Does Sakurai actually care what we (fans) want?

[jigglover]

/\ Logic for the win!

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I find it odd how people started complaining about competetive smash AFTER Sakurai made a statement against it. Where we're you people before 2008? The only compelling argument is "Sakurai said...". Are you people sheep or do you really believe that competetive and casual play cannot coexist in smash?

THANK YOU.

This is something that's bugged me for a while. If Melee(or 64, for that matter) was so inaccessible, why were very few people complaining about it before Sakurai brought it up?

 

[Ferio_Kun]

I find it odd how people started complaining about competetive smash AFTER Sakurai made a statement against it. Where we're you people before 2008? The only compelling argument is "Sakurai said...". Are you people sheep or do you really believe that competetive and casual play cannot coexist in smash? How can it not when it exists in every other fighting game?

Logically every fighting game is accessible. Every player is capable of executing attacks and moving their character. Eventually they learn rotations and cancels. Just because a game doesn't deliver instant results doesn't make it hard, it just depends on how far YOU want to go with it, and whether you succeed or fail the game will ultimately move on without you. If you can't deal with it then play Coop games, but don't get discouraged or complain how something is unfair. Odds are you won't even understand why you lost, but you can learn.

Competetive smash existed in its on Paradigm that did not conflict casual players whatsoever. Odds are the casual player purchased the game and played it for 1 to 2 months before letting it collect dust on the shelf, so there was no conflict to even exist.

Sakurai is a brilliant designer, but when it comes to understanding the philosophies of competition he is a bit ignorant, or in brawls instance a flaming idiot. I love his games, but the man is no saint. You are capable of thinking independently so do it. Don't take his words at face value.

As for the members who joined here complaining about smash after March 2008. Sorry to sound like an *** but I can't take your opinion seriously. Odds are you ended because this site was referred here on the back of the Brawl strategy guide.


Edit: @Fario: I wouldn't burn you. You're clearly making a statement that is true for the most part, I just don't agree with people who believe that competetive smash was a plague on the series and needs to be eliminated.

No offense taken don't worry. I really would like a good mixture of casual/competitive. I think the issue is that the die hard fans keep going back to Melee for examples of what they want to see. We can't really blame them because that's the only example they have. I REALLY hope, that smash 4 has a good spread of casual to really hard core play. I just don't think Melee is the answer. Not because it couldn't work, but because we all know that Sakurai is going in a different direction. (Whatever that may be)

Personally, I would really love to have a workable online system. Mechanics aside, this would REALLY improve the competitive scene. You can bet your behind I would be online every day trying to become the best.

I can see how "Sakurai said so." is a pretty dull argument, but frankly it happens to be a pretty good one. :D

On a serious note though, I really think if this game is done right, it could easily be the best Smash out there for both competitive and casual players.

 

[I R MarF]

Eternal Pheonix fire is a champ

@Kuma:

No, I was implying that Sakurai doesn't think such a rift exists outside of, say, online leaderboards. That, plus the fact that any competitive depth is basically a byproduct from designing a game around what we'd consider average skill.

It's like a bird building a nest on your roof; it's cool, but whatever happens, happens.

Except Sakurai thought Melee was too hard?

http://www.1up.com/news/masahiro-sakurai-reflects-super-smash

Melee and 64 having more competitive depth than Brawl is not a coincidence. Sakurai intentionally made Brawl to be more "accessible". To do this, he shrunk the skill gap between low and high level players intentionally.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

THANK YOU.

This is something that's bugged me for a while. If Melee(or 64, for that matter) was so inaccessible, why were very few people complaining about it before Sakurai brought it up?

Personally I don't think Accessibility is really the issue here. Sakurai has to deliver profits for Nintendo. I can guarantee that's the reason he's pushing for a more as he says "accessible" game. It's all about the $$.

To be honest I think all the smashes are done very well for new players picking them up. Being the best in my circle, it's interesting to see how people improve. I think the rate and which they do is pretty solid. Smash is one of the easiest fighting games to pick up so I really am not worried about this so called 'inaccessibility'.

Hence why I am on the fence. Because I have hit a wall in Brawl. It still is extremely fun but sometimes I wish there was more. I play Balanced Brawl Mod because it feels much more fair and complete.

