Does Sakurai actually care what we (fans) want?

[Deleted member]

@Eternal: Break The Target did exist. I think you meant that it was unnecessarily simplified.

I read some stuff in that Brawl was horribly uncompressed and could have almost fit in a single-layer disc (it was an article on All is Brawl sometimes between 2009 and 2010, someone linked me to it in the SSB Wii-U thread back in June late last year).

Hopefully, next game does a much better job at this. I personally loved playing Brawl (was my favorite Wii game), but it was kind of rough across the edge.

 

[Vkrm]

Melee is both more fun and more fair. It doesn't really matter though because since brawl was a commercial success they'll probably just make another one. Its not like it matters to nintendo if smash 4 is a good tournament worthy game, either way it'll sell.

 

[Big-Cat]

Can we just block smashchu from the smash4 forums? This guy is just trolling nonstop. If not, we should all just add him to our ignore group.

He's not trolling. There's no way a troll can keep this up for more than four years. He's like this on other forums like the occasional times I see him when I lurk VGChartz.

@Eternal: Break The Target did exist. I think you meant that it was unnecessarily simplified.

I read some stuff in that Brawl was horribly uncompressed and could have almost fit in a single-layer disc (it was an article on All is Brawl sometimes between 2009 and 2010, someone linked me to it in the SSB Wii-U thread back in June late last year).

Hopefully, next game does a much better job at this. I personally loved playing Brawl (was my favorite Wii game), but it was kind of rough across the edge.

It's starting to sound like Brawl was just a mess from both a gameplay standpoint and from a technological standpoint. Why they didn't have it where the game automatically loads all the Pokemon for PT or Zelda/Sheik for Sheik/Zelda is beyond me.

Melee is both more fun and more fair. It doesn't really matter though because since brawl was a commercial success they'll probably just make another one. Its not like it matters to nintendo if smash 4 is a good tournament worthy game, either way it'll sell.

I think it will matter to some significant degree. Nintendo is going all out to grab as many people in as possible with various games. Having a good tournament worthy game is going to help a lot. Unlike Tekken Tag 2, this one is an exclusive and it's the exclusives that get people interested in consoles (typically).

Not only that, but competitive fighting games have been getting a lot of support since SF4 reinvigorated the FGC with new blood. To constantly get that kind of free POSITIVE press is something no sane developer would refuse. Nintendo already embraces the competitive Pokemon fanbase. It's time that they show way more support for the Smash series beyond launch party tournaments.

 

[Starphoenix]

Look, being the musical kind of guy I am, one of my biggest complaints about one of the best parts of Super Smash Bros. Brawl (the soundtrack) is how poor the mastering is on some of the tracks. No, Sakurai did not get everything right, but I blame that more on Subspace Emissary than anything, especially after hearing Sakurai talk about how much went into SE. Now that the game is going to be broken up, and have a larger more experienced team, I don't think there is going to be that problem again.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

I love how the majority of posters who says that casual players prefer melee over brawl have made the point by saying their "friends" are casual and prefer melee over brawl. :D

Just so you guys know that's not a very convincing argument. ^_^

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I love how the majority of posters who says that casual players prefer melee over brawl have made the point by saying their "friends" are casual and prefer melee over brawl. :D

Just so you guys know that's not a very convincing argument. ^_^

I admit it's not a perfect argument. But I have another...

Yes, there are a lot of casual fans who prefer Brawl to Melee. However, from my experience it seems to have very little to do with gameplay and more to do with content(i.e. characters, stages, etc.). Most casuals who prefer Brawl prefer it because there is more content than in Melee, not because of any changes made to the gameplay. Look at the uproar over that "quantity is as far as we can go" quote for evidence. The mere thought that the next game might have fewer characters than Brawl got people very upset. Heck, look at Screwattack's Top Local Multiplayer games again. They essentially say that the difference between Melee and Brawl is "Brawl had more characters."(But they still said Melee was better)

So as long as the next game has a sufficient amount of content, most casuals won't care how it's played as long as it's still Smash.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I love how the majority of posters who says that casual players prefer melee over brawl have made the point by saying their "friends" are casual and prefer melee over brawl. :D

Just so you guys know that's not a very convincing argument. ^_^

Well it isn't the strongest argument but it's solid enough to make comparisons to the direction Brawl took as opposed from 64 to Melee.

Melee essentially improved upon Smash 64 in every area while offering an even wider variety of playing. The only thing that was removed from Smash 64 to Melee was the sub game Board the Platforms, some of the 64 stages and the Bumper item. Everything else was a large improvement.

Given the direction that Melee took players assumed that Brawl would elevate the series beyond what Melee would do in regards to content and game play. Promises were made that the game would give each character a "new flavor" and promised to boast in "Aerial Combat" (This was true only for a few characters, notably Meta Knight). In the end we got that not only dramatically hinder the progression of the smash series, but also took away from the core content of the game due to the emphasis on the single player aspect; arguably the weakest part of the franchise.

What we got in Brawl:

More Stages, More Characters, "Enhanced" single player mode, Music & Music playing options, Stage builder (Barely complete), Better Graphics, More Items: Assist Trophies, Online function, Saving replays, Controller Customization

What we lost from Melee:

Playing Mechanics from both 64 and Melee were removed, including the solid physics engine that was capable of maintaining a solid frame rate, Individual Break The Targets for each character, Race To The Finish, Characters: Roy, Dr. Mario, Pichu, Young Link and MewTwo, several highly requested Melee stages and no smash 64 stages, items: Red Shell, Umbrella, Flipper and a nerfed Home Run Bat, a fun shoot the credits, lackluster Pokemon with the more interesting ones