Brawl 64 - Don't Get Hit

[GPDP]

I really hate to bring it up, but... how is 64's landing detection in comparison to Melee's and Brawl's?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh SHI-
Yeah that could be a problem if it's different.

 

[GP&B]

I want to say that it's like Melee's. Maybe it's just a hunch, but I always get that feeling when landing on the ground with moves like Mario's Dair. However, SHFFL is nonexistent in SSB64 metagame anyways because of the way the engine works that doesn't allow fast fall during aerials (oh yes, another thing that needs to be replicated too) so I don't think the landing detection is as big of a deal compared to Melee where it affects tons of SHFFL, general aerial options, L-canceling timing (where there's a fail window), and wavelanding/dashing (mostly the former with platformers).

 

[Rikana]

Forget landing detection. Yes, it'll feel different but landing detection is way too big of a step. Work without it at the moment.

Edit: @gamedominator. I remember antdgar (or was it someone else..) made a code where you can FF during an aerial. Or was that a dream that I had..? LOL. I swear I saw it on youtube long ago. I'll see if I can dig it up. I think it would change the metagame quite a bit.

Edit: no luck.

 

[GP&B]

I feel like that would be totally broken, but that's just theorycrafting at best. Being able to minimalize time between aerials would most likely break combo game into ridiculous levels.

 

[Tommy_G]

I'm hoping this game doesn't have any of Melee's poisonous crap in this. If it plays like Smash 64, I'll pick this up and give much deserved kudos to the creators and all who helped.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

I'll probably reduce it by a bit.

Right now, I'm pretty much just waiting on a bunch of codes to be put in place, then I'll test to get the hitstun exactly right by using Fox's Up Smash as the test in both games (It should kill a bit earlier in Brawl 64 though, I always remember the upper blastzones as being absolutely ridiculous in 64. The move also seems the best judge when it comes to moves between the two, it doesn't seem to have all that much difference in KBG vs BKB between the two, and damage is fixed easily enough.).

Then, I'll work on matching the characters who were in 64 to their 64 movesets except, possibly, Luigi. Knockback will be mostly trial and error, I wouldn't even know how to start looking through the 64 ROM for values to do KB on a relative scale. I guess I'm spoiled by being able to poke through individual files with DS and Wii games.

Finally, once the original 12 (or 11) are completed, I'll move on to newer characters.

Fox's Laser is ok as it is.
between the two Fox, I like more the 64 one instead of the Brawl/Melee one in all sense.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

BPC, and everyone else, I"m not keeping side-specials because in Smash 64 there were only 3 specials per character. That is how the game was.

Also, yeah, I actually figured I'd just retool Mach Tornado.

I also wasn't aware that you couldn't FF during aerials. Maybe it's just because I played Ness against people who couldn't tech to save their lives.

 

[CanadaKid91]

BPC, and everyone else, I"m not keeping side-specials because in Smash 64 there were only 3 specials per character. That is how the game was.

In Smash 64 there were only 12 playable characters. That is how the game was.
Do you see how your reasoning is flawed? Keep the side specials. That is all.

 

[Zef]

I'm for this project with or without side specials, but it would be more fun WITH the side specials.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

In Smash 64 there were only 12 playable characters. That is how the game was.
Do you see how your reasoning is flawed? Keep the side specials. That is all.

Alrighty, then, I'll just remove all the new characters as well. I'll also remove all stages that weren't in the original. In fact, I'll remove the ability to set a timer, that wasn't in 64. I'll also remove the ability to use Wii or GC controllers.
Do you see how your reasoning is flawed? Inclusion of side-specials is significantly different from inclusion of characters. One of these changes a base mechanic - the number of moves a character has. The other changes the content of the game - how many movesets following said base mechanics there are. If I make one concession, it's only a matter of time before I get people making arguments for air or spot dodging, or up and down throws, or auto-snap ledges.

I will consider keeping side specials, but this will be after discussion with the Smash 64 community. I'm actually planning on speaking with people on Sunday over IRC.

 

[standardtoaster]

Also keep in mind, people, that this is meant to be an SSB64-like game, not an exact clone of it.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Also keep in mind, people, that this is meant to be an SSB64-like game, not an exact clone of it.

Exactly. Think of this as Super Smash Bros. 2.0 instead of Super Smash Bros. With Improved Graphics.

 

[Rikana]

I wonder how your approach for jigs dair is gonna be. Againt casuals, Many can just drill into a rest.

And Kirby is gonna be lame again. But I still love ssb64.

 

[Fireblaster]

I wonder how your approach for jigs dair is gonna be. Againt casuals, Many can just drill into a rest.

And Kirby is gonna be lame again. But I still love ssb64.

There's a lot of crap that will work on casuals that they can't get past.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Jiggs dair should be gay as ****.

 

[Tommy_G]

In Smash 64 there were only 12 playable characters. That is how the game was.
Do you see how your reasoning is flawed? Keep the side specials. That is all.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. This is Brawl 64. It's to be played with the same mechanics as Smash 64. More characters shouldn't change the mechanics of the game.

 

[FireBall Stars]

64 mechanics does not NEED side specials, wall tech, up and down throws or trajectory DI.

simple yet good argument is simple, yet good.

The game was made without that things in mind, adding them will disrupt the game into a game with different mechanics to acomodate those changes, then, Melee/Brawl, not 64.

 

[standardtoaster]

simple yet good argument is simple, yet good.

Obvious statement is obvious.

 

[FireBall Stars]

Obvious statement is obvious.

That's the idea

 

[MonkUnit]

Good luck with this project, supreme dirt. I wish you the best with this, having to code and animate this entire project. I suggest you PM people to help you with this.