I think now with Sakurai not doing everything himself, there is a good chance we hit the sweet spot. It's no surprise that one man doing nearly ALL the work wasn't able to get it perfect. But I have high hopes for the next installment.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I couldn't agree more Ferio. I great example of a deep yet accessible fighter that was just released is Persona 4 Arena. It has an innovative 4 button system and makes it so that even the most casual gamer can perform combos into supers by simply pressing the A button at the cost of doing less than stellar damage. Many fighting games are completely capable of being played casually. Even Marvel vs. Capcom 2 simplified the magic series to 2 buttons. Some characters even had launchers that linked from normals, like cables s.lp, s.lp and B.B hood's s.lk, s.lk. Even a character as technical as magneto had several launchers at his disposal. I had a much easier time playing Marvel vs. Capcom 2 than any other installment in the vs series, allowing me, an 11 year old casual gamer at the time, to atleast stand a chance in the arcades (to some degree). Even games like like SF4 are much more accessible than its previous installments because of how easy it is to chain normals and cancels without plinking or piano keying.

Sorry of all of this fighting game jargon is confusing, but I'm sure fellow fighting advocates like Kuma will understand. But I can see smash as being both accessible and deep, if not simply because of Namco-Bandai's reputation for making games that have highly intuitive fighting engines. I have a friend who played Tales of Vesperia and me and him would spend time just doing ridiculous combos on enemies and judge who's is better. I think amazing how they can make an RPG competetive and entertaining.

Also, the people who seem hang onto Sakurai's words neglect to mention how he designed Kid Icarus: Uprising, which just happens to have a competetive fan base and deep combat system. Who knows, perhaps Sakurai's philosophies have changed over time, after all the only evidence we have of him mentioning how anti-competetive he is through a handful of interviews that only roughly assessed his feelings towards the game. Unless we have a direct line to him during an interview, and the many interviews he has inevitably had there is no way to be certain about his stance on the next smash.

 

[SmashChu]

Gonna do this kind of quickly since I need to be somewhere.

I've talked a lot about mutually elusiveness between depth and accessibility so let me go a bit more into the factors. There are two reasons why this happens.

1)Competitive players (of all kinds), want some aspect of the game to be naturally harder. For Smash, it's speed. This is clear from the fact that the arguments usually revolve around speed. In Starcraft, I'd say it's micro. In Street Fighter, it's the easier motions (or, competitive players want them to be harder). This naturally pushes players away from the game. Like I said, most players will only play with friends and may not own the game. So if it is harder to jump right in, than it removes a lot of the fun. These lower end players will leave as a result.

I will say this category is where the happy medium comes in. If Smash is too slow, it wont be fun. Of course, competitive players will always want one extreme.

2)The other factor is extra goodies that adds this mystical depth. I'll take Street Fighter 4. It has not only the special moves (which are hard to pull off unless you've played these games a lot), but EX moves, supers, ultras, and focus attacks. There is even more if you play competitively. There is just a lot in it. I'll show this example with El Duderino's post.

Lots of us are just of the opinion that depth adds variety that can make for a lot more dynamic and eventful matches for competitive and average players. Even on a basic level, part of the underlying fun with Smash comes through rolling, spikes, teching, tech-chasing, spot dodging, air dodging, grab strategies, ledge strategies, attack strengths and priorities, chaining moves after reading your opponent well, etc. Perhaps you have just been playing the series for too long like the rest of us, but those are some of the "bells and whistles" new players have to deal with that most will pick up playing through the game and playing hours with friends. Smash is a whole lot more enjoyable with that added depth though because, as I mentioned it, adds more variety to the combat at various levels of play. That is kinda the whole point here, there is so much more Smash can introduce while still remaining rooted in accessibility. Yes, there might be an additional tool or so to learn, but like plenty of the mechanics the franchise has introduced over the years, it ultimately can make for a more satisfying overall experience. Unless of course you feel the formula is tapped and right now is as good as it will ever be.

The bold is the bloat. Less is more is what I'm getting at.

OK, summing it up. 1)elements are naturally harder and 2) is just more things that add depth. The reason I say depth and accessibility are mutually exclusive is because of these. They naturally make the game harder to learn, yet most people want to get into it quick. They want to get down and dirty with out having to practice a lot or read a guide.

