Does Sakurai actually care what we (fans) want?

[---]

Everyone else just wants to hop right in.

Pretty much what I said a couple of pages back as to why I perfer Brawl better. :D

I'm not for adding more depth as some are asking for. I've said it before, but the game has enough depth for everyone lower on the spectrum to have a good time. Adding more is moving them down and making it harder for them to just jump in.

Personally I think it depends more on what you add. Adding a few simple execution with minimal required timing ATs like Wall Jumping, Gliding, and Crawling could add a lot without raising the accessability level.

Of course, I haven't been paying attention to what a lot of the people here want so I may be missing what you're directly targeting with your "depth makes things harder" posts. Smash is starting to remind me more and more of some of the recent Mario Kart games (the ones without Snakeing).

 

[Johnknight1]

@ Tripe Dash
Nobody here is asking for much more "depth." That is unless "depth" refers to being able to do things with multiple timings, added options for players (which quite frankly, most smash fans are asking for), "offensive depth" (at least more offense than Brawl), or "offense vs. defense" having more depth.

As flyinfilipino kind of hinted at, there are way more advanced techniques in Melee than Brawl, way more simple techniques (like wall clinging, roof teching, flying, gliding, footstool hopping, etc) in Brawl than Melee, and way more things to do with each character in Brawl than Melee.

However, the difference between Melee and Brawl in this regard is that a lot of those things in Melee (and Smash 64) helped "balance" the game, whereas in Brawl, it created a gameplay state that revolves around running away. There also was poorly executed gameplay in Brawl (Ness and Lucas' grab release, planking, random tripping, way too much edge invincibility, various infinite moves, Yoshi's weak shield, infinite chain grabs, and the lack of offense) that prevented Brawl from having a gameplay system of Brawl. Instead of having a more complex version of rock-paper-scissors based around timing like in Smash 64 and Melee, you got rock-paper-freaking nuclear weapon, in which the freaking nuclear weapon was running away.

Now if Brawl had a better version of rock-paper-scissors match ups like in Smash 64 and Melee and didn't have terribly broken or underpowered (in regard to basic gameplay elements), terrible timing for stuff (too little knockback or stun on some moves, Ness and Lucas' grab release), and it was harder to win by running away (and easier to punish people to run away), then Brawl would be a lot smoother, fun to play and watch at all levels of play, and more well-received.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Very few people are asking for the game to be more technically demanding is what you mean, John. Fans want the game to let them choose their actions as much as possible, since more control leads to a better feel for the game, and offers the most appeal during a game's newborn era.

 

[DerfMidWest]

I'm not opposed to the game being technically demanding at higher level, as it is in melee.
this had no effect on casual play and allowed for more of a skill gap separating scrubs from higher level players.

 

[SmashChu]

You see, Smashchu, the problem I have with most of your arguments is that you try and make it seem like the "sides" of this debate are clear-cut and defined. I just don't think that's the case.

(I also feel that the "Brawl vs. Melee" debate is just completely muddled up now, but that's another story.)

I feel like 90% (and this is really just a very rough estimate) of the people that bought and contributed to the sales of Super Smash Bros. Brawl really have no idea what's going on and just play Smash every so often because it's Smash and it's fun to fight with Nintendo characters. These are the real "casual" players. And by "casual", I really mean "casual", and not "anti-'competitive'". As for the other 10% (again, a really rough estimate), this comprises people that frequent message boards like this one. And yes, that includes you, me, and basically everyone that talks about this subject. We're all "competitive" players. We joined these message boards to talk about our enjoyment of the game and share information about the game, which contributes to us usually just being better at the game by that virtue than the average "casual" player. Basically, if you're bothering to take part in this "debate" in general, you know something about advanced Smash, and that something (no matter how small) automatically makes you better than 90% of the people that bought Brawl.

And now my main point is that of this 10% comprised of "competitive" players, I think only about 1% (another arbitrary number) are really in favor of making the game "harder" as you like to say, for the sake of making it harder. This is something that you seem to attribute to all "competitive" players, but I really don't think it's the case. As it's been reiterated many times in this thread, "depth" does not equal "harder", and most "competitive" players do not want more "depth" to make it "harder" for casual players. Nor do they only play the game for the sake of getting better at it (or to "pride" themselves on their skills).

So to end, I'm of the opinion that 90% of people that bought Brawl do not care about this "debate" (which is why I feel that it's mostly pointless) (but also because there's no right or wrong) and are fine with the game because they are truly "casual". The real "Brawl vs. Melee" debate is mostly argued amongst the other 10%, people that are, for the most part, educated in advanced Smash and just have differing opinions on what they want in the next game. It's not some great, entire-fandom-encompassing debate. And the reason the Mario Party comparison keeps coming up is...never mind, I'll just finish by saying that there's always two sides to an argument/debate and one doesn't keep going on forever with just one side shouting about it.

