Does Sakurai actually care what we (fans) want?

[El Duderino]

Just out of curiousity though, what does everyone actually expect Smash 4's gameplay to turn out like in comparison to what you respectively want?

I'm not even going to bother speculating until we have some more light shed on what this "change in direction" actually is. I think it's safe to say though the goals with this tittle will be a little different. Currently Sakauri doesn't sound like a developer content with just continuing down the same path as his last tittle in the series. Talking about his actual bandwidth and concerns balancing too large of a cast does show a changed, more pragmatic developer.

 

[Big-Cat]

I say anything can happen with Sm4sh. I don't try to place any expectations beyond the removal of random tripping.

 

[SmashChu]

They do come to some odd conclusions at times, usually a result of trying to make a case for something being deeper than it really is. It's especially a problem whenever they get on any "player choice" kick.

That's not to say though they are incapable of making valid points. They are usually pretty spot on when it comes to actual game design and not story. I don't see how having a few flubs negates each and every one of their arguments. Especially with how thorough they are gathering evidence to support them.

In this case they made a pretty solid point. Multi-player games are less engaging when there is little room and/or too large of a skill gap for most to participate in the experimental and creative nature of an evolving meta game. It's that exact issue with Brawl's approach that needs to be remedied if the series is to make progress and not get stuck in a rut, especially as online play becomes a bigger factor.

Again, the reason I'm not going to listen to Extra Credit and why they should never come up in an argument is that they are either wrong or made a point that everyone already knows. I wouldn't be surprised if they are wrong here.

One more thing. When was that last time you found a game that was too accessible?

 

[El Duderino]

Again, the reason I'm not going to listen to Extra Credit and why they should never come up in an argument is that they are either wrong or made a point that everyone already knows. I wouldn't be surprised if they are wrong here.

You don't have to listen to them, I summed up the whole point for you that by chance is very similar to what I was already getting at.

One more thing. When was that last time you found a game that was too accessible?

That's kinda like asking if you've ever read a book with too relatable characters. No one in there right mind would argue accessibility is inherently a bad thing, but do leave some room for growth, challenge, and interest over time, otherwise the experience goes flat very quickly.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

In that case, Kirby's Epic Yarn.

You can't die, and there are no real challenges.

I guess there might be way later in the game, but it was so easy it got bored REAL fast and just stopped playing

 

[SmashChu]

In that case, Kirby's Epic Yarn.

You can't die, and there are no real challenges.

I guess there might be way later in the game, but it was so easy it got bored REAL fast and just stopped playing

Oh my. Didn't think anyone would come up with an answer, but your very right.

You don't have to listen to them, I summed up the whole point for you that by chance is very similar to what I was already getting at.

That's kinda like asking if you've ever read a book with too relatable characters. No one in there right mind would argue accessibility is inherently a bad thing, but do leave some room for growth, challenge, and interest over time, otherwise the experience goes flat very quickly.

As far as Extra Credit goes, bringing them up in general is bad. It's very clear they don;t know what they are talking about. They also don't have any notable experience. They talk about being game developers and don't have really much to show for it.

I think what you don't understand yet is competitiveness and accessibility are mutually exclusive. In order to do one, you have to hurt the other. The good news is the latter can still create a competitive scene, even if they while and complaint that they aren't the center of the universe. That is really the issue with SSBB. It's that the competitive players didn't get a game made specifically for them. Sakurai went with accessibility. At the end of the day, we still have competitive Smash. But there are some games with a great competitive scene that have lost a lot over the years (Street Fighter is the best example).

I personally don't think there has been a Smash yet that really has a smooth transition from low/mid to high level play. There is absolutely a wall you hit in both Brawl and Melee where you stop improving without doing some online research. That jump can be a lot less daunting if you make it in steps as the strategies/techniques develop, instead of waiting and being overwhelmed by all the information and new skills to master. Brawl is hardly the exception now either if someone new is looking to improve their game.

All games are like that. You have to read if you want to get to the competitive level.

 

[El Duderino]

As far as Extra Credit goes, bringing them up in general is bad. It's very clear they don;t know what they are talking about.

I don't know why you are still hung up on this. They've got some good points, and they've got some bad. Only human after all. Lets move on.

I think what you don't understand yet is competitiveness and accessibility are mutually exclusive. In order to do one, you have to hurt the other.

What about Pokemon? Those are incredibly accessible games, yet have a well designed progression from novice to highly competitive level play. As long as you have a circle of friends that stay interested, it is not a matter of if, but when.