 

[Big-Cat]

I find it odd how people started complaining about competetive smash AFTER Sakurai made a statement against it. Where we're you people before 2008? The only compelling argument is "Sakurai said...". Are you people sheep or do you really believe that competetive and casual play cannot coexist in smash? How can it not when it exists in every other fighting game?

Come to think of it, you're right. I don't remember much, if any, complaining about competitive Smash until Brawl was out. My guess is that people will follow Sakurai's word without so much as to think for themselves.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I can guarantee you that 90% of the Smash players didn't even know who Masahiro Sakurai was until he made the Dojo in 2006. I know I didn't. I didn't even know that he created Kirby.

Edit:@SmashChu: Be that as it may, you still don't seem to have a firm grasp of the aspects of depth. While you do understand the gyst of aspects of what makes smash competetive, speed wasn't the only element of Melee that made it such a competetive gem, it was also due to the wide plethora of tactics and technical features of the game, while invisible to many, we're significant to players. I'm not just talking about L-Canceling and Wavedashing, but Crouch Canceling, Double Stick DI, Meteor Canceling, Dash Dancing, Jab resets, Light Shielding etc. Even simple things like the ability to carry running momentum in your jump were extremely important.

For example, crouch canceling: at lower percentages it allowed a player to take a hit and not suffer from being knocked back. Let's say I was Fox and Marth hit me with a ill-spaced SH Fair, I would be able to crouch cancel and counter back with an Up smash. But if I'm playing against a character like Peach and I attempt to use crouch canceling, Peach will use her Down Smash and get a free 20-30% or more from me since i'm DI'ing down into it. Fox being a fast faller also adds to the damage. Crouch Canceling acts like a double edged sword. Even though this doesn't seem that significant it is designed very well. It can act as a low percent Alpha Counter or super armor so you can freely approach or take damage between certain percentages.

More speed would be great in smash, but that isn't exactly what we need. Melee moves at the same speed as Brawl minus the floating if you play without canceling, Brawl just has a shallow engine so it's forced to play slow.

You can have a fast car, but if it doesn't have good handling and suspension its not that great after reaching the maximum point of acceleration. Sure it's an adrenalin rush, but the overall experience would be underwhelming. Unless you're really into Drag Racing.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

I can guarantee you that 90% of the Smash players didn't even know who Masahiro Sakurai was until he made the Dojo in 2006. I know I didn't. I didn't even know that he created Kirby.

Edit:@SmashChu: Be that as it may, you still don't seem to have a firm grasp of the aspects of depth. While you do understand the gyst of aspects of what makes smash competetive, speed wasn't the only element of Melee that made it such a competetive gem, it was also due to the wide plethora of tactics and technical features of the game, while invisible to many, we're significant to players. I'm not just talking about L-Canceling and Wavedashing, but Crouch Canceling, Double Stick DI, Meteor Canceling, Dash Dancing, Jab resets, Light Shielding etc. Even simple things like the ability to carry running momentum in your jump were extremely important.

For example, crouch canceling: at lower percentages it allowed a player to take a hit and not suffer from being knocked back. Let's say I was Fox and Marth hit me with a ill-spaced SH Fair, I would be able to crouch cancel and counter back with an Up smash. But if I'm playing against a character like Peach and I attempt to use crouch canceling, Peach will use her Down Smash and get a free 20-30% or more from me since i'm DI'ing down into it. Fox being a fast faller also adds to the damage. Crouch Canceling acts like a double edged sword. Even though this doesn't seem that significant it is designed very well. It can act as a low percent Alpha Counter or super armor so you can freely approach or take damage between certain percentages.

More speed would be great in smash, but that isn't exactly what we need. Melee moves at the same speed as Brawl minus the floating if you play without canceling, Brawl just has a shallow engine so it's forced to play slow.

You can have a fast car, but if it doesn't have good handling and suspension its not that great after reaching the maximum point of acceleration. Sure it's an adrenalin rush, but the overall experience would be underwhelming. Unless you're really into Drag Racing.

I think it's safe to say that people that liked Melee's speed didn't like it just because it was 'fast'. It was all about combo-ing and following up that made the speed work well.