Hmmm. Where to start......

I agree with a good about of what your saying. A lot of Smash fans don't care about this debate. Most of them don't browse dedicated Smash Brothers forums. You did bring up some great stuff on how we talk and discuss Smash.

I guess I'll say this. This debate, or at least what I'm trying to say, is that what people say isn't important as what they really want. Yes, a lot of people are not specifically asking for the game to be harder, but in truth, this is what they want. If ease of play was not an issue, why does it come up so often? I'm saying that they want the game to be harder because they ask for things that will, in the end, make it so. Competitive players want more options which can mean adding a lot of features that make the game harder to pick up and go (as you have to learn a lot of new things). They will also ask for things to be changed, like the game being fast. The one still comes up today. Also, why these unsung players do not contribute to the debate, they too are affected by all of this. Again, they want to just play, and the game is fast enough for them and has enough depth for them. Adding more may mean they are not interested in learning all of these new techniques and dealing with the harder gameplay. It's low hanging fruit. They don't have the desire for it, so they don't play.

I hope I've been able to understand your post. I'm trying to get more of a sense of what others are saying, but sometimes I kind of just gush.

And as an addendum, SmashChu, since I really do want to know how you truly feel about the subject, what kind of Smash player would you consider yourself?

I'm defiantly very good. I can go toe to toe with very dedicated players and tend to do well in small tournaments. I also have a strong grasp on most of the cast, the stages, and the items (I'm sure this is by asymmetric skill against some of the better players). I've thought about going into competitive Smash, but the community and how the game is played has stopped me every time.

While a lot of people here may not notice it, there is a lot of hate for Smashboard and competitive Smash. It's easier to see if you leave Smashboards and especially if you go to 4chan.

This really isn't an issue exclusive to the Dorf, it's a crippling reason why Brawl overall has a less viable cast. If you look at the majority of mid to slow attacking characters in Brawl, they suffer from lacking ideal setup and spacing tools to capitalize on their intended strengths. Also thanks to Brawl's powershielding, these heavier hitters leave the already more vulnerable attacks wide open to be cut right through. It's incredibly damaging when you consider moves like forward and down tilts that are necessary to keep quicker characters at bay now have a huge risk attached.

That is why with only a few exceptions of characters that have something to exploit, the majority of mid to heavy set characters fall on the lower half of Brawls tier list. It's also a good argument for why this next smash could use a little bigger tool belt. The less quick the character, the more they are at a disadvantage in a fighting game with an emphasis on mobility. They need better means to read, respond, and punish their more agile opponents. Melee's advanced techniques, for all their accessibility faults, did precisely that. To achieve better balence, Brawl really needed an additional something to the same effect.

Let me see if I got this right. Yours saying the problem with the heavy characters is because defending is easier (so their attacks are riskier) and their wuick moves are riskier. I don't know a lot about individual character's meta-games, so I'd love to hear more about this.

Overall though, it doesn't surprise me as Melee was the same way. At leeast this is what the tier list shows. Fox was the best and one of the fastest characters in the game. Captain Falcon, Marth, and Sheik are all high up there too as a result. Competitive Smash has always favored faster characters. To someone like me who plays the game differently, there isn't much of a balance issue. I can play the whole cast and see they all hold up pretty well. I'm still finding things out. It's just competitive Smash has a way of bottle necking the cast.

I would like to hear more about this problem from your perspective.

I'm not talking about preference here. I'm talking about the high likelyhood of a Smash fan playing Brawl and walking away with something to be crtical of. For all that we disagree on with Brawl, the blatant pitfalls like tripping, MK's dominance, or the failed goal to improve the overall balance are things we largely agree on. Yes, Brawl sold a good amount, but given commonly conflicted opinions on the game, it's clearly not infallible.

I still say it's the outlook. Besides tripping (which most everyone hates), there isn't a lot players have to be critical of. It's a different perspective. I think it's just the idea that competitive Smash see Brawl as an inferior game and that bleeds into everything else. I can say that outside of competitive Smash that the balance is better than Melee and Meta-Knight is good at best. I can go more into it though. Again, it's just how we see things.

 

[DerfMidWest]

what in the world are you talking about.
"balance" only truly applies to higher levels of the game because lower level players simply lack the tools required to execute or counter certain strategies which may or may not actually be effective.

 

[---]

@ Tripe Dash
Nobody here is asking for much more "depth." That is unless "depth" refers to being able to do things with multiple timings, added options for players (which quite frankly, most smash fans are asking for), "offensive depth" (at least more offense than Brawl), or "offense vs. defense" having more depth.