It's very possible for Smash to improve on its progression from low to high level play. Both Melee and Brawl have large skill gaps that can be addressed through establishing steps in-between. Part of that may be making elements of competitive play more accessible, like Pokemon has for example. It will also help break up the end game from being so single strategy dependent (e.g. planking), and allow a wider range of players to actually experiment with their own approaches and counters. Keeps everyone a lot more engaged rather than just the top and bottom. As I mentioned, that is key to making a fun, lasting online game.

All games are like that. You have to read if you want to get to the competitive level.

Very true, but many other games can get you a lot closer before needing outside instruction. It's one of Smash's weaker points, the path to improve has always been fairly convoluted. Goes way back to Smash64, having to read about Z-canceling on the official website.

 

[---]

I say anything can happen with Sm4sh. I don't try to place any expectations beyond the removal of random tripping.

Same here I guess, though I personally would like to think to that it'll be different from Melee and Brawl altogether.

Random tripping definitely. Probably the only thing that both casuel and competitive players can agree on happening, Sakurai would have to be crazy not to remove it.

 

[trash?]

I think what you don't understand yet is competitiveness and accessibility are mutually exclusive. In order to do one, you have to hurt the other.

...There has never been a point in time where that is true.

Why is this so hard for the smash community to understand? It's possible for something to be simple and have depth, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of design would tell you this. For the love of god, stop thinking that having any sort of actual addition of a mechanic would somehow result in the feeble and fragile minds of people breaking in half.

 

[El Duderino]

For the love of god, stop thinking that having any sort of actual addition of a mechanic would somehow result in the feeble and fragile minds of people to get confused.

I don't think SmashChu is really looking out for players with suggestions like this either. It's all just a ruse to convince himself and others that self-interest is not driving these bizarre conclusions. He's just worried that any degree of added depth will potentially be tampering with his own fun, and thus are not worth the risk. That's the main reason why SmashChu is so eager to dismiss anything he would have to adapt to.

It's pretty silly to fear change like that, but hey, lots of us were skeptical of Brawl and it turned out to not be the end of the world. SmashChu is just suffering from a little role-reversal and hasn't quite come to terms with it yet.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I emphatically agree, they are not exclusive.

As for the topic that the thread gets it's namesake, pffft, there's no way Sakurai would care at all what we want. I see no grounds for him to think about the people buying his game.

 

[xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx]

sakurai loves us

 

[SmashChu]

What about Pokemon? Those are incredibly accessible games, yet have a well designed progression from novice to highly competitive level play. As long as you have a circle of friends that stay interested, it is not a matter of if, but when.

It's very possible for Smash to improve on its progression from low to high level play. Both Melee and Brawl have large skill gaps that can be addressed through establishing steps in-between. Part of that may be making elements of competitive play more accessible, like Pokemon has for example. It will also help break up the end game from being so single strategy dependent (e.g. planking), and allow a wider range of players to actually experiment with their own approaches and counters. Keeps everyone a lot more engaged rather than just the top and bottom. As I mentioned, that is key to making a fun, lasting online game.

...There has never been a point in time where that is true.

Why is this so hard for the smash community to understand? It's possible for something to be simple and have depth, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of design would tell you this. For the love of god, stop thinking that having any sort of actual addition of a mechanic would somehow result in the feeble and fragile minds of people breaking in half.

I'll tackle these at once since I have the same response to both.

First, I don't see a reason Smash needs to focus at all on competitive play. The games have done fine without it. So the first question would be why? Why does Smash need to do this?

Now, why are competitive depth and accessibility mutually exclusive? It's because two audiences want different things. Games tend to do well when they follow a path of accessibility, especially for multiplayer. Multiplayer games thrive on being games that are very easy to get into. This is because a lot of the players may not even own the game and wont have time to dedicate to getting better outside playing with their friends. An inaccessible game would not do well since it will be hard for players to jump right in. There is a barrier. So, the multiplayer games that do the best make sure players can get right in.

So why can't you increase the depth? It's because the competitive player always ask for the game to be harder. The whole Melee vs Brawl is a good example. One of the things the competitive community ask for is for the speed to be faster. This is something that would make the game harder to play for everyone. Another thing is hitstun. Again, increasing hit stun would make the game harder for everyone as you'd have less control over your character. The trend here is that the competitive community wants a harder game that they see has more depth. But by making a harder game, it ruins the pick up and play nature. There is now a larger skill barrier. Remember how I said some players will only play it with their friends. They don't want to try and get better. They want to have fun. But now, they have to learn more to play.

Wavedashing is another interesting topic. While people here will not understand, wavedashing was universally hated. No one liked it. It's the reason it's not in Brawl. This has to do with online, but it effects everything really. With wavedashing in, there will be players who will specifically learnt hat technique and use it against others. They will lose to it and say that it's not fair that that player can do that. They don't want to learn the technique to be able to compete and enjoy the game. It's the same as snaking. Everyone did snaking in Mario Kart DS. This is why it was changed in Mario Kart Wii. No surprise, it was done because this technique was hurting the game.