I don't think Brawl's speed is too "slow" because for a fighting game it actually is still pretty fast. Brawl just lacked the combo-ing that you could do in Melee. While I don't like instant-death combos (combos that you could not DI out of and would result in an KO no matter what you did) I think that the new smash could use a better system to combo attacks, while still maintaining a DI system to break those combos. Or if not DI, a counter type system could work too.

Not saying that's the answer, just a thought though.

 

[Big-Cat]

I don't think Brawl's speed is too "slow" because for a fighting game it actually is still pretty fast. Brawl just lacked the combo-ing that you could do in Melee. While I don't like instant-death combos (combos that you could not DI out of and would result in an KO no matter what you did) I think that the new smash could use a better system to combo attacks, while still maintaining a DI system to break those combos. Or if not DI, a counter type system could work too.

Not saying that's the answer, just a thought though.

This why I think 3D fighter type combos/strings are the way to go for a game like Smash (as I've said several times). The thing I like about those kind of combos is that they don't always combo. Eileen's triple jab combo in Virtua Fighter will only combo if she uses it in a juggle. If the opponent is on the ground, they can block or sidestep the third jab. These conditional properties would fit greatly. Here are some properties we could apply for Smash.

• Combos only in juggle - the previous part of the string does not have enough hitstun for it to be combo'd into if done on the ground.
• Combos only on ground (the previous hit is DI-able) - the previous part of the string allows you to DI following being hit so it's not guaranteed to connect if the opponent is currently knocked back in the air.
• Opponent can use DI on hit - If the opponent is hit, the opponent can alter their trajectory on hit.

 

[I R MarF]

I personally like the combo system in smash. DI and percent creates reactionary and conditional combos and I like how its different from other fighting games.

Unfortunately, combos almost entirely rely on getting an opponent airborne at some point to either follow up or juggle for KOs/damage. There aren't a lot of practical ground combos.

 

[El Duderino]

Even on a basic level, part of the underlying fun with Smash comes through rolling, spikes, teching, tech-chasing, spot dodging, air dodging, grab strategies, ledge strategies, attack strengths and priorities, chaining moves after reading your opponent well, etc.

The bold is the bloat. Less is more is what I'm getting at.

OK, summing it up. 1)elements are naturally harder and 2) is just more things that add depth. The reason I say depth and accessibility are mutually exclusive is because of these. They naturally make the game harder to learn, yet most people want to get into it quick. They want to get down and dirty with out having to practice a lot or read a guide.

Bloat? I just described what even on a surface level makes Smash's accessible yet technical gameplay far superior to the multitude of lame duck existing knock-offs on the market. How is that bloat?

If you really feel depth and accessibility can't coexist and that less is always more, let me introduce you to the shallow game you should be playing instead.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Brawl was a far less accessible game than Melee and was made so on purpose. The inclusion of tripping alone as a factor that causes less control over your ****ing character should be enough to show that.

 

[me9595]

I would just like to say that the buffer system in brawl is why i like it better (if it is in melee then im just dumb and cant notice it at all). But i think we will know if sakurai loves us if he updates the game with patches and stuff after its release.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

Brawl was a far less accessible game than Melee and was made so on purpose. The inclusion of tripping alone as a factor that causes less control over your ****ing character should be enough to show that.

Not sure why you are using the word "accessible" here. Like I said before, every smash is very accessible to all players, from casuals to pros. The only thing Melee had over brawl was the die hard competitive scene. While the same sort of competitive scene is inaccessible in Brawl, I wouldn't say the game was 'far less' accessible in general. I would even venture to say brawl has a better learning curve then melee, but also has a 'wall' so to speak compared to melee. Though I wish Melee would not have had to rely on an unintended exploit to increase its options. They just need to include depth from the get-go. It wouldn't take much to be honest.

Yes, tripping was a dumb move. But I think Sakurai knows that at this point. :D

 

[El Duderino]

While the same sort of competitive scene is inaccessible in Brawl, I wouldn't say the game was 'far less' accessible in general.

I agree with Kink-Link5 here, what's more off-putting than randomly loosing control in a game? It's not that Brawl is an inaccessible game, but there are some big problems that drag it down in that regard. There's just more odd design descision that can confuse new players. It's certainly less accessible than 64 and arguably Melee when you consider the setbacks.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'm glad my intentionally off-worded message got through, Dude.