Probably depends on the person and what they're asking for.

I myself value defense over sheer offense. When I got together with my region I was never the one to make the first move. Slow and steady. lol

As flyinfilipino kind of hinted at, there are way more advanced techniques in Melee than Brawl, way more simple techniques (like wall clinging, roof teching, flying, gliding, footstool hopping, etc) in Brawl than Melee, and way more things to do with each character in Brawl than Melee.

Futher raising my belief that there's a difference between what Sakurai calls an AT and what competitive fans call an AT.

But yeah, keep things simple, that's not to say there shouldn't be a few more ATs by competitive standards, just nothing suddenly raises the skill bar to a place that most players won't be able like the one Chu was refering too a page or so back.

However, the difference between Melee and Brawl in this regard is that a lot of those things in Melee (and Smash 64) helped "balance" the game, whereas in Brawl, it created a gameplay state that revolves around running away. There also was poorly executed gameplay in Brawl (Ness and Lucas' grab release, planking, random tripping, way too much edge invincibility, various infinite moves, Yoshi's weak shield, infinite chain grabs, and the lack of offense) that prevented Brawl from having a gameplay system of Brawl. Instead of having a more complex version of rock-paper-scissors based around timing like in Smash 64 and Melee, you got rock-paper-freaking nuclear weapon, in which the freaking nuclear weapon was running away.

Now if Brawl had a better version of rock-paper-scissors match ups like in Smash 64 and Melee and didn't have terribly broken or underpowered (in regard to basic gameplay elements), terrible timing for stuff (too little knockback or stun on some moves, Ness and Lucas' grab release), and it was harder to win by running away (and easier to punish people to run away), then Brawl would be a lot smoother, fun to play and watch at all levels of play, and more well-received.

Running away kinda sounds like a defensive metagame for the type of fighting game Smash is, but what do I know (am not a major competitive player). Still do find Brawl to be entertaining to watch (except all MK doubles like at Apex). "shrugs"

As for balance I find a lot of that to be subjective, there was several really strong and really weak characters in all 3 Smash games, really really strong in MK's case (though with the size of Brawl's roster it's not a big deal IMO). Only thing that can be agreed upon I find is to continue working at balance through patches and using fan imput (the former does conflict with Sakurai's developing style though) as balance can always be better (due to subjectivity).

Yeah, get rid of random tripping (sorry Toise, but if given the choice to get rid of it I still would). I do like Brawl's speed though, better on my thumbs, easier to pick up and play and whatnot. The rest I have no real comment on as I either don't know what you're talking about (planking?) or just don't have a strong opinion about it.


As a side note, this casuel and competitive stuff is really off topic for this thread. Can we just make a SmashChu vs. We the Competitive thread and get it over with?

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Overall though, it doesn't surprise me as Melee was the same way. At leeast this is what the tier list shows. Fox was the best and one of the fastest characters in the game. Captain Falcon, Marth, and Sheik are all high up there too as a result. Competitive Smash has always favored faster characters.

Speed is THE way to break almost any game, or rather, getting in more attacks/turns/whatever than your opponent.

As for balance I find a lot of that to be subjective, there was several really strong and really weak characters in all 3 Smash games, really really strong in MK's case (though with the size of Brawl's roster it's not a big deal IMO).

This is something that pops into my head whenever people complain about Brawl's balance: your average Smash fan considers a good chunk of Melee's cast unplayable. Not even "kinda weak," we're talking completely ****ing useless. Brawl doesn't really have that problem.

 

[DerfMidWest]

Speed is THE way to break almost any game, or rather, getting in more attacks/turns/whatever than your opponent.

this is false. In melee, fox is really good because he's fast, and his speed is a major part of why he's good, but its also largely because he's safe on shield... as well as a lot of other things... he's just a really solid character. But I don't think he's broken, he's sooo easily punished if he makes a mistake.
but back to the original point:
The majority of the top 7 are slow characters...
They are top 7 not because they are fast, but because they are safe.
Another example would be Pikachu/Pichu. Those to characters are VERY fast (and can actually be safe on shield), but not good.

This is something that pops into my head whenever people complain about Brawl's balance: your average Smash fan considers a good chunk of Melee's cast unplayable. Not even "kinda weak," we're talking completely ****ing useless. Brawl doesn't really have that problem.

this isn't true. there are currently 4 characters considered "negligible" in melee.
There are quite a few bad characters, but only 4 "negligibles." And even those 4 can hold their own in the hands of the right player (however its ******** hard, which is why they are "negligible") for example, I used to main Pichu, but I would **** falcons up and down the street because pichu has the ability to punish fast fallers and has a great gimp game allowing him to punish the spacies and falcon pretty hard if he gets an opening. of course, pichu suffers from other major flaws and was by no means a good character, but he is usable to some success.