It has worked the same in every game. When games try to gear themselves more towards the competitive crowd, they fall in sales and become a distant memory. Starcraft 2 is a recent example of this. The game has focused on E-sports and it's sales as well as users have dropped. Sales of Starcraft 1 in the US are better than SC2 worldwide. The only reason the sale are close is because Europe didn't buy SC1 as much and there maybe some problems with figuring out the sales numbers. The current player base of the game is only 20% of those who have bought it. It's fallen rather hard.

The best example is Street Fighter 2 really. The game was a phenomenon. It's sales have been beaten only by Smash Brothers. It not only created the genre, but there was a fight for the home console version. Just for note, it sold over 6 million units. This is during a time where arcades still existed. However, soon after sales fell. The Alpha series didn't do well and neither did Street Fighter 3. The series actually went dark as a result. For reference, Third Strike came out before Super Smash Brothers and Street Fighter 4 came out after Brawl. A successful series would not go dark for that long. The culprit is accessibility, or lack there off. Street Fighter has been making it harder and harder for a while. In the old days, the hardest thing were the special moves, but they were meant to be harder. They typically did a good deal of damage and you could easily fight with just regular attacks. So despite the fact they had motions not scene in other games, it was remedied by the fact that it's special. The problem was that the series kept adding things. EX moves made it hard as now each special move has extra effects. There is also the super bar, which requires you to do two motions and hit two buttons in a short time frame. Very hard to use. Street Fighter 4 requires 3 buttons for it's ultra. Street Fighter 3 was also a faster game. The problem is that players have to learn more in order to "jump right in." In fact, there is no jump right in. Street Fighter 4 sold 3.66 million. Not that this is between two consoles. Street Fighter 2 sold 6.3 million on just the SNES. You can see how adding more depth has driven players away.

I'll close with this. Brawl has sold 10.7 million. It has also sold 3 million more than Melee sold. The question becomes why add more depth? Why try to appease this small competitive community. As I laid out, it typically is detrimental to follow the path of competitive gaming. Sakurai and Nintendo (and I guess Namco too now) have a lot of people to serve and make happy. It's no surprise they don't listen to a group that makes up less than 5% of the total player base, if that. There are a lot of people they are trying to please. While everyone tries to rationalize that the small group can be served as well as the larger group, they ignore the larger group entirely. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and it it too.

 

[trash?]

It has worked the same in every game. When games try to gear themselves more towards the competitive crowd, they fall in sales and become a distant memory. Starcraft 2 is a recent example of this. The game has focused on E-sports and it's sales as well as users have dropped. Sales of Starcraft 1 in the US are better than SC2 worldwide. The only reason the sale are close is because Europe didn't buy SC1 as much and there maybe some problems with figuring out the sales numbers. The current player base of the game is only 20% of those who have bought it. It's fallen rather hard.

...Are you looking at the same starcraft I'm looking at, because something tells me they don't mind their sales here

The best example is Street Fighter 2 really. The game was a phenomenon. It's sales have been beaten only by Smash Brothers. It not only created the genre, but there was a fight for the home console version. Just for note, it sold over 6 million units. This is during a time where arcades still existed. However, soon after sales fell. The Alpha series didn't do well and neither did Street Fighter 3. The series actually went dark as a result. For reference, Third Strike came out before Super Smash Brothers and Street Fighter 4 came out after Brawl. A successful series would not go dark for that long. The culprit is accessibility, or lack there off. Street Fighter has been making it harder and harder for a while. In the old days, the hardest thing were the special moves, but they were meant to be harder. They typically did a good deal of damage and you could easily fight with just regular attacks. So despite the fact they had motions not scene in other games, it was remedied by the fact that it's special. The problem was that the series kept adding things. EX moves made it hard as now each special move has extra effects. There is also the super bar, which requires you to do two motions and hit two buttons in a short time frame. Very hard to use. Street Fighter 4 requires 3 buttons for it's ultra. Street Fighter 3 was also a faster game. The problem is that players have to learn more in order to "jump right in." In fact, there is no jump right in. Street Fighter 4 sold 3.66 million. Not that this is between two consoles. Street Fighter 2 sold 6.3 million on just the SNES. You can see how adding more depth has driven players away.

Street Fighter 2 was during a point in time where fighting games became the biggest genre out there. By that point in time, capcom was already slowly eating away at it, constantly making different versions of the game and expecting it to sell as much, which later, was a cause of destroying fighting games as a genre. And honestly, at this point, Street Fighter 4 is the backbone of Capcom's profits, because while they only have half of SF2's sales, the people who bought SF4 are the people who constantly are paying money to capcom, whether through sponsored tournaments, or through DLC, because they're the people who will play this one game constantly.