I think the only place where Brawl is actually more accessible in any regard is at the very lowest playlevel, where players have yet to learn how to double jump or recover properly and think Ike and Roy are overpowered: that 6- to 9-year-old demographic that shouldn't be playing T-rated games in the first place.

At an even remotely explorative level Brawl just feels bad. The only motivation most competitive players have to play the game is because it is where their money comes from and because they happen to be good at exploiting the polarising aspects of the game.

I like the way a casual observer put it. Paraphrased, "I always thought it was Melee players who took their game too seriously, but watching Brawl players is just depressing."

Brawl is a much less accessible game simply due to the fact that you have less options and less control over your character. Low traction, unavailability of actions (A.K.A. overdedicated states from most actions), massively smaller tech window, tripping, and a crapshoot footstooling mechanic, to name a few, all account for a lesser amount of control a player has over his or her character.

I very seriously ask, who wants less control of their character? I don't know any competitive or casual player who would say that is a good thing.




On the topic of buffer, can actions be buffered to start on IASA frames?

 

[Jhonnykiller45]

I think that Sakurai decreased the skill level for Brawl to not make it a more accessible game, but a game where everyone is equal, a game where everyone has a fair chance of winning.
Because, when you come to look at it, if a casual/new player is to fight against one of those professional Melee players, they would certantly get obliterated, for Brawl, not so much, as the random tripping and other things can sometimes give the new players an advantage.
And for buffer, I've only used it once or twice, when I was checking out what it was.

 

[Kink-Link5]

The player skill gap between bad and good players is much less forgiving in Brawl than in Melee. A bad Melee player can still take a stock or two off a good one because the better player still does not always have 100% safe options at his or her disposal and will almost assuredly be punished for something along the way. A good Brawl player can easily take the match having taken 17% because of their mindset and decision making over a player who does something as seemingly little as dashing instead of walking. The smallest things make the biggest differences in Brawl because those differences are magnified.

 

[Vkrm]

It's true that melee pros don't 4-stock everybody they play. I don't think it's because brawl takes more skill, I think it's because melee is a more intuitive game that's easier to understand. I also want to point out that every single combo in melee is escapable. I saw in an earlier post somebody seemed to think 0 to death combos happen all the time in melee.....They don't. That hardly ever happens..... Excluding falco dittos.

 

[StriCNYN3]

I don't think it's because brawl takes more skill, I think it's because melee is a more intuitive game that's easier to understand.

Pretty much this. In Brawl, even something as simple as moving your character becomes convoluted because dashing brings up a higher chance of tripping than walking, and most people wouldn't even know that without studying deeper into the game.

Anyway, for the actual topic at hand, yea I believe Sakurai does care what his fans want in terms of your average smash bros fan. Sonic joining Brawl being the prime example. But in terms of your average competitive fan, I don't think the same thing could be said. He made Brawl after all. But NB helping out does shed some light, however.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

The player skill gap between bad and good players is much less forgiving in Brawl than in Melee. A bad Melee player can still take a stock or two off a good one because the better player still does not always have 100% safe options at his or her disposal and will almost assuredly be punished for something along the way. A good Brawl player can easily take the match having taken 17% because of their mindset and decision making over a player who does something as seemingly little as dashing instead of walking. The smallest things make the biggest differences in Brawl because those differences are magnified.

I get what you mean. I just don't like how the word "accessible" got dragged into the mix. I know they said "Sakurai said it." But that was a translation from Japanese. If you read the article in Japanese it has a bit more of a different feel. Sakurai's main beef is the fact that he feels Melee was too hard. Too difficult for the casual player. Honestly I think we need to focus less on "accessibility" and more on the "new direction". I know it's hard due to not having any solid info, but honestly that's my focus when thinking of the new smash.

 

[El Duderino]

I think that Sakurai decreased the skill level for Brawl to not make it a more accessible game, but a game where everyone is equal, a game where everyone has a fair chance of winning.

Again as Kink-Link5 mentioned, what Sakurai set out to accomplish and what actually happened are two very different things. The problem, if you can even call it a problem, is every Smash gives players tons of freedom. It allowed better players to use each aspect from Melee to Brawl that was removed or limited to their advantage. Sometimes it's exploiting the very same limitation, or just having it open doors to to capitalize on something else.