This topic really shouldn't be a melee vs brawl debate, because those never get anywhere and as I've matured as a smasher, I've realized that it really doesn't matter. play the game you prefer, don't bash others game choices. we gain a lot more by working together as one smash community than we do from always fighting and whatnot.
there is also the fact that this argument is pointless because no melee player really gives half a **** about smash4 and aren't even on these boards lol.
Besides, neither community has any say in what becomes of the next smash game and its very likely to be something that none of us want.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

Besides, neither community has any say in what becomes of the next smash game and its very likely to be something that none of us want.

That attitude is the one that irks me.

Don't get me wrong, there are some things that Sakurai does that make me scratch my head, but he pissed off some of the players with the Brawl changes and now they just mope around about how the next Smash Bros. will probably be bad because Sakurai loves dem casuals.

What do I want in the next Smash Bros.? I want new characters, new stages, new music, maybe some new modes, a few tweaks or additions to the gameplay formula, and that's it (plus the entire Brawl roster staying put).

And when you say that the next Smash Bros. is "very likely to be something that none of us want," that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. What you really mean is that Smash Bros. 4 is very likely to not adhere to some notion of what the game should be in terms of competitive viability.

Same as Brawl, everyone who likes Smash Bros. because of what it truly is will like Smash 4 no matter what, and others will feel betrayed or burned because it doesn't meet their fighting game standards.

I'm in the first camp.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

[speed comments]

I probably should've included only the last sentence in the Chu quote since I didn't mean to associate it with Melee or any particular game, but oh well. "Speed" is literally "more successful attacks than your opponent" and it's not gamebreaking unless they're physically/mathematically incapable of victory (barring human error). Actual speed does seem to be favored in Smash though.

this isn't true. there are currently 4 characters considered "negligible" in melee.
There are quite a few bad characters, but only 4 "negligibles." And even those 4 can hold their own in the hands of the right player (however its ******** hard, which is why they are "negligible")

AVERAGE Smash fan. The people who can't beat level 9s and usually get destroyed if you played them online.

In this case, it's a matter of obvious strengths rather than a character's full potential. That's what balancing mid-level play is all about, and that's what Sakurai's going for.

 

[flyinfilipino]

AVERAGE Smash fan. The people who can't beat level 9s and usually get destroyed if you played them online.

You think so? In my experience, those people usually just play as their favorite Nintendo character/one of the ones they know of or a character that looks cool/has cool moves. But what do I know, I'm on Smashboards.

 

[DerfMidWest]

Yea... Low level play is difficult to balance because strategies that are totally counterable may seem broken at low level because they lack the tools to counter it (i.e. marth fsmash spam in melee, which is easily countered by, say, wavedash OoS)

There is also the fact that it is impossible to know what they will find to be cheap... Hell, when I was a scrub, we thought roy was OP and samus' grab was good.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Speed is THE way to break almost any game, or rather, getting in more attacks/turns/whatever than your opponent.




This is something that pops into my head whenever people complain about Brawl's balance: your average Smash fan considers a good chunk of Melee's cast unplayable. Not even "kinda weak," we're talking completely ****ing useless. Brawl doesn't really have that problem.

Your average smash fan considers Ike, Link, and Roy top tier and Jigglypuff and Peach the worst characters in the game.

 

[El Duderino]

Let me see if I got this right. Yours saying the problem with the heavy characters is because defending is easier (so their attacks are riskier) and their wuick moves are riskier. I don't know a lot about individual character's meta-games, so I'd love to hear more about this.

Lets do a comparison to illustrate what I'm talking about, again using Gannondorf as an example:

• Melee Ganondorf - Uses strength to keep quicker players at bay, effectively able to push approaching players back and maintain advantageous spacing. Benefits from added mobility options like wavedashing that compliment his defensive countering game. Cancels aerials otherwise absurd delay allowing him be less of a sitting duck and apply pressure. Overall a very effective heavy character, still has his weaknesses, but capable keeping up with faster characters in the right hands.

• Brawl Ganondorf - Longer attack decay, less mobility, and a lost shield knockback pressure game, partially thanks to perfect shielding. Overall he is in a much worse position against approaching characters, having less opportunity to counter and less ability to capitalize on it when he does. With Melee's mechanics striped away he is just significantly more punishable.
  

Given Ganon, like many of the slower characters in Brawl, doesn't have the adequate tools to read and respond, he becomes a very undynamic, one-dimensional character. Think of it as being an immobile tank trying to take down a fighter jet. Not very enjoyable. But as Melee and especially Project M have shown, slower characters can be loads more fun with the right mechanics. Now by comparison SSB4 should be more accessible, but I do believe those helpful mechanics can be simplified or reinvented, without loosing the benefits.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Now by comparison SSB4 should be more accessible, but I do believe those helpful mechanics can be simplified or reinvented, without loosing the benefits.