I'll close with this. Brawl has sold 10.7 million. It has also sold 3 million more than Melee sold.

This has nothing to do with the contents of the game itself. Brawl came out during a time where the Wii was owned by everyone and their mother. Any game, regardless of how good it actually was, was making money at the time. You keep taking direct sales, and you not only assume that they are the only kind of profit a company can have, but also assume that the sales and how every small thing was designed to be directly tied to each other

Here's the thing: there's a reason people want stuff like this, and that's because there's... not really anything like smash. It's not like other fighting games, where you could find an alternative that has something going for it. Closest we have is the Sony clone, and in that case, it seems to be designed in a way that misses the point in what made smash fun.

Even while I'm not expecting them to go all-out with it, but I wouldn't mind something. I mean, pokemon has that small amount of depth needed in IVs and EVs, and nobody is arguing over that game being too hard. It was still enough, though, to have a community behind it be possible. Something small like that, that would let the average joe still have their silly, enjoyable smash experience, while still having room for depth. Hey, I bet if they just rereleased Melee on the Wii U, changed some stuff called it an "upgrade" and stopped there, I bet you they'd make, at the very least, a quick buck, and we'd all be satisfied.

I love the concept of smash as a competitive game. The idea of a fighting game with such intense levels of focus and platforming seems like one that is legitimately fun. It just... needs something. I don't know what, but something.

 

[SmashChu]

...Are you looking at the same starcraft I'm looking at, because something tells me they don't mind their sales here
I used VGChartz. I'll have to look into it more. It is a little weird as it doesn't add up with this.
That is for another time.

NOTE: Or now. Actually, turns out VGChartz doesn't tracks a lot of the other regions, including South Korea. Of course, reading up on it, it is sold just about everywhere which I know isn't true of SC1. SC1 sold far more in the US than other regions. Wouldn't be surprised if SC2 sales boost is directly from selling in other regions. In other words, not really a growth.
VGChartz
The game was released simultaneously in North America, Europe, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Taiwan, as well as the regions of Hong Kong and Macau. In total, the game was launched in 11 different languages across five different continents.

Street Fighter 2 was during a point in time where fighting games became the biggest genre out there. By that point in time, capcom was already slowly eating away at it, constantly making different versions of the game and expecting it to sell as much, which later, was a cause of destroying fighting games as a genre. And honestly, at this point, Street Fighter 4 is the backbone of Capcom's profits, because while they only have half of SF2's sales, the people who bought SF4 are the people who constantly are paying money to capcom, whether through sponsored tournaments, or through DLC, because they're the people who will play this one game constantly.

You have it wrong. Street Fighter 2 created the genre. There was no genre until it happened. Capcom has not be able to replicate this success even with the series not having a game for 10 years. Having a lot of different versions may have detracted in sales, but not to the level the series has declined. After selling 6 million copies, the series struggled to get 1 or 2 million. Even then, it was sometimes less.

This has nothing to do with the contents of the game itself. Brawl came out during a time where the Wii was owned by everyone and their mother. Any game, regardless of how good it actually was, was making money at the time. You keep taking direct sales, and you not only assume that they are the only kind of profit a company can have, but also assume that the sales and how every small thing was designed to be directly tied to each other

Here's the thing: there's a reason people want stuff like this, and that's because there's... not really anything like smash. It's not like other fighting games, where you could find an alternative that has something going for it. Closest we have is the Sony clone, and in that case, it seems to be designed in a way that misses the point in what made smash fun.

Even while I'm not expecting them to go all-out with it, but I wouldn't mind something. I mean, pokemon has that small amount of depth needed in IVs and EVs, and nobody is arguing over that game being too hard. It was still enough, though, to have a community behind it be possible. Something small like that, that would let the average joe still have their silly, enjoyable smash experience, while still having room for depth. Hey, I bet if they just rereleased Melee on the Wii U, changed some stuff called it an "upgrade" and stopped there, I bet you they'd make, at the very least, a quick buck, and we'd all be satisfied.

The problem with this discussion is this.

I love the concept of smash as a competitive game. The idea of a fighting game with such intense levels of focus and platforming seems like one that is legitimately fun. It just... needs something. I don't know what, but something.

You are not going to see any of these points in a clear manner because you want to believe that games can be competitive.

The problem with your look at sales is how mishmashed it is. There is only one rule you need. Game sales are due to their own merit. If a game sold poorly, you can safely say there was something wrong with that game. If it does well, it's because the game did well. I can also go over the fact that console sales don't effect game sales, but you can find that out on your own. If a game sold 10.7 million, it did something right. It's hard to say the Wii caused Brawl's sales when Brawl is the 44th best selling game of all time. There has to be more to it than that. The answer. It's a damn good game and it met people's needs.