In trying to artificially cap the skill level, there is lots of evidence that points to Brawl actually increasing it. That approach is always going to be an uphill battle in an open-ended fighting engine. If they really want to shrink that gap, they need to tackle it from the bottom up instead of the top down.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

To actually answer the OP though...

I think Sakurai listens to his fans yes. Though I do feel a biased toward casuals AND Japanese players and/or both.

 

[xXIke-SamaXx]

My expectation were met by adding Ike to the roster, but remember that not every fan want the same thing.....

 

[kisamefishfries]

Apparently he does because he had an interview type deal (its on IGN) and he talks about a control scheme to replace the GC controller and about how the game is going to not have so many gimmicks. Sounds like hes out to please in this one.

 

[Pichu4SSB4]

If Sakurai really do care about us, then he needs to say yes to DLC. Smash is seriously in desperate need of DLC.

 

[kisamefishfries]

If Sakurai really do care about us, then he needs to say yes to DLC. Smash is seriously in desperate need of DLC.

This. I would like to see new stages and maybe even new characters post release.

 

[Vkrm]

They'd ban the new chars and stages from tourney play on the grounds that they would be not available to people who don't have an Internet connection.

 

[kupo15]

I would just like to say that the buffer system in brawl is why i like it better (if it is in melee then im just dumb and cant notice it at all). But i think we will know if sakurai loves us if he updates the game with patches and stuff after its release.

Buffering is in melee though its for specific things. You can buffer a DJ out of hitstun and a bunch of other things that I forget. I think jabs are buffered also?

I hate the brawl buffering system. 10 frames of buffering happening all the time makes the control not very precise at all.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Or he could just make a finished game in the first place.

Patches are one thing, not finishing the game and adding content afterward is another thing entirely.

Buffer during jumpsquat is the only buffer from Brawl that is really useful in a practical realm in addition to the ones already in Melee. A constant buffer leads to inaccurate inputs due to how they read the input. That is to say, pressing and input registers it into the buffer window, which then registers and carries out the last input before the last move finished. If the buffer was only done by holding the input until the end of the 10 frame buffer window, it would be significantly better and lead to much less unintentional inputs. The system was just handled poorly in Brawl, but it isn't something that's unsalvageable.

 

[Big-Cat]

Wait, what does the Brawl buffer do then?

 

[El Duderino]

Wait, what does the Brawl buffer do then?

Gives you a window to input your next move before whatever you are currently doing ends.

In theory buffering everything makes the timing going from one move to another less strict. In practice it leads to unintentional results, sometimes even deaths, when you actually tried to do something else after viewing the conditions change. For a game like say Soul Calibur where the moves are more drawn out, having a large buffers does make sense. For Smash's pacing though it isn't a good fit.

Like a lot of Brawls changes, it's designed to tackle an issue that was never really a problem for players in the first place, bringing unintended consequences with it.

 

[Big-Cat]

That's what I thought. I misread what Kink-Link was saying. If anything, I say reduce the buffer to five frames. Three or four would be preferred.

 

[El Duderino]

That's what I thought. I misread what Kink-Link was saying. If anything, I say reduce the buffer to five frames. Three or four would be preferred.

Or even better, like they said, limit it to conditional situations and inputs where buffering makes sense. Abandon it on anything the player may need precise control over at a moments notice.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

Or even better, like they said, limit it to conditional situations and inputs where buffering makes sense. Abandon it on anything the player may need precise control over at a moments notice.

Like falling off the cliff as Ike perhaps?

Agreed.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Sorry for the confusing, I tried to make it as specifically worded as possible, but it seems to have lead to worse misinterpretation.

For anyone else that still doesn't get it:

Brawl: Tap/Press an input and it is automatically buffered

Suggested fix: Hold button and only if you are still holding it, it gets buffered.

 

[SmashChu]

Before I go on, let me remind those reading what my little points are. There are two things that competitive players want in the game. The first is for things to be harder (like for the game to be faster) and more things (you all call these tech skillz), which I call bloat. Just in case it wasn't clear.