So much this. L-Canceling (Lag Canceling) can be delegated to Fast Falling, while auto-cancels would tend to happen with aerials done without the Fast Fall. This still puts the decision making in the hands of the player, while offering an easy-to-explain mechanic behind the two techniques: If you do an aerial out of a short hop and fall normally, you'll get a later auto cancel for the move, while if you fast fall it, you'll get reduced lag. Doing the aerial late and without the fast fall results in the move's normal landing lag, and would likely be the case if the aerial is done after ledge dropping and double jumping, or jumping up onto a platform.

The idea is to have a high level of dynamic that makes nothing set in stone, which is a huge part of Smash's appeal, and the reasoning behind its hitstun and DI system in the first place.

 

[El Duderino]

Or take for example wavedashing. Replace it with something like a possible hop, shuffle, or skip canceling out of the start of a roll by using the jump button. It makes sense in the context of the game, would have similar positive benefits, and becomes accessible for everyone.

 

[DerfMidWest]

Uh...
Wavedashing is pree easy once you learn it.
And I feel like its a technique to be learned.

If you were to do it the way you described, it wouldn't even serve the purpose of movement well (sans wd OoS) characters like luigi or ICs wouldn't have their true WD, which is the basis of their movement.
It wouldn't be fast, because roll has startup frames.
Also no wavelands

 

[Sanji Himura]

I feel that I must give my two pennies on this subject.

Sakurai once weighed in about roster size not too long ago that,

It isn't a matter of ‘If the next game has 50 characters, that'll be enough… There is a certain charm to games that have huge casts of playable characters, but they tend to have issues with game balance and it becomes very difficult to fine-tune each character and have them all feel distinctive.

He is right to a extent. There appears to be a magic boundary between roster size and game balance, and once you reach the higher counts, tournament viability of a game goes down.

Take Marvel vs. Capcom 2 for example. It boasts a 56 man roster, but yet, if the TO of a Marvel tournament a year ago keeps track of what team a player uses, you will find that most competitors will only use three of six characters. Does that make the game broken? Looking at it today, yes, but that is only because that we have new fighters to play with today instead of a year ago when Marvel 3 was just coming out.

To an extent, Capcom themselves have proven Sakurai's point about game balance, so I don't blame him if certain characters(I'm looking at you Lucas, Marth) were taken out in favor of some fresh additions, or even some old holdovers from Melee. Just remember that it has to add to the game balance in some fashion.

 

[El Duderino]

@vanir

Wavedashing is incredibly easy once you've learned it, but it is still an excessive hump players have to jump over. Despite enjoying how it works in PM and Melee, I can completely understand the argument against it on the basis of being too inaccessible for less technical players. It's the reason why many people who haven't mastered it think wavedashing is some evil game-breaking technique, when in play it's more or less just a positive subtle gameplay addition. Wavedashing after all is very much a tradeoff, lacking invulnerability frames and generally the cover distance of rolling, but gaining a quicker ability to respond facing one direction.

I'm willing to compromise. I do believe having the option to quickly shift your position slightly left or right while facing forward makes Smash more dynamic and fun. Plus it also helps the slower characters have better means to fight back. But yes, in its Melee state, it is out of reach for many players skill level. It's really a shame more players can't have fun using it, which is why I think it's necessary to simplify and turn into some new technique. As for wavelanding I'm sure there's a way to work that in as well. Also nothing says like rolling it can't be slightly altered for each character.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Momentum influencing (As opposed to completely halting and changing momentum) air dodge would allow wavelanding without allowing wavedashing is it currently is done.

 

[DerfMidWest]

hmmm... still not 100% sure how I feel about the subject.
maybe if the roll thing existed in addition to the traditional wavedash?
so there is like... wavedashing... then scrubdashing? It would allow them to use a substitute for the most basic uses of wavedashing, without severely limiting the tactic.
And it could still exist to benefit those characters who need it to move quickly.

anyway, as for the larger cast quote, I agree with Sakurai. The larger cast is cool and all, but it does become a developer's nightmare. Balancing a huge *** cast of like 50 characters is crazy amounts of work and probably won't be pulled off efficiently.
I don't think we'll ever see a cast size jump the size of 64->melee ever again.
I would expect a couple of new characters in smash 4, but not a whole hell of a lot (who knows, we may even lose some again).

 

[Kink-Link5]

I can see the third parties and 2-4 others getting the boot, but I would say any guess over 45 (counting transforming characters separately) is assuming way too much until more is said about how the cast is to be handled.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

If it seems like I'm dodging, I'm not. I don't respond to everything.