I'm sure I can say more, but the numbers speak for themselves. 10.7 million is nothing to take lightly and should be studied. It's better to understand why did Brawl sell that much than rationalize it away for it being the Wii.

 

[trash?]

If a game sold poorly, you can safely say there was something wrong with that game. If it does well, it's because the game did well.

Okay yeah at this point I'm just going to assume you have no clue what you're talking about. Business is far more than "if x doesn't sell, it's because it's terrible and nobody likes it". There are so many things to go into what makes something popular and sell well, and sincerely being under the belief otherwise shows how you know absolutely nothing about what you say.

 

[SmashChu]

Okay yeah at this point I'm just going to assume you have no clue what you're talking about. Business is far more than "if x doesn't sell, it's because it's terrible and nobody likes it". There are so many things to go into what makes something popular and sell well, and sincerely being under the belief otherwise shows how you know absolutely nothing about what you say.

Truly, what more do you need than that? Think of it this way: people buy what they like and avoid what they don't. It's just natural. You do it. I do it. If someone likes a game, they buy it. If they don't, they avoid it. From there, we can say that is sold poorly because there was something people didn't like. We can identify it and fix it. If it did well, we want to know that too so we can keep doing it. We want to keep doing what they like. We call this capitalism. Better product at a better price.

 

[trash?]

Carnival Games, a Wii game that has outright been defined by many critics as one of the worst games you could have on the Wii, has sold over 2 million copies.

Compare in contrast to Okami, a game that currently holds the Guinness World Record for "least commercially successful winner of a game of the year award".

Capitalism is far, far more complex than I figure you'll ever understand.

 

[El Duderino]

First, I don't see a reason Smash needs to focus at all on competitive play. The games have done fine without it. So the first question would be why? Why does Smash need to do this?

Smash already is a competitive game as well as a casual one. Just look around. That is not going to change with SSB4, unless Sakuari goes on an even more massive stripping down frenzy and everyone disowns it. Despite your vendetta against competitive play, I don't believe for a second that even you want that. There's always going to be a gap between players of different skill levels. The freedom Smash allows, yes even in Brawl, pretty much guarantees it.

Having no solid middle ground between high and lower level players is a massive problem for online gaming. Maybe not as big of a deal when you're only sitting in the same room playing with your friends of choice, but against anyone, it's catastrophic. Frustration for the average player goes up tenfold and eventually leads to quitting. In the interest of not allowing online play to become a train wreck, they have to address the middle level. Yes, that does mean the game could possibly have a little more to it. Maybe there's another movement option or new set of moves. Anything designed within reach of mid level players, but capable of punishing the most obnoxious high-level play styles.

Now, why are competitive depth and accessibility mutually exclusive? It's because two audiences want different things.

After winning a match, all types of players like the satisfaction of feeling better at the game than their friends. That is not possible without depth. Same time, no one likes getting pummeled by a better player and feeling stuck. Having nothing relatively within reach you can fight back with, even if it is currently a little stretch, is frustrating. That is all 100% mutual. There is a fine balance between accessibility, depth, and player growth that keeps people engaged. You drop one entirely and you get a game with tons of problems.



Also please stop trying to bring sales into the discussion. I don't give a rats *** about sales when the topic is what we as fans want. I don't have stock in any video game company so what's it to me, I just want a good game that addresses the previous faults. Cutting down on the walls of text would be greatly appreciated as well. Keep it to the point so it's not like I have to type a marathon to address everything.

With wavedashing in, there will be players who will specifically learn that technique and use it against others. They will lose to it and say that it's not fair that that player can do that.

Wavedashing is essentially very similar to a Blanka Beast Hop:

(Watch here)

Blanka will hop either forward or backward depending on which joystick direction is pressed. This move won't hurt the opponent but it can be used to avoid certain attacks by the opponent. link

It's actually a pretty great addition to the gameplay. The problem for Smash is more or less the accessibility of it, which is completely fixable. For example tap the jump button when you start a roll. Easy, simple, intuitive. Problem resolved without any unnecessarily gameplay disappointments, notable accessibility issues, or sacrificing depth. If anything it would help narrow the skill gap compared to Brawl and Melee by giving more players the means to play well and counter higher level strategies.

 

[Deleted member]

SmashChu, do you have anything to back up wavedashing being near-universally hated? I have not seen anything on that.

 

[SmashChu]

SmashChu, do you have anything to back up wavedashing being near-universally hated? I have not seen anything on that.

If you haven't been around long enough (and only posted on Smashboards), you wouldn't see it. There is a lot of controversy surrounding competitive Smash. You just have to look.