Edit:@SmashChu: Be that as it may, you still don't seem to have a firm grasp of the aspects of depth. While you do understand the gyst of aspects of what makes smash competetive, speed wasn't the only element of Melee that made it such a competetive gem, it was also due to the wide plethora of tactics and technical features of the game, while invisible to many, we're significant to players. I'm not just talking about L-Canceling and Wavedashing, but Crouch Canceling, Double Stick DI, Meteor Canceling, Dash Dancing, Jab resets, Light Shielding etc. Even simple things like the ability to carry running momentum in your jump were extremely important.

For example, crouch canceling: at lower percentages it allowed a player to take a hit and not suffer from being knocked back. Let's say I was Fox and Marth hit me with a ill-spaced SH Fair, I would be able to crouch cancel and counter back with an Up smash. But if I'm playing against a character like Peach and I attempt to use crouch canceling, Peach will use her Down Smash and get a free 20-30% or more from me since i'm DI'ing down into it. Fox being a fast faller also adds to the damage. Crouch Canceling acts like a double edged sword. Even though this doesn't seem that significant it is designed very well. It can act as a low percent Alpha Counter or super armor so you can freely approach or take damage between certain percentages.

More speed would be great in smash, but that isn't exactly what we need. Melee moves at the same speed as Brawl minus the floating if you play without canceling, Brawl just has a shallow engine so it's forced to play slow.

You can have a fast car, but if it doesn't have good handling and suspension its not that great after reaching the maximum point of acceleration. Sure it's an adrenalin rush, but the overall experience would be underwhelming. Unless you're really into Drag Racing.

AS I mentioned, there are two elements. One is changing the nature of something in the game (like speed), while the other is adding more elements to the game.

All of this is what comeptitive players want and why "depth," and accessibility can not exist. What the competitive players want is to increase the nature elements more to one extreme while adding more bloat. While you may say different, this is fundamentally what it will all come down to.

Bloat? I just described what even on a surface level makes Smash's accessible yet technical gameplay far superior to the multitude of lame duck existing knock-offs on the market. How is that bloat?

If you really feel depth and accessibility can't coexist and that less is always more, let me introduce you to the shallow game you should be playing instead.

Most of what you described is not accessible. Thus, Toise's comment.

Your definition of average is awfully skewed, effendi.

You listed 8 different elements not described anywhere but here and used only in competitive Smash realm.

The problem here is context. You see competitive Smash as the norm and how the game is. I see it as something separate. You see the core of what Smash is what you said. The core of Smash is actually this. That is the surface level of Smash. So, no matter what I will say will just roll of because we are looking at the world from different perspectives.

What I've been saying is why you can't have your cake and eat it too. To make it more clear, it's about extremes. There is too much and too little. There is too hard and too easy. Smash sits at the middle. It's a challenging game if you don't play a lot of games, but learn-able (I've seen people go from suck to OK). What the competitive players want is for the game to be too hard and this raises the skill ceiling as well as the floor. When your focus is at the tippy top pf play (which is how competitive players are in all games), you want to see players do more (bloat, #2) and be more challenging which makes them "so good"(nature, #1). What I've seen saying, as always, is Sakurai is not going down that route and he shouldn't. Basically, he doesn't want to make this the norm.

Smashboards is a very strange place. Smash Brothers is the best selling fighting game, well loved, and is one of the most played Wiii games. But if you knew nothing of the game and came here, you'd think it's a colossal failure and this "Sakurai" was an idiot. See what I mean about context.

 

[trash?]

Casual players won't need to care about the depth, because they'll be enjoying the game the same way they'd enjoy every other smash game. It's like whining about soccer because the kids at your local middle school don't go into deep tactics, it's because they don't care, and, so long as the current scheme remains unharmed, they will still enjoy smash. Ditto with playing against an experienced player. You aren't expecting Beckham to be dominating 7-year-olds, are you?

After all, soccer has enough depth for people to spend millions upon millions over watching it. Obviously, not accessible enough, though.

(also: oh my god do people sincerely believe melee is hard bahahahahahaha)

e: Alternatively: Kobe Bryant could probably beat a 6-year-old at basketball, and therefore basketball should be made with a shorter net, the ball should home into the net at all times, and at random the ball should just magically float out of your hands, because SHUT UP IT'S ACCESSIBILE DAMNIT