launch titles... buuut...

About the same I'm sure. It was a good game. I think the speed held it back which is also what Brawl fixed.

So let me get this straight, you are taking Sakurai's reflections on the design of the game, not sales, and are trying to use it as evidence in a seperate discussion? It's not only out of context, but even if he does think the same about sales, it's just a theory, not a fact. Embellishing the difficulty of Melee is not doing you any favors either considering worldwide it outsold Smash 64, the least complex and least competitive game in the series.

Melee was also the first Japanese gcn game to sell a million copies as well as the fastest selling gcn game when it released. What you are claiming contradicts how well it actually did sell during its peak selling period. But being realistic here, not all game sales come from consumers willing to buy consoles for it, especially after those first few key months. Suggesting the cube's poor performance in Japan had nothing to do with Melee selling less would be ignoring a whole sector of the consumer market.

Your looking at pieces, not wholes.

What does Melee's sales tell us? Well, it did better than 64 so it did something right, but since Japan's sales went down, it also did something wrong.

The reason for Sakurai's post is he said the game was too difficult and he went in a wrong direction. That's why he went to making the game easier with Brawl.

I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai said. "But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance.
He tells us that he was going in the wrong direction with Melee and made Brawl easier. A "balance." Note that while we argue whether or not Melee's sales are good or not, remember that Brawl is the best selling Smash game selling 3 million more than Melee. Again, Melee's Japan sales are an indicator. They are showing us that, had Brawl been more like Melee, we could see more of this. Japan showed that sales could go down. Another thing.

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult."

All of what I post is a foreign concept to Melee fans. People who want more Melee don't understand that Melee would not be the right direction. He says that the game was too difficult. He tells us this directly. This is why I also don't that the "Melee was a happy balance" arguments seriously.

To wrap this up, using console sales to link game sales doesn't work. Like I said, games sales drive hardware sales. Most people buy a console for multiple games, so all games are factors to console sales. Someone may have wanted a Gamecube for Melee, Mario Kart, and Resident Evil 4. Those games drove the console sales. Good games also increase the sale of other games. People tend to stick with a console if they get a steady supply of games to play. This all goes back to: Ignore the console sales when talking about game sales. Games sales are what makes the console's sales numbers. Wiis sold well thanks to Wii Sports., Wii Fit and Mario Kart.

As for the evidence, notice how the sales numbers here.. Japan bought only a few more 64s. Not a big difference. Both systems did bad. The 64 also sold the same as the Gamecube in Europe, yet Melee sold more. Melee sold more in the US despite the Gamecube sold worse. Again, there isn't much of a connection.

This is all just pure nonsense. Plenty of game studios make money off DLC, it's absolutely a viable revenue source for already successful games. Most fighting games are competitive in design and a lot of them do sell well. And holy crap, the first Startcraft was an incredibly deep, highly competitive game and managed to sell a **** ton. If you are going to push a broken argument, at least try using examples that support it.

You make more money selling a good box game than trying to sell the DLC. DLC focus doesn't work because customers avoid it like the plague.

 

[Signia]

Played the game at EVO.

Game is awful. Quick notes:
-some moves auto aim, like Krato's square-forward
-there is guarding, rolling and throwing
-there are ******** supers, like parappa's level 3 will instakills the whole screen
-MOVEMENT IS AWFUL... unless I haven't figured it out, no dashing, just a slow walk that slowly accelerates into a run.

 

[lordvaati]

-there are ******** supers, like parappa's level 3 will instakills the whole screen

I actually made a write up about the types of Lv. 3 supers, that someone posted on this site here.

basically, Parappa's is a Cinematic super, so it can only score singular killis, whereas other Lv.3s score multiple on a single target. also they do not get the benefits of the Super bar nullification like the other 2 types do. so cinematic-the unblockable Lv. 3s-are the weakest overall.

also,here is a lovely vid showing some of the ways you can avoid supers.

 

[RedrappeR]

Everything you have ever said.

You have to literally be the dumbest human being I have ever met. You were an idiot when I first came here in 2008, and you're an idiot now. Age has only made you worse because you think being cynical makes you look smart.

Oh yes, by sight you can determine the balance of a game and whether or not said balance is being worked on. Balance, a term reserved for character match-up ratio's which are solidified after hours of play, deep into a games competitive cycle. Yes, you, Johnnight1 who has contributed absolutely nothing to the game industry save for jerking off to Link porn and complaining on this forum.

But in case you're too stupid to read or understand basic logic, let me go over this for you:

1) The balance team at Superbot consists of Maj, Daniel Maniago(better known as Clockwork), Ed Ma, and Seth Killian. Seth Killian previously balanced AE 2012, which if you saw EVO a few weekends ago, had a top 8 consisting of no repeat characters(a feat unheard of in competitive fighting games, especially at a world stage like EVO.) Killian also helped balance Ultimate Marvel 3, which was called stupidly "unbalanced" by idiots like you-- until EVO once again proved otherwise. 95 percent of bets were placed on a Zero, Dante and Vergil teams dominating the top 8, and yet half of the top 8 was made up of the unconventional, like ChrisG's Morrigan, and Frutsy's Modok, Captain America, Taskmaster.

So with that in mind, you have essentially the greatest combo video maker of all time, two of the best marvel and street fighter players on the planet, and the man who literally redefined industry-community relations and was a great deal responsible for Street Fighter IV's success(the game which reinvigorated the fighting game genre back in 09)-- and we're supposed to disregard them because you, Johnnight have determined with your Sharingan-like ****ing eyes that this game is unbalanced.