Carnival Games, a Wii game that has outright been defined by many critics as one of the worst games you could have on the Wii, has sold over 2 million copies.

Compare in contrast to Okami, a game that currently holds the Guinness World Record for "least commercially successful winner of a game of the year award".

Capitalism is far, far more complex than I figure you'll ever understand.

KISS. Maybe the journalist are just wrong. You can find a lot of evidence of this with the Wii. I think Wii Fit and Wii Sports came under fire as well. There have also been a lot of games they have rated highly that ended up doing poorly. Case in point, the market is a better judge of quality than journalist.

EDIT: Here you go.
I'll get to the other stuff later.

 

[El Duderino]

All you have to do is look at Melee's competitive popularity and the PM thread's 2 1/2+ million page views to see SmashChu is once again incorrectly assessing the situation.

The one thing he got right about wavedashing is the root of why it's controversial, but I just don't think he fully understands why it's soo highly debated in the first place. People like spacing tools, they add more variety and a very modest but significant level of depth. To put you in the opposite shoes SmashChu, imagine Brawl removed rolling. Loosing that spacing option wouldn't feel quite right now would it? In your words not mine, depth and accessibility are mutually exclusive. Rolling adds depth, so I guess by that logic it would also have to go.

 

[trash?]

KISS. Maybe the journalist are just wrong. You can find a lot of evidence of this with the Wii. I think Wii Fit and Wii Sports came under fire as well. There have also been a lot of games they have rated highly that ended up doing poorly. Case in point, the market is a better judge of quality than journalist.

Cool, now I get to use my favorite example.

Say, how many copies do you think 500,000 is? Quite a lot, I'm sure. Why, on a 60 dollar price, that's 30 million dollars! Lot of money to me, I dunno about you.

Have you ever heard of Rise of the Robots before?

Here's the problem here. You're under some strange understanding that people somehow are competent, and don't buy things based entirely on the hype surrounding it. Don't worry, just look at the state of the gaming industry for a few minutes! Works every time, I assure you.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

If great games always sold well I'd have my sequel to Metal Arms Glitch in the System and Psychonauts by now, among a ton of other sequels that may or may not ever happen because while being a critical success you are not guaranteed to have an equal proportion of financial success.

 

[SmashChu]

All you have to do is look at Melee's competitive popularity and the PM thread's 2 1/2+ million page views to see SmashChu is once again incorrectly assessing the situation.

Everytime I go to a page. I add a view. This is why threads have huge view counts and much smaller post counts.

Cool, now I get to use my favorite example.

Say, how many copies do you think 500,000 is? Quite a lot, I'm sure. Why, on a 60 dollar price, that's 30 million dollars! Lot of money to me, I dunno about you.

Have you ever heard of Rise of the Robots before?

Here's the problem here. You're under some strange understanding that people somehow are competent, and don't buy things based entirely on the hype surrounding it. Don't worry, just look at the state of the gaming industry for a few minutes! Works every time, I assure you.

Your argument is that everyone is stupid. That's fine, because I can also assume your stupid as well.

It's a flawed argument. It's the logic that your the special snowflake and everyone else is an idiot/wrong. Truth is, you, me and everyone else around here is average and we're no different or better than anyone else. To assume that games sell well because people can't make up their own mind is ludicrous.

EDIT:Also, you linked me to a page that hurt my eyes.

 

[El Duderino]

Everytime I go to a page. I add a view. This is why threads have huge view counts and much smaller post counts.

My point was as far as intrest and activity goes, the mod with wavedashing eclipses every other Smash mod in existence, and many days even Brawl's own general discussion. How can that be if wavedashing is suppose to be so universally hated?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Rule of thumb: Everytime Smashchu says "everyone" he means "I".

Where do you get your data? Do you conduct studies of people who disapprove of competetive smash? I've been around for a whole and it just seems like your just one of the players who hopped on the "Sakurai said smash is too hard now I think so" Bandwagon that appeared on the scene late 2006/early 2007.

Before you even knew of competetive smash did you ever hear anyone complain about Melee being too difficult? Odds are probably not since it was probably just another frantic game to play. The only people I hear complain about Melee are the people who couldn't adapt and went to Brawl. The people who complain about Brawl are the players who played Melee and Brawl, the major difference being that both competetive and casual players found the game to have issues. Even if you werent competetive there are things about the game in general that are severely lacking. Even one of the communities top supporters for Brawl turned away from the game after the realization of its low skill ceiling. It's not as if Melee players can't adapt to Brawl seeing that the Melee players were and are still dominant in the Brawl scene.