As for who, you can see it all over this forum and with other competitive players in RL. They want the game to have more depth which means making a harder game (as I have already described. If need be, I can pull up what I wrote).

Bull****. WHO have YOU openly discussed about smash regarding the accessibility vs. competitive smash who is significant in the smash scene? How often do you speak to these people? Better yet, would they even listen to your appeal considering your bias attitude towards the subject, your significance to the smash scene and your overall credibility?

With all of these alleged people you talk to you should be in the back room instead of discussing this among us, since apparently you know no wrong and can't view the other end of the argument without using your unsupported theorem: More competitive =harder game. You are terrible at debating this subject because you are incapable of looking at both sides of the argument without claiming that one sides demands are irrational while simultaneously emphasizing what your side of the argument is correct. You are biased, you are irrational, and you genuinely don't have a solid clue as to what you are talking about.

Since you like to provide baseless information i'll do so myself. I week ago I had a room full of children for a baby shower. All of these kids were between the ages of 5-10 years old and were in my room as I took care of the arrangements outside. I put on Super Smash Bros. Melee since it was the only game that can accommodate a room full of children at the time. I came back hours later and they were still playing the same game and having a blast. None of them were complaining of how difficult the game is, no one said anything was unfair, everyone had their fun the same way both me and you did when we got the game. Infact, the youngest of the children confidently walked out the room stating that "I will beat any of you guys, just so you know". Even a 5 year old child was able to hold his own. Based on personal experience why should I believe in anything you say or that hippie BS that Sakurai has said?

It's completely rational that a player should be rewarded for wanting to learn more. Accessibility in a game is always a given, it has never been a problem with the smash series and it never will. Your transparent arguments defending Brawl are gradually stemming as your unsuccessful venture in competitive smash during the golden ages of Melee. It's not hard to believe considering your join date.

I feel that I must give my two pennies on this subject.

Sakurai once weighed in about roster size not too long ago that,



He is right to a extent. There appears to be a magic boundary between roster size and game balance, and once you reach the higher counts, tournament viability of a game goes down.

Take Marvel vs. Capcom 2 for example. It boasts a 56 man roster, but yet, if the TO of a Marvel tournament a year ago keeps track of what team a player uses, you will find that most competitors will only use three of six characters. Does that make the game broken? Looking at it today, yes, but that is only because that we have new fighters to play with today instead of a year ago when Marvel 3 was just coming out.

To an extent, Capcom themselves have proven Sakurai's point about game balance, so I don't blame him if certain characters(I'm looking at you Lucas, Marth) were taken out in favor of some fresh additions, or even some old holdovers from Melee. Just remember that it has to add to the game balance in some fashion.

Actually that whole MvC2 argument doesn't really hold ground anymore. Their is a wide plethora of teams and strategies that people use in MvC2. Amoung all the players I see play at my local arcade, they mostly use low tier teams or teams that have a specific strategy. Playing high level MvC2 requires a great amount of strategy that requieres synergy, tech skill and timing.

You have MSP-Magneto, Storm, Psylock-A rush down oriented team that uses Psylocks strong Anti Air to set up OST combos for Magneto and Storm. Magneto being the point of the team relies on ambiguous cross ups and resets to pressure the opponent into a loop or damaging combo that ends in Hyper Grav.>Magnetic Tempest. Storms also plays as an effective rush-down type character with a strong ability to build meter. Storm can also provide any character with a safe DHC (Delayed Hyper Combo) with Ice Storm, a move that provides a great deal of chip damage. She also plays some of the best keep away in the game. Psylock is mostly an assist, but is still capable of doing lengthy combos and solid runway game with her jump fierce. Only of the strongest strengths of this team is Psylock's Anti-Air, as it sets up an OTG for almost anyone and is untechable.

Some more teams that are solid are: Team Mike Z- Tronn Bonne, Juggernaut, Dr. Doom, Team Clockwork - Strider, Dr. Doom, Sentinel.

There is so much I can go into about team dynamics in MvC2 but it would take too much time. Check out this to see what particular characters and teams rank among tiers. You'll notice that it's beyond six characters. In MvC3 characters are no better than characters like Spencer except Magneto required a MASSIVE amount of Technical skill to play with, that and the fact that he has very low HP doesn't help either.

MvC2 has gotten a bad rep for being a broken game, but I see players creating new and innovative teams everyday. The top tiers teams are mostly for tournament play, and you can't blame them considering that money is on the line. Like many older games, MvC2 still has a great amount of untapped potential vs their simplified later versions (MvC2, Brawl, SF4 etc.).

 

[Ghirahilda]

I think a lot of us want to be Sakurai right now.

This is a really old post, but whatever...