2) You haven't even played it. Jesus dude. For all the complaining this forum did about lack of hitstun and competitive mindset in brawl, you shrug it off because God forbid somebody makes a game with their own collective IP's! Why aren't you complaining about KOF or Skullgirls while you're at it? Two exceptional games that happen to have similar elements to games like SFIV and Marvel 2?

The game doesn't even have a weight based combat system like smash, and even the combat mechanics themselves are entirely foreign compared to Smash Bros. But don't look at me. I've only, you know, played the damn thing.

3) Characters that have been announced for the game:
Drake
Jak and Daxter
Cole
Kratos
Parappa,
Big Daddy,
Radec(killzone guy)
Sly Cooper
Fat Princess
Sweet Tooth
Heihachi
and Toro.

Literally, out of all of those the only third party character is Heihachi. The studios in question for the other games are all owned and operated by Sony. You could have easily google searched this, but I assume you like being ignorant and enjoy having opinions not grounded in reality while acting like a 15 year old who thinks losing his virginity to his internet connection makes him an "adult."


Maybe instead of throwing out wild speculation that is often times completely inaccurate, you view this as a fighting game. A game with a considerably different combat system with unique mechanics being designed by what is essentially the dream team of fighting game veterans over another list of strong IP's. Developers who, by the way, have a great deal of respect for Smash* but choose to create something on their own steam with different perspective of gameplay. Maybe you could play it.

Or you could whine and bi tch(Why is this even a censored word here? You can say this on television is there a reason it' can't be uttered in text?), call me some kind of fanboy(as if it's a defense that warrants merit), be the ignorant ****** you appear to be and continue to speculate on terms you have no idea about.

/endrant

 

[RedrappeR]

Played the game at EVO.

Game is awful. Quick notes:
-some moves auto aim, like Krato's square-forward
-there is guarding, rolling and throwing
-there are ******** supers, like parappa's level 3 will instakills the whole screen
-MOVEMENT IS AWFUL... unless I haven't figured it out, no dashing, just a slow walk that slowly accelerates into a run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

 

[Claire Diviner]

@RedrappeR: You really need to keep your flaming in check if you do not want to incur the wrath of a mod or admin.

 

[RedrappeR]

@RedrappeR: You really need to keep your flaming in check if you do not want to incur the wrath of a mod or admin.

I've posted some pretty angry stuff here before. I'm guessing the standards have changed huh?

 

[Claire Diviner]

I've posted some pretty angry stuff here before. I'm guessing the standards have changed huh?

That, or you were fortunate enough to have your flaming go under the radar.

As for the topic, Playstation All-Stars may seem like a Smash Bros. game in concept, but it does play differently enough to make it its own thing, from what I've seen so far. Will it be a healthy competitor to Smash Bros.? I predict it won't, but we'll never know until the game is released now, will we?

 

[lordvaati]

just a couple of new mods, other then that,not much. just giving a minor heads up since you reached your Limit Break and all, don't wanna see folks getting banned for nothing.

yeah,I can see this game being the Mortal Kombat to our Street Fighter.

 

[RedrappeR]

That, or you were fortunate enough to have your flaming go under the radar.

As for the topic, Playstation All-Stars may seem like a Smash Bros. game in concept, but it does play differently enough to make it its own thing, from what I've seen so far. Will it be a healthy competitor to Smash Bros.? I predict it won't, but we'll never know until the game is released now, will we?

That may be the case. Or maybe I was just ignored because the topics went too fast.

Looks, it's a game in development. If everyone had responses that were well-reasoned for why they're tepid with a little bit less of "this is AWFUL and I use such a strong word because I REALLY want this review to get attention" I could understand. Also, I've lurked here occasionally from time to time, that guy who I ranted at has seriously posted some of the most ignorant **** over all four years, and I've yet to respond until about then.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Nice to see that we've all played the game.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

3) Characters that have been announced for the game:
Drake
Jak and Daxter
Cole
Kratos
Parappa,
Big Daddy,
Radec(killzone guy)
Sly Cooper
Fat Princess
Sweet Tooth
Heihachi
and Toro.

Literally, out of all of those the only third party character is Heihachi.

Actually, Big Daddy is third party. Unless Irrational Games is owned by Sony now or something.

 

[RedrappeR]

Actually, Big Daddy is third party. Unless Irrational Games is owned by Sony now or something.

okay, apologies. Big Daddy and Heihachi. That's two out of twelve.

 

[lordvaati]

the original Title Fight beta. back then it had something thatlookedlike ringouts, AND THE COOLEST F***ING STAGE EVER. I think it was just an animation, sadly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QiaDSmbgyMg

 

[shinhed-echi]

If it's at least as enjoyable as TMNT:Smash Up is, then I can get it.


What I wouldn't want is for it to have the physics of say... Cartoon Network's PTE. Don't get me wrong, there are several things they did right with it, great roster, really creative moves, and even alt.costumes for most characters.. but the physics suck, gravity is like 0.1, the moves have absolutely no weight into them, and you can kill yourself if you're near the vertical limit and DOUBLE JUMP through it.