Take Street Fighter for example. Each iteration of its series was similar but offered unique opportunities to explore depth. I've never seen anyone in the Street Fighter community attempt to make a street fighter game play similar to another one. Brawl on the other hand is like the Gary's mod of the Smash series because the competetive scene felt it was unbearable. If Melee was too difficult or wave dashing and L canceling was hated by "Everyone" then why are modders striving to make a game similar to Melee? If people were trying to Make Melee play similar to Brawl maybe I would feel more inclined to believe these statements against the game.

 

[trash?]

That's fine, because I can also assume your stupid as well.

What about my stupid?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending I'm some genius. But if you're sincerely under the belief that a lot of a game's sales isn't based around a PR Hype, then I... don't think you quite understand what PR and advertising exists for.

you linked me to a page that hurt my eyes.

The most solid argument of all time, right here.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Also, you linked me to a page that hurt my eyes.

Well, your posts hurt my brain, so I think we're all even here.

...sorry, couldn't resist. Don't leave yourself open to easy/stupid rebuttals like that.

Back on topic, quality is subjective and hardly the deciding factor in what makes a product successful.

 

[El Duderino]

What gets me is how someone can make this many baseless, all-encompassing claims and not once have the brains to back up, correct the assumptions, and reframe the argument. It's all or nothing, stubbornness to the point where critically viewing his own rationale is impossible, while always digging deep to nitpick the smallest, often beside the point, details to any counter argument.

 

[---]

Back on topic, quality is subjective and hardly the deciding factor in what makes a product successful.

Agreed, it's also why in hindsight this thread is awful.

Should have another taik with Horsetail, normally is a smart guy, but I really want to know what he was thinking would happen when he made this thread based on a subjective/yes-no question.

 

[El Duderino]

Let me play a little devils advocate here. If SmashChu actually had a sound argument, it might go a little something more like this:

Quality and sales may not always be related, but who are realistically Smash's biggest audience? Nintendo fans who just want to beat the hell out of mascots for a few hours at a time. Providing more appealing content for that crowd is priority #1. Added depth, more accessibility, collectibles, an expanded single player, working online play, it's all nice but ultimately subsidiary to just having the means to duke it out with more Nintendo mascots.

Now despite Brawl and Melee being accessible games of adequate depth, there remains a problematic skill gap that can be frustrating, especially for mid-level players. I'm not going to try comparing my experience with Smash as a party game to yours, clearly everyone makes their own fun with the game, but let me ask you this... do you trust Sakuari these days to deliver a better competitive experience without alienating even more players? He could not even fully deliver on the simpler goals with Brawl. Overall the balance is worse, competitive play more broken, and then there's additions like tripping, off putting to much of the audience it was intended for. Little indicates he can handle more depth with care for the franchise. A lot of what happened with Melee and Brawl's meta game evolved over time. I don't believe Sakuari has experience looking that far ahead, there's a good chance he could wreck the game if he tried.

Again not my opinion, but SmashChu, see how it works? Conceed on your questionable support arguments, lead into something that you can logically point to, and use that to explain your conclusion.

 

[~ Valkyrie ~]

Agreed, it's also why in hindsight this thread is awful.

Should have another taik with Horsetail, normally is a smart guy, but I really want to know what he was thinking would happen when he made this thread based on a subjective/yes-no question.

I get you there, really. I really was though expecting this to turn into a debate of what is what fans want to see in Smash and does Sakurai take much account in all that (and what I, not this usual Mario-fanservice and what else that's regular and normal for Smash to do, the very "fanservicey" bits as in mythology references, quest appearances and that stuff. I still think Sonic Generations handle all this more better than Brawl did because there wasn't too much things I got wierded out on it despite me being a very huge Sonic-fan)

Usually if I saw something that wasn't really something that meeted my expectations of what I grew up with (Wario being WW-self and no WL-references at all, Starfy being the Goldeen of AT's, Subspace Emissary being no Nintendo-styled crossover) It's just made me question Sakurai's intentions when there's some aspects in Brawl that I think could've been done better to favour fans (or who knows, me.)
And what also gets me ticked off during that is that fans takes this all as "What Nintendo is". (Reflecting to the fandom and basic thoughts on Nintendo in general) But I think that's something I shouldn't really be clutching my head and mind on because I dunno if SSB's necessarily meant to be "What Nintendo's corely about"... and most important of all, stop being nitpicky.
(-=^l-);;
Anyway, I think I should apologize a bit for this mess.

So I thought if we should lock this topic because along with my question that was quite easily answered (pretty compherensively too), this topic now turned into yet another dumb debate topic which could be discussed somewhere else. I dunno if it's something we could think as "Sakurai doesn't care what fans want" when going to the casual direction with Smash (as in Brawl.) when it's only the competitive community wanting this aspect. And I wonder HOW MUCH competitive players are there compared to casual crowd Sakurai was gearing Brawl at. a_(-=_=-)

So yeah, do lock this please. And Smashchu plus other debaters, please speak in a separate topic about this, okay?