Imagining someone in Sakurai's place, this person will have the hands of destiny.

 

[El Duderino]

hmmm... still not 100% sure how I feel about the subject.
maybe if the roll thing existed in addition to the traditional wavedash?
so there is like... wavedashing... then scrubdashing? It would allow them to use a substitute for the most basic uses of wavedashing, without severely limiting the tactic.
And it could still exist to benefit those characters who need it to move quickly.

I don't see why you think it would have to be so limiting. All we are essentially talking about here is an input change:

Wavedash:
Jump ⇒ ( or ) + well timed L

Proposed shuffle, hop, or skip:
L + (← or →) + Jump
(within a less strict window)​

It could be a win all around. They can tweak the move individually per character, allow you to easily travel further by how far you push the stick → instead of , and even possibly transition into it when you air-dodge into the ground. Plus there is more room to design it into the combat rather than treat it as a momentum byproduct.

Best of all it's just incredibly simple requiring the same number of button inputs as a shield grab. Not to mention much easier to time than many of Brawl's own tools like perfect-shielding and footstool jumping. It actually by comparison would be the far more accessible technique.

 

[stabbedbyanipple]

I'm defiantly very good. I can go toe to toe with very dedicated players and tend to do well in small tournaments. I also have a strong grasp on most of the cast, the stages, and the items (I'm sure this is by asymmetric skill against some of the better players). I've thought about going into competitive Smash, but the community and how the game is played has stopped me every time.

If you're only still "thinking" about going into competitive smash, I guarantee you that you're actually still a gigantic n00b at the game lol

To think otherwise is 100% ignorance and not having a clue.

 

[DerfMidWest]

Because from what i understan of what you are saying, it requires you to sheild and begin the roll animation which is slower and can't be used as much as a primary movement option.
Also it wouldn't allow for wavelanding, which is more important than wavedashing for many characters.


Oh and smashchu... You can't really truly understand smash until you play competitively for a long time and become very experienced. We all think we understand the game when we aren't experienced, but once you become more experienced you realize how dumb you were.
Only a handful of players truly understand the game.

 

[Oasis_S]

Only a handful of players truly understand the game.

Nerds.

10chars.

 

[Shadow Huan]

melee is not hard to pick up at a casual level. i didn't know about ATs until late '08 and i never had a problem playing it before that O.o

 

[Red(SP)]

Nerds.

*Dedication.

 

[Oasis_S]

Maybe it's a sense of entitlement? "Look at how much time I've spent on this game. look at how good I've become at this game. Why won't you only cater to me after I've given you so much of my time, Sakurai?"

So much dedication. Did Sakurai ever ask for it, I wonder? Were you ever the fan Sakurai wanted to please?

Spoiler

NO BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST GIANT NERDS THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF GAMES SAKURAI MAKES AND WHY YOUR IDEAS ARE BAD.

 

[Shadow Huan]

um... you're posting in a GAMING FORUM calling people nerds? can't tell if trolling...

 

[Oasis_S]

We're all nerds here.

 

[DerfMidWest]

Hey now. Thats uncalled for.
Yes, I would like if sakurai catered, at least a bit, to the competitive players, but I, by no means, expect him to do so.
He dun't give a **** about us.
He actually hates us a little bit.

Are we nerds for being dedicated to a game? Yea probably. Its still really fun and I find it more enjoyable on a competitive level because there is so much to learn and it requires a lot of time and effort from me to improve.
However I respect that there are people who would rather play casually. I don't see why both can't be an option.
I have many friends who love melee on a casual level.
Many casuals who prefer it to brawl.
I don't think that the next smash game needs to be melee 3.0 (2.0 being P:M, ofc), but I don't think sakurai should be deliberately trying to make a game that hurts competitivity.
It doesn't need to be an either/or type of deal, but w/e

Sakurai won't listen to anybody anyway.

 

[Oasis_S]

He dun't give a **** about us.
He actually hates us a little bit.

Oh hush. If he hates you it's because you're so dramatic and whiny.

I don't see why both can't be an option.

but I don't think sakurai should be deliberately trying to make a game that hurts competitivity.
It doesn't need to be an either/or type of deal, but w/e

But you have skewed ideas for what makes a game competitive. Is it competitive just because you have a bunch of trivial bull**** techniques that took you years to learn? Because you have to move your fingers faster? For those to exist, you would be creating certain skill barriers for other players, making the game more exclusive.