 

[CanadaKid91]

Alrighty, then, I'll just remove all the new characters as well. I'll also remove all stages that weren't in the original. In fact, I'll remove the ability to set a timer, that wasn't in 64. I'll also remove the ability to use Wii or GC controllers.
Do you see how your reasoning is flawed?

You didn't understand the point I was trying to make. I'll try to spell it out clearly.

1. You said that you were removing side specials because "that is how the game was".
2. I sarcastically said that you should cut the roster down to 12 characters because "that is how the game was". I used sarcasm to (attempt to) get you to see how ridiculous your reasoning is.

Do you understand now? I'd prefer it if you kept the side specials. I want you to keep the new characters, stages, etc. I don't want a 1:1 clone of Smash 64 just because "that is how the game was".

Inclusion of side-specials is significantly different from inclusion of characters. One of these changes a base mechanic - the number of moves a character has. The other changes the content of the game - how many movesets following said base mechanics there are.

I don't understand how you can say this when you wanted to give Ness a Yo-Yo Zair... Isn't that also changing a base mechanic?

 

[Rikana]

Monkunit is indirectly stating something. He suggests you PM someone.

 

[MonkUnit]

<____< i wasn't referring to Project M. I was saying to private message animators or coders for help.

 

[Rikana]

lol chill. I'm joking.

 

[Rhubarbo]

I recommend that side specials be kept for this project. This doesn't hold true to the initial format of Smash 64 you say. Well, to that I say good! The lack of a side special in no way benefited Smash 64. As a matter of fact, the lack of a side special was somewhat of an oddity if you will. There were four directional inputs for tilt attacks, and four (and a netural) for aerial attacks. It was quite peculiar that the same didn't apply to special attacks.

What about the refreshing simplicity only Smash 64 offered? Well, that can be retained in this project. I whole heartedly support the removal of maneuvers such as the spot dodge and the air dodge. These moves affected the paradigm of the Smash formula and added new options that previously weren't there. The side special does not need to be victimized in vein of simplicity. The side special just offers the player an additional option (that I believe should have rightfully been there in the first place) to perform another variation of an offensive maneuver that was already present (that is the special attack variation).

With that said, you can already determine how I feel about other additional inputs of move variations that were already present in Smash 64. I believe that the side special, the down throw, multiple taunt inputs, and charged smash attacks should all be kept for this project.

 

[kaizo13]

if your going to keep side specials, d-throws, charged smashes and teching then what's the point of this project? o.O just play Melee (trollolol)


but seriously, keep 64 simple and fun.....or change the name of the project.

inb4thisisSmash642.0not1.1bullshiit

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If you consider side specials complicated, you need to find a hobby other than gaming.

 

[Fireblaster]

If you consider side specials complicated, you need to find a hobby other than gaming.

If you consider side specials so important, then you need to play melee, project M, or brawl.

Hey, idiotic statements are fun!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If you consider side specials so important, then you need to play melee, project M, or brawl.

Hey, idiotic statements are fun!

I never said they were important. Nice try though.

 

[Fireblaster]

I never said they were important. Nice try though.

And no one said they were complicated

Nice try though.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

if your going to keep side specials, d-throws, charged smashes and teching then what's the point of this project? o.O just play Melee (trollolol)

but seriously, keep 64 simple and fun.....or change the name of the project.

inb4thisisSmash642.0not1.1bullshiit

Kaizo implied "side specials" among other things shouldn't be kept right before saying to "keep 64 simple".

=

Keeping side specials would NOT be keeping 64 simple.

=

Keeping side specials WOULD be complicated.

Nice try though.

 

[Fireblaster]

Kaizo implied "side specials" among other things shouldn't be kept right before saying to "keep 64 simple".

=

Keeping side specials would NOT be keeping 64 simple.

=

Keeping side specials WOULD be complicated.

You should pass logic 101 before you make posts like this.

Not simple =/= Complicated and vice versa.

Street fighter has complex gameplay but it's not complicated

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Not simple =/= Complicated and vice versa.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Fireblaster]

Cool story, bro.

I seriously hope the guy in charge of this project doesn't listen to people who think two different words are exactly the same, like complex being the exact same thing as complicated.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I seriously hope the guy in charge of this project doesn't listen to people who think two different words are exactly the same, like complex being the exact same thing as complicated.

I'm not saying that those two words are the exact same thing, I'm saying that simple IS the opposite of complicated.

 

[Fireblaster]

I'm not saying that those two words are the exact same thing, I'm saying that simple IS the opposite of complicated.

Someone said that keeping side specials would not keep it simple. You twisted his meaning and forced it to be exactly one of the synonyms when the wording "not simple" could have many other synonyms, like "complex".

It's like if the ground was wet. You can't just say "It's raining and that's a FACT", simply because rain isn't the only possibility for a wet ground. If you can't understand this simple **** up that you did, then I give up.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Someone said that keeping side specials would not keep it simple. You twisted his meaning and forced it to be exactly one of the synonyms when the wording "not simple" could have many other synonyms, like "complex".

It's like if the ground was wet. You can't just say "It's raining and that's a FACT", simply because rain isn't the only possibility for a wet ground. If you can't understand this simple **** up that you did, then I give up.

I'm not forcing that meaning any more than you AREN'T forcing that meaning.

Not simple =/= Complicated and vice versa.

See? :D

And if that wasn't the synonym he was referring to, I'd like to know which one he was.

 

[Lorenzo The Comic]

lol arguement

 

[ynnek123]

The discussions in here are even more ******** then in the PM thread, seriously..