I think I'm hyped for it again. So I'll wait and see how it turns out. We still have like 3 years at least to wait for SSB4, so this can help kill the time-span. PTE didn't suffice, and TMNT:SU is great, but online matchups are dead (unless you agree with a friend).

 

[Robert of Normandy]

okay, apologies. Big Daddy and Heihachi. That's two out of twelve.

You were spot on about just about everything else. Most Smash fans(myself included tbh) were/are far to quick to judge this game. I'm actually hoping PSA turns out good so Smash finally has decent competition.

 

[Signia]

You were spot on about just about everything else. Most Smash fans(myself included tbh) were/are far to quick to judge this game. I'm actually hoping PSA turns out good so Smash finally has decent competition.

Yeah all I could play was FFA with three other people anyway, so who knows how the game will play out in 1v1.

It seems like the game will come down to rolling and punishing and baiting/predicting rolls. Movement isn't good enough to have a deep zoning/spacing game.

I actually made a write up about the types of Lv. 3 supers, that someone posted on this site here.

basically, Parappa's is a Cinematic super, so it can only score singular killis, whereas other Lv.3s score multiple on a single target. also they do not get the benefits of the Super bar nullification like the other 2 types do. so cinematic-the unblockable Lv. 3s-are the weakest overall.

also,here is a lovely vid showing some of the ways you can avoid supers.

Thanks, this was helpful.

 

[El Duderino]

Your looking at pieces, not wholes.

What does Melee's sales tell us? Well, it did better than 64 so it did something right, but since Japan's sales went down, it also did something wrong...remember that Brawl is the best selling Smash game selling 3 million more than Melee. Again, Melee's Japan sales are an indicator.

I'm pretty sure worldwide sales is looking at wholes. I could just as easily claim Melee doubled 64's sales in the west, therefore they did something exceptionally right. Both are completely flawed conclusions however because they use selective evidence.

Rather than getting caught up in the rest of the nonsense, lets look at the big picture and try to make some logical conclusions:

Sales in millions: Wii > 90, GCN ~ 22, n64 ~ 32

~ 5.5

~10

~ 7 .

~ 7

~ 11

~30

~ 4.25

Was Brawl able to sell to a lot more consumers that already owned the console?
Yes

Did Sonic's inclusion contribute to the sales jump?
Given how well M&S Olympics sold, it's very likely

Sales wise, Did Mario Kart Wii Benefit from their "my first kart racer" approach?
Yes, Yes, and Yes

Does selling more make Mario Kart Wii the most highly regarded game in the series?
Absolutely not

...Same question, what about Brawl?

Does the larger Wii install base enable games to sell more?
Put it this way, Mario Party 8 saw a 6 million sales boost and it's not like the game was running on high praise.

So did Brawl's change in direction help its sales like Mario Kart's did?
Hard to say how much it contributed. It sold better, but saw nowhere near the gains other Nintendo franchises did on the Wii. Relatively, it either worked a little or had no sizable impact.


So let me end this with two questions for you. If Brawl is soo well targeted for the casual masses, why did it see considerably less growth than other Nintendo franchises on the Wii? Second, there are a massive amount of competitive consumers out there, just look at COD sales, or League of Legend's total players and logged hours. What's to say Playstation All-stars or Smash can't also gain sales by having more competitive incentives?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm confused, the makers said that when they made it so you could dodge and block supers, fights got really long and boring. And yet, we have a video and stuff showing how you can use your moves and Super moves to block and avoid them.

Am I missing something here? What the hell? @_@

Edit: They also kind of showed almost nothing for Sweet Tooth in the combo video, except for a like a couple hit one. XD

 

[SmashChu]

I'm pretty sure worldwide sales is looking at wholes. I could just as easily claim Melee doubled 64's sales in the west, therefore they did something exceptionally right. Both are completely flawed conclusions however because they use selective evidence.

Which is why we look at wholes. We combine the picture. Again, Melee's Japan sales are an indicator, which the creator of the series likely noted as he said Melee was directed too much at hardcore games and even said Melee fans wouldn't understand.

We are also forgetting this fact in this whole discussion. Brawl, which went for the medium Sakurai mentioned, is the best selling game in all regions. Let me put it all this way and it may make a bit more sense. Think of these sales as fans. Each sale is a fan going out and purchasing the game. With 64, a lot of fans purchased it. In Japan, fewer fans went out and purchased Melee. Why? Then, with Brawl, all of them came back and then some (I know perhaps not everyone came back, but you get the idea). More fans went out and purchased Brawl. Why? That's what I'm trying to answer.

Looking at wholes is talking every piece of the puzzle and forming an answer. Let's look at some
-Melee is the worst selling game in Japan of the three
-Brawl is the best selling game in all regions. It also outsold Melee
-The game's designer said that Melee was geared too much towards hardcore players.
-Smash is successful because of it's accessibility. You can ask most players, but Sakurai mentions this too
-Gamers buy systems for the games. Not the other way around (I think anyone here can attest to this.)

Now here is my argument which is how I've been debating the points. If Smash became/becomes more complex (i.e. follow Melee), the game's sales will go down or stagnant. Your idea is looking only at pieces because you only want to focus on one idea: the games sales are totally linked by sales of the system (which is silly because games don't buy systems with no games). I can also prove that games suffer from added complexity, but that is another time.

One last thing. On Melee's sales: remember that I'm saying here it is an indicator. Melee did well for a lot of reasons, and, again, I'll go into that another time. I may even do an article if anyone wants.