Stuff like advanced techniques don't have to exist for there to be a gap between players who are good and those who are not. There will always be a gap. What you're asking for, and what Sakurai is trying to prevent, is making that gap even wider. I'M SORRY, but you don't live in a vacuum. You're going to come into contact with people who have no idea your level of playing exists (especially now that online play is so prevalent in gaming), and when you do you're going to completely wreck them up and give them NO chance to fight back. THAT'S NOT FUN. YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO MORE FUN JUST BECAUSE YOU SPENT TOO MUCH TIME ON SOME GAME. SAKURAI DOESN'T WANT YOU TO BE THAT "ONE GUY" AT THE PARTY THAT NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY WITH BECAUSE YOU'RE STUPIDLY GOOD. YOU SHOULD BE THANKING HIM.

 

[DerfMidWest]

lol what even is this kid. I love him.
but for the sake of arguing, I'm going to reply anyway:

advanced techniques aren't what make the game competitive. they are tools that are used frequently in a competitive setting, but they are not what makes it competitive.
By limiting things like movement and adding in random factors, you decrease the ability of a game to be played competitively.
Again, I understand the difference between competitive and casual players. I don't expect everybody to be competitive or even aware of the competitive side of the game.
I like the fact that people play the game casually, thats 100% ok. I also like the ability to play competitively, though.
It doesn't need to be either/or. it CAN be both.
Also ATs don't make people win... just because I put a lot of time learning ATs and stuff doesn't mean I will be able to beat somebody who doesn't know those ATs. It just means I have more tools at my disposal that give me a better chance at handling different situations, if that makes sense... so wether or not ATs exist is irrelevant. Although I do think that the existence of ATs is pretty cool and allows those players who choose to play competitively more to learn and more to take advantage of. It also separates the casuals from the pros. this isn't always a good thing, but it does make the game a bit more competitive, because not anybody can just win a tournament. It makes it more skill based.
And don't worry, if I'm at a party and there are casuals screwing around with melee, I just go kirby and take them to rainbowcruise

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

*Dedication.

Obsession, which leads to entitlement and victim playing from competitive nerds.

 

[Oasis_S]

lol what even is this kid. I love him.
but for the sake of arguing, I'm going to reply anyway:

so wether or not ATs exist is irrelevant. Although I do think that the existence of ATs is pretty cool and allows those players who choose to play competitively more to learn and more to take advantage of. It also separates the casuals from the pros. this isn't always a good thing, but it does make the game a bit more competitive, because not anybody can just win a tournament. It makes it more skill based.

Ehehehehe, I think this is telling. That notion of entitlement before was pretty accurate.

 

[kataklysm336]

SmashChu, I went back a few pages and found your main points. I'll try to address it sentence by sentence and show why you are mistaken.

Competitive Smash players put mopre focus on getting better. Everyone else just wants to hop right in... I'm not for adding more depth as some are asking for. I've said it before, but the game has enough depth for everyone lower on the spectrum to have a good time. Adding more is moving them down and making it harder for them to just jump in.

You are right when you say that competitive players put a focus on getting better. The problem is that you are immediately separating the two classes, but competitive players start out as casual players. It isn't the case that everyone else wants to hop right in; everyone does. However, eventually some players (after playing casually for a while) have discovered more options. Options are things that allow the player to have more control of various gameplay aspects, like movement for example. Depth is created when players have more options. I'll address why this isn't just "making the game harder" in a minute.

I agree with you that Brawl is incredibly deep. Which is mainly why I disagree with your point that more depth=less accessible. Brawl and Melee are both incredibly accessible games. Smash is pretty much one of Nintendo's flagship series at this point. Both games were great successes, and both are incredibly deep.

Now onto your main argument...

Basically, accessibility is how quickly players can get into the game. The more stuff you add, the harder it is. Competitive players always crave more options and harder gameplay, but other players don't.

So logically, your argument consists of three completely unrelated premises, and no conclusion.

I agree with you definition of accessible, but the second assertion is completely wrong. Adding more things does not make the game harder. By things I will assume that you mean options gameplay wise. More options does not mean a harder game.

As I said before more options means more depth, not harder gameplay and all 3 Smash titles are incredible deep. Take movement for example, a deeper game is one where you have better control of your character (i.e. more options). Smash is a great example. If we just look at jumping (only a small part of movement in general) there are many options when jumping. One can short hop, full hop, normal fall, fast fall, and you can do each of these in combination with moving forward or backwards, or while doing moves. This gives you tons of options when jumping, which make the game deeper and doesn't hurt it's accessibility. You wouldn't argue that the ability to short hop or full hop makes the game any harder or less accessible, but you see how the game becomes "deeper" now that you have two options instead of one.

Don’t teach pigs to sing; it wastes your time and annoys hell out of the pig

The thing you are missing is desire. The reason competitive players are good is because they want to be good. Most players don's aspire to be much better. They are happy where they are. Again, the game is just simple fun for them.

An earlier point: How does adding depth at a higher level of play discourage players who don't play at that level and never care to?