 

[Baskerville]

Seeing what this thread has become is the reason I hardly ever post here. It's filled with babies wanting Melee 2.0 and nothing else new.

 

[StarshipGroove]

Check out the large Famitsu reader poll on the top 50 Nintendo games. Melee is ten places higher than Brawl.

Seeing what this thread has become is the reason I hardly ever post here. It's filled with babies wanting Melee 2.0 and nothing else new.

Wanting a SSB4 suited for competitive play is not "wanting Melee 2.0".

 

[El Duderino]

So I thought if we should lock this topic because along with my question that was quite easily answered (pretty compherensively too), this topic now turned into yet another dumb debate topic which could be discussed somewhere else.

Of course it was going to devolve into what fans want in the first place. The question basically encourages people to try summing up everyone's opinions, which leads to nothing but trouble.

Anyways you really don't need to apologize. Probably should have seen it coming, but you're not the one who took it this far, or kept feeding the retardedness. I'm definitely guilty of the latter.

 

[Baskerville]

Check out the large Famitsu reader poll on the top 50 Nintendo games. Melee is ten places higher than Brawl.



Wanting a SSB4 suited for competitive play is not "wanting Melee 2.0".

From what I've been reading, it sounds more like it.
Y'know, I'll just stop here to avoid anymore arguments.

 

[---]

I get you there, really. I really was though expecting this to turn into a debate of what is what fans want to see in Smash and does Sakurai take much account in all that (and what I, not this usual Mario-fanservice and what else that's regular and normal for Smash to do, the very "fanservicey" bits as in mythology references, quest appearances and that stuff. I still think Sonic Generations handle all this more better than Brawl did because there wasn't too much things I got wierded out on it despite me being a very huge Sonic-fan)

Usually if I saw something that wasn't really something that meeted my expectations of what I grew up with (Wario being WW-self and no WL-references at all, Starfy being the Goldeen of AT's, Subspace Emissary being no Nintendo-styled crossover) It's just made me question Sakurai's intentions when there's some aspects in Brawl that I think could've been done better to favour fans (or who knows, me.)
And what also gets me ticked off during that is that fans takes this all as "What Nintendo is". (Reflecting to the fandom and basic thoughts on Nintendo in general) But I think that's something I shouldn't really be clutching my head and mind on because I dunno if SSB's necessarily meant to be "What Nintendo's corely about"... and most important of all, stop being nitpicky.
(-=^l-);;
Anyway, I think I should apologize a bit for this mess.

So I thought if we should lock this topic because along with my question that was quite easily answered (pretty compherensively too), this topic now turned into yet another dumb debate topic which could be discussed somewhere else. I dunno if it's something we could think as "Sakurai doesn't care what fans want" when going to the casual direction with Smash (as in Brawl.) when it's only the competitive community wanting this aspect. And I wonder HOW MUCH competitive players are there compared to casual crowd Sakurai was gearing Brawl at. a_(-=_=-)

So yeah, do lock this please. And Smashchu plus other debaters, please speak in a separate topic about this, okay?

There's no need to apologize, you're a good guy Horsetail. I just got a little annoyed with the world and took a bit out on you by questioning your intentions. Sorry if I offened you in anyway.

Technically they already are using multiple topics to argue this stuff. lol


People should probably open a We the Competitive vs. SmashChu thread already (and do it someplace other than the Smash 4 forums where it's technically off-topic).

 

[I R MarF]

I think Sakurai cares about what the fans want in terms of content...

...but in terms of gameplay, he cared about his own views more than those of the competitive community. Instead of seeing the fortunate aspects of a competitive playerbase, he saw his vision being corrupted by "frustrating" skill differences between experienced and inexperienced players. He then took several measures to alienate the competitive community by effectively reducing the potential skill gap.

IMO, this was a terrible mistake. There really are no fighting games that have an equal competitive and casual appeal and smash had a great opportunity to be the series that did. However, Sakurai chose his personal vision over those of the players and dismissed a great chance for capturing broader audiences. While I respect that loyalty... frankly, he is a moron.

However, I think Nintendo (and hopefully Sakurai) are going to come around at least a little for Smash 4. Wii U's goal of supporting the hardcore fanbase and Namco-Bandai onboard to design the next smash game are indicators that competitive smash players might finally be listened to (or at least considered).

Who knows, maybe Nintendo will support tournaments? Doubtful. But one can dream.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Who knows, maybe Nintendo will support tournaments? Doubtful. But one can dream.

They've supported the Pokemon competitive scene before(at least I think they do), so it's not unthinkable.