Rather than getting caught up in the rest of the nonsense, lets look at the big picture and try to make some logical conclusions:

Sales in millions: Wii > 90, GCN ~ 22, n64 ~ 32

~ 5.5

~10

~ 7 .

~ 7

~ 11

~30

~ 4.25

Was Brawl able to sell to a lot more consumers that already owned the console?
Yes

Did Sonic's inclusion contribute to the sales jump?
Given how well M&S Olympics sold, it's very likely

Sales wise, Did Mario Kart Wii Benefit from their "my first kart racer" approach?
Yes, Yes, and Yes

Does selling more make Mario Kart Wii the most highly regarded game in the series?
Absolutely not

...Same question, what about Brawl?

Does the larger Wii install base enable games to sell more?
Put it this way, Mario Party 8 saw a 6 million sales boost and it's not like the game was running on high praise.

So did Brawl's change in direction help its sales like Mario Kart's did?
Hard to say how much it contributed. It sold better, but saw nowhere near the gains other Nintendo franchises did on the Wii. Relatively, it either worked a little or had no sizable impact.


So let me end this with two questions for you. If Brawl is soo well targeted for the casual masses, why did it see considerably less growth than other Nintendo franchises on the Wii? Second, there are a massive amount of competitive consumers out there, just look at COD sales, or League of Legend's total players and logged hours. What's to say Playstation All-stars or Smash can't also gain sales by having more competitive incentives?

The problem with your entire argument is that it is subjective (who is to say that Mario Kart 64 or Double Dash is better?). It doesn't actually prove anything. Let's go though some problems

1)Like above, who is to say Mario kart Wii is somehow worse than the others. Actually, why does that matter?
2)How does Mario and Sonic's sales means Sonic sold Brawl? I could easily say that Mario and Sonic sold because Mario is on the box
3)You never address the fact that while Smash's sales went up with each that Mario Kart fluctuated. When the Cube's sales were less than that of the Wii, Mario Kart went down and Melee goes up. You never try to answer that.
4)How do you not know that Brawl made people buy the Wii and not the other way around.

I can also disprove your argument with this, using the same method you did.
(all sales in millions)

Super Nintendo: 49
Gamecube:22
Wii:90

Metroid
Metroid Prime 1: 2.82
Metroid Prime 3: 1.63
Metroid Other M: 1.12

Donkey Kong
Donkey Kong Country: 9.3
Donkey Kong Country Returns: 5.53

Notice how nothing lines up? Games sell on their own merit and you'll be digging a nice big whole if you keep trying to think that console sales influence games sales enough (Smash already throws that out the window). If Other M tells us one thing, it's that the game's sales are based on it's own merit.

 

[El Duderino]

who is to say Mario kart Wii is somehow worse than the others. Actually, why does that matter?

Read it again. I'm not disagreeing with you. What games are better is subjective and not sales related. Given how sales heavy this discussion has become I threw that in to make sure we're on the same page, at least there. God knows I don't want to reason with someone pulling that kind of mental gymnastics.

Again, Melee's Japan sales are an indicator.

Again, Melee's US sales are also an indicator of a different, contradicting outcome. Now can we please move off this regional cherrypicking?


My whole argument is here is painfully simple, yet you somehow keep misconstruing it:

1. 
   I can't prove Brawl, being a more casually targeted game, had nothing to do with sales. (or vise-versa, everything to do with the sales)
2. You can't prove more consumers with a lower barrier of entry (already owning the wii), and iconic additions to Brawl's roster did not help move those 3 million copies.
3. No matter how much you want it to, Sakuari's reflection on each games' design proves neither.

And no, fluctuated sales across different platforms is not conclusive evidence games sell purely on merit and nothing else. There's also consumer fatigue, strength of a brand at a point in time, number of people that haven't retired their console to the closet, outside competition, etc. The list could go on and on.

My intent is not to prove what made Brawl sell, only to point out there are quite a number of potential contributing factors that you are choosing to ignore for the sake of your case. Also, I'm not the one making a blanket statement that needs support, that's on you. And there is plenty of explaining left to do too considering Brawl's sales/growth is a mere footnote compared to the real casual success stories on the Wii. Makes it very difficult to distinguish how much the casual push actually contributed to sales, if at all. You simply need some stronger evidence to drop the assumptions that are killing your argument.

To tie it back on topic, again there's nothing to suggest PSASBR, or the next Smash can't be just as successful appealing to both demographics in a more lasting, less alienating manor. If anything, the previews for PSASBR, both positive and negative, seem to indicate the press at least is ready for a swing back to some common ground after Brawl's casual leanings. I imagine there are a lot of consumers out there that feel the same.

 

[SmashChu]

Read it again. I'm not disagreeing with you. What games are better is subjective and not sales related. Given how sales heavy this discussion has become I threw that in to make sure we're on the same page, at least there. God knows I don't want to reason with someone pulling that kind of mental gymnastics.

I wont go into it here, but sales are an indicator of quality. Probably the major one, but there are other factors here. This is aside the point, and I wont discuss it here.

Again, Melee's US sales are also an indicator of a different, contradicting outcome. Now can we please move off this regional cherrypicking?

Your missing the point. The idea is to ask questions. People who argue Melee see it as hunky dory. But this shows us it might not be so. It even tells us that Melee's sales were suppressed. Had it improved in Japan, that could easily be a half a million more in sales. Maybe even a million more. Again, it's wholes, not pieces. That information plus other things makes a whole.

My whole argument is here is painfully simple, yet you somehow keep misconstruing it:

1. 
   I can't prove Brawl, being a more casually targeted game, had nothing to do with sales. (or vise-versa, everything to do with the sales)
2. You can't prove more consumers with a lower barrier of entry (already owning the wii), and iconic additions to Brawl's roster did not help move those 3 million copies.
3. No matter how much you want it to, Sakuari's reflection on each games' design proves neither.

And no, fluctuated sales across different platforms is not conclusive evidence games sell purely on merit and nothing else. There's also consumer fatigue, strength of a brand at a point in time, number of people that haven't retired their console to the closet, outside competition, etc. The list could go on and on.

My intent is not to prove what made Brawl sell, only to point out there are quite a number of potential contributing factors that you are choosing to ignore for the sake of your case. Also, I'm not the one making a blanket statement that needs support, that's on you. And there is plenty of explaining left to do too considering Brawl's sales/growth is a mere footnote compared to the real casual success stories on the Wii. Makes it very difficult to distinguish how much the casual push actually contributed to sales, if at all. You simply need some stronger evidence to drop the assumptions that are killing your argument.

To tie it back on topic, again there's nothing to suggest PSASBR, or the next Smash can't be just as successful appealing to both demographics in a more lasting, less alienating manor. If anything, the previews for PSASBR, both positive and negative, seem to indicate the press at least is ready for a swing back to some common ground after Brawl's casual leanings. I imagine there are a lot of consumers out there that feel the same.

I understand your argument. Your argument and your point is that mine is wrong. Your argument has no independence and doesn't even take another side. Your not saying that "Brawl sold because of X," or "That direction with Sony Smash is good (or better than Smash maybe) because X." They are independent points that exist to try and say my argument isn't right. If your wrong, your not right. If I'm right, your wrong. We can see this with your points.

1. 
   I can't prove Brawl, being a more casually targeted game, had nothing to do with sales. (or vise-versa, everything to do with the sales)
2. You can't prove more consumers with a lower barrier of entry (already owning the wii), and iconic additions to Brawl's roster did not help move those 3 million copies.
3. No matter how much you want it to, Sakuari's reflection on each games' design proves neither.

If you look at them, they all have the same traits. First, all of them are separate. They don't support one unified idea. They don't try to convey an idea out side this one: that my points are wrong. 3 doesn't deal with anything, 1 is saying you can't prove anything and 2 might be a point if it didn't get mixed up with everything else. There is no coherency.

You will lose this argument because you are trying to look at pieces while I look at wholes. My argument is this

If Smash became/becomes more complex (i.e. follow Melee), the game's sales will go down or stagnant.

So long as I can up hold this, I'm good. I can lose on or two. It doesn't matter because my idea can still hold up. If I add one, you now have more to deal with. If you lose a point, you have less stomping ground. The argument is already over because of this. I have still have a block of text that you've ignored and throws most of your ideas out the window. You have also been unable to refute my Melee point despite spending most of the time on it.

I can also write on how sales don't make sense to you. That fact that you try to put these so called "casuals" into a box is laughable at best. You name off factors without understanding their power or potential. You can't just list them. You have to prove that something like outside competition matters. You have to go out and dig up some support. Note how sales have been a big point in my argument and when I tried to counter your sales point, I went out and got more facts.

At this point, you have a lot to address. You still have not touched all the questions I posed to you. You have also not made a claim as to why having a more competitive presence will help Sony Smash. I think you have a long night ahead of you.

 

[Big-Cat]

So Twilight is five star quality reading and Earthbound is one of the worst RPGs in existence. I've said this before, but I thought that this must be true so I thought it was worth saying again. Also, Smash should be simplified to the point where it's just Rock'em Sock'em Robots with Nintendo (and some others) characters and we just mash all day.

Chu, why are you looking at Japan's "decline" (one game does not make a decline) so intensely? If it was the American sales that had lowered, what would you say then?

 

[El Duderino]

I wont go into it here, but sales are an indicator of quality.

Oh God, apparently I gave you too much credit. Go listen to some Top 40 radio, then tell me sales/popularity indicates quality. Yes, good quality does sometimes sell, but there is no link between to two, and even still it's all subjective.

Your argument has no independence and doesn't even take another side.

You are making a hasty generalization based on inconclusive evidence. My argument doesn't get more cohesive than that. So please, rather than taking the cop out by trying to attack my argument for merely suggesting there's a possibility you are wrong, back up your claims with solid evidence.


And no, cherry picking is not evidence of anything. For the sake of brevity, lets just jump right down to the problem here:

If Smash became/becomes more complex (i.e. follow Melee), the game's sales will go down or stagnant.

So long as I can up hold this, I'm good.

I hate to break it to you, but there was nothing to hold onto in the first place. You've downplayed/ignored nearly all the other possible explanations and supported your claim with virtually nothing. The core of your argument is Brawl sold better, Melee didn't sell as well in Japan, therefore Brawl sold better because of the casual factor and Sakurai said so. Further more you continue to claim SSB4, and by extension Playstation All-Stars, can't match or increase sales if they don't focus on the same.

It's a broken conclusion on soo many levels. You are assuming because A. Brawl had more casual leanings, B. it sold better, therefore A caused B. Textbook Post Hoc fallacy. Then you take it one step further to suggest A causing B is also going to be true for the next game in the series. I recommend you take a step back, re-frame your argument to something that you can actually support without running into other contradicting reasonable explanations or resort to broken logic.

 

[soviet prince]

in the topic of allstars 4 more characters will be revealed at gamerscon in aug

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Go listen to some Top 40 radio, then tell me sales/popularity indicates quality. Yes, good quality does sometimes sell, but there is no link between to two, and even still it's all subjective.

I love self-defeating arguments more than I like trying to understand what Chu's trying to say. Kudos, sir!

 

[Mypantisgone]

I don't really understand what you guys talk about,@-@.


The music isn't loud enough,same for hit effects,gravity is weird,like getting knocked high was fully animated.
Nothing else bother me.
Eh,i like the characters being shown dissapointed/happy at the end.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I don't really understand what you guys talk about,@-@.


The music isn't loud enough,same for hit effects,gravity is weird,like getting knocked high was fully animated.
Nothing else bother me.
Eh,i like the characters being shown dissapointed/happy at the end.

Right now, PSA just seems like an early build. The game will likely(hopefully) improve a lot as time progresses.

 

[Norm]

I don't really think All-Stars is going to hold up to Smash Bros. All the videos I've seen on it, including the new ones showing dodging specials and combo's, just make the game look really slow and clunky it might end up being a bit of fun but I just don't think it'll flow as well as Smash Bros does. Even in the combos video ya it's great that you can do combos but they still seem really slow paced and awkward to me.

 

[SmashChu]

Oh God, apparently I gave you too much credit. Go listen to some Top 40 radio, then tell me sales/popularity indicates quality. Yes, good quality does sometimes sell, but there is no link between to two, and even still it's all subjective.

The problem here is content vs context.

Think about your buying patterns. Do you buy things you don't like? No. Of course you don't. Why would you waste money on things you don't like. You buy things you do like. You might even research, looking at reviews and talking to others, to make sure you will like it. You can see that what you buy is what you like.

How is that different from anyone else. These people who listen to these songs and make the top 40 like the songs. If they didn't, they would change the station. Same for games. You may say that "Oh, but sales don't equal quality," but these people, like yourself, don't buy things because they hate them. They buy it because they like it. They enjoy the product.

Let's go back to content vs context. Content is the same (as a cup of water is) but context (the glass) changes. Your context is things that sell well aren't always quality products and could even be bad. I say this because I've seen this idea a lot. There are always some that hate products, and what not, that do well. This is the context I see. They rationalize that these people are just stupid and wrong. But that is a scapegoat. These people buy just like you do. They buy what they like. That is why sales=quality

You may note that "Well, that's fine and all, but if they bought Smash early, they wouldn't know it's bad." That's why I have this.

You are making a hasty generalization based on inconclusive evidence. My argument doesn't get more cohesive than that. So please, rather than taking the cop out by trying to attack my argument for merely suggesting there's a possibility you are wrong, back up your claims with solid evidence.


And no, cherry picking is not evidence of anything. For the sake of brevity, lets just jump right down to the problem here:

I said it like it is. You have no argument because you have nothing to prove. Your argument is mine is wrong. Even now, your not forming your own points, but trying to counter mine. This will not work. All I have to do is keep strengthening my argument and all you can do is try and knock it down.

Again, you should try to argue why Sony Smash going more of a competitive route is a good thing, but you aren't.

I hate to break it to you, but there was nothing to hold onto in the first place. You've downplayed/ignored nearly all the other possible explanations and supported your claim with virtually nothing. The core of your argument is Brawl sold better, Melee didn't sell as well in Japan, therefore Brawl sold better because of the casual factor and Sakurai said so. Further more you continue to claim SSB4, and by extension Playstation All-Stars, can't match or increase sales if they don't focus on the same.

It's a broken conclusion on soo many levels. You are assuming because A. Brawl had more casual leanings, B. it sold better, therefore A caused B. Textbook Post Hoc fallacy. Then you take it one step further to suggest A causing B is also going to be true for the next game in the series. I recommend you take a step back, re-frame your argument to something that you can actually support without running into other contradicting reasonable explanations or resort to broken logic.

1)You don't understand my argument. I even wrote it out and you don't understand. All it is is this
If Smash became/becomes more complex (i.e. follow Melee), the game's sales will go down or stagnant.

There is nothing more than that. Again, arguments are a large formal concept. It is not about arguing tiny points. In other words, you want to win battles, not wars.
2)Of all the things you proposed, you have not given a reason for any of them. Notice how I explained sales=quality. You didn't do that for any suggestion you made. Why should I think that is true? Just because you list it?

Your argument fell apart a while ago, and you have yet to answer some pretty big topics.

[COLLAPSE="Point"]The problem with your entire argument is that it is subjective (who is to say that Mario Kart 64 or Double Dash is better?). It doesn't actually prove anything. Let's go though some problems

1)Like above, who is to say Mario kart Wii is somehow worse than the others. Actually, why does that matter?
2)How does Mario and Sonic's sales means Sonic sold Brawl? I could easily say that Mario and Sonic sold because Mario is on the box
3)You never address the fact that while Smash's sales went up with each that Mario Kart fluctuated. When the Cube's sales were less than that of the Wii, Mario Kart went down and Melee goes up. You never try to answer that.
4)How do you not know that Brawl made people buy the Wii and not the other way around.

I can also disprove your argument with this, using the same method you did.
(all sales in millions)

Super Nintendo: 49
Gamecube:22
Wii:90

Metroid
Metroid Prime 1: 2.82
Metroid Prime 3: 1.63
Metroid Other M: 1.12

Donkey Kong
Donkey Kong Country: 9.3
Donkey Kong Country Returns: 5.53

Notice how nothing lines up? Games sell on their own merit and you'll be digging a nice big whole if you keep trying to think that console sales influence games sales enough (Smash already throws that out the window). If Other M tells us one thing, it's that the game's sales are based on it's own merit.[/COLLAPSE]

Now, off to batman

 

[Big-Cat]

What if the tastes of consumers changes and they want something more rewarding for the effort they put in - aka making it more competitive?

With things like MLG and the gaming community being more embracing of post SF4 fighters there is a decent chance that the market will want a competitive oriented Smash.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

This thread has completely gone off the rails. It should just be renamed to "was Melee inaccessible or not" at this point.

But anyway, I'll re-post here what I said in another thread:

Melee wasn't "inaccessible" to the casual crowd. I'm a casual player, and I don't(and never have) found Melee significantly "harder" than Brawl. I actually like Melee better than Brawl.

Before Brawl, nobody had any major complaints about Melee being "inaccessible" to beginners. Some people had complaints that a few were taking the game a bit too seriously, but there was no major outcry among the casual fans about advanced techniques ruining the game.

When Brawl removed a lot of ATs, it didn't make the game more accessible. It just made the game less rewarding to master. A lot of the other engine changes also ended up pissing off many casual fans in addition to the hardcore fanbase.

Sorry for rambling a bit.

 

[El Duderino]

SmashChu, you cannot justify an argument that sales of one game, movie, book, etc, vs another is somehow evidence that the quality of the higher selling tittle is better. It's trying to use numbers to qualify something that is 100% subjective.

Another great example is beer, under sales=quality, Bud Light should be downright amazing. Again, still subjective, but that's the point. You can't just pair the two together.

If Smash became/becomes more complex (i.e. follow Melee), the game's sales will go down or stagnant.

There is nothing more than that. Again, arguments are a large formal concept.

Saying something in bold and obnoxiously increasing the font doesn't count as backing your argument up.

There has never been a Smash game in the history of the franchise that suggests total sales will drop when they add depth to the gameplay. The series has always been on a steady sales upswing, even when the gameplay was significantly expanded on. This idea of a resulting worldwide sales drop is something you are more or less pulling out of thin air.

Again, you should try to argue why Sony Smash going more of a competitive route is a good thing, but you aren't.

If they strike a good balance both can potentiality appeal to even broader range of consumers, including all the dedicated online gamers Brawl really dropped the ball with. Additionally, having some competitive depth can build a base of active players that help keep the game/franchise relevant for a longer period of time. You see it with League of Legends, Call of Duty, Counter Strike, Team Fortress, Halo, and yes even Smash. It'll help those online servers stay alive and active longer too, great news for everyone. And last, for admittedly completely selfish reasons, it just adds extra replay value.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

What if the tastes of consumers changes and they want something more rewarding for the effort they put in - aka making it more competitive?

They either change the way they play the game (rules/mods) or change the game they play. Competitive Smash's existence is entirely coincidental to a game about accessibility and Nintenthings.

SmashChu, you cannot justify an argument that sales of one game, movie, book, etc, vs another is somehow evidence that the quality of the higher selling tittle is better. It's trying to use numbers to qualify something that is 100% subjective.

Another great example is beer, under sales=quality, Bud Light should be downright amazing. Again, still subjective, but that's the point. You can't just pair the two together.

The word Chu's probably looking for is value, which IS objective. Brawl has more value than Melee, Bud Light has more value than Heineken, Twilight has more value than my Toise Memoirs. Snobbery means **** compared to the amount of people who prefer the "inferior" product.

 

[Pieman0920]

Heeeeeeeeyo. :V

Kind of random I guess, and apparently off topic seeing as where the topic is now, but I don"t believe Sony-Smash will provide all that much competition, though it will sell well. The game just seems too split in its design, like its trying to be a Smash style fighter, but not really, and half the team is making the game thinking casual-fying is what will make the game sell, and the other half are SF-fans trying to make it Smash like they would have wanted.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[SmashChu]

SmashChu, you cannot justify an argument that sales of one game, movie, book, etc, vs another is somehow evidence that the quality of the higher selling tittle is better. It's trying to use numbers to qualify something that is 100% subjective.

Another great example is beer, under sales=quality, Bud Light should be downright amazing. Again, still subjective, but that's the point. You can't just pair the two together.

Again, your context is wrong. A person's opinion is subjective, but the total opinions are not. The point is to quantify quality. It's to ask ourselves "What do most of the people like?" It's no different than using a poll, but here we have a bigger sample. Also, actions speak louder than words, so them putting their money where there mouth is prove what they really want.

Again, it's your context. Your not looking at this in the right light.

Oh, one last thing. Try to focus on just entertainment. If you start talking about beverages and what not we'll have to start talking about price and capitalism. I don't think you want me to go there.

Saying something in bold and obnoxiously increasing the font doesn't count as backing your argument up.

There has never been a Smash game in the history of the franchise that suggests total sales will drop when they add depth to the gameplay. The series has always been on a steady sales upswing, even when the gameplay was significantly expanded on. This idea of a resulting worldwide sales drop is something you are more or less pulling out of thin air.

I think you've forgotten this entire argument. Also, you proved to me that you didn't see this when I posted this the first time. Why didn't you say this earlier.

Go back a few post and you'll see how I link multiple factors up to come up with this. It's only one page back and I even put it in a nice list. I can also bring up how this has worked in other games, but I'm lazy and will ignore it for now. Maybe later. You can look up Street Fighter for the best example.

If they strike a good balance both can potentiality appeal to even broader range of consumers, including all the dedicated online gamers Brawl really dropped the ball with. Additionally, having some competitive depth can build a base of active players that help keep the game/franchise relevant for a longer period of time. You see it with League of Legends, Call of Duty, Counter Strike, Team Fortress, Halo, and yes even Smash. It'll help those online servers stay alive and active longer too, great news for everyone. And last, for admittedly completely selfish reasons, it just adds extra replay value.

You missed the point. None of those game you mentioned are competitively geared. League of Legends is actually an easier DOTA, proving my point.
There are never enough competitive players to justify serving them. Its not worth it to make the entry barrier higher (which is what "being more like Melee" will do) to please a small group of people.

Heeeeeeeeyo. :V

Kind of random I guess, and apparently off topic seeing as where the topic is now, but I don"t believe Sony-Smash will provide all that much competition, though it will sell well. The game just seems too split in its design, like its trying to be a Smash style fighter, but not really, and half the team is making the game thinking casual-fying is what will make the game sell, and the other half are SF-fans trying to make it Smash like they would have wanted.

But that's just my opinion.

I think you pointing out something very important. There is defiantly a split with how this game is being made. It wants to go in two different directions. I'm not confident it will do well. For one, Sony made games rarely do that well (less than 3 million. Good, but never amazing).

 

[Pieman0920]

3 Million may still be good depending on the game's budget. Either way, I'm just saying it will have a decent enough amount of sales from is brands alone, even if they aren't up to par with Smash's

 

[Starphoenix]

Sakurai probably isn't going to look at Sony's game and see a product he needs to compete with. He is going, if not already, to be so involved with his own project that he won't not have the time nor concern to compete with a game that probably will not match the same experience as a Super Smash Bros title. His focus is primarily on finding a new direction, whatever that entails, that Super Smash Bros. 4 can take while offering as much content as possible.

At the end of the day Super Smash Bros will always be the superior product. I'd chalk it up to a mixture of Sakurai's dedication and the nature of Nintendo brands in general.

 

[El Duderino]

Again, your context is wrong. A person's opinion is subjective, but the total opinions are not. The point is to quantify quality. It's to ask ourselves "What do most of the people like?" It's no different than using a poll, but here we have a bigger sample. Also, actions speak louder than words, so them putting their money where there mouth is prove what they really want.

So I guess that still makes Bud Light the highest quality beer, or say Jose Cuervo Especial the highest quality tequila? ToiseOfChoice had it right, value is you are looking to link here, not quality. Even then sometimes it's just good marketing. Now lets please move past this silly argument.

Go back a few post and you'll see how I link multiple factors up to come up with this.

I see how you've suggested complex/competitive changes in Smash = total sales drop while failing to address why that was not true for Melee. Even Brawl, despite stripping the game down, had a number of them. It's certainly not the least complex, easiest to comprehend game in the series, making it not the best evidence here either.

Having some well designed complexity/depth, even if the player never plans on diving deep into it, adds a sense of value to what you are playing and paying for. It brings more purpose beyond simply experiencing short bursts of cheap thrills. You know you are playing a well crafted experience at all levels of play. Most gamers like that, makes them feel they haven't been shortchanged. COD, LOL, Smash, Halo, Counter Strike, they all have and benefit from some well designed complexity. They are not non-competitive exclusive, everyone is just happy to be playing together, experiences. That's not what keeps people logged online playing for hours on end and then convince their friends to buy the game and do the same. It's that very audience of online gamers that SSB4 and Playstation Allstars stand to gain, and there needs to be more care put into higher level play plus a much more thorough online structure to get there.

 

[SmashChu]

3 Million may still be good depending on the game's budget. Either way, I'm just saying it will have a decent enough amount of sales from is brands alone, even if they aren't up to par with Smash's

3 million is much higher than I expect, so it would be good. I expect a little under 2 million. I don't think this game is getting people excited. The only talk about it is when news comes out.

I think on problem is they are focusing too much being comptitive rather than being fun. It seems more dry as a result and no one is wowing. People mention the characters and what not, but I think they can make an amazing game with the right mind set. Not feeling it right now, but I've heard good things.

Sakurai probably isn't going to look at Sony's game and see a product he needs to compete with. He is going, if not already, to be so involved with his own project that he won't not have the time nor concern to compete with a game that probably will not match the same experience as a Super Smash Bros title. His focus is primarily on finding a new direction, whatever that entails, that Super Smash Bros. 4 can take while offering as much content as possible.

At the end of the day Super Smash Bros will always be the superior product. I'd chalk it up to a mixture of Sakurai's dedication and the nature of Nintendo brands in general.

Well said Star. I do think your right in that Sakurai really wont focus on others projects. He's more concerned with making the next game beat Brawl.

@El Duderino: I'll respond some other time. Not feeling a huge response right now. Also be good to have some conversation besides our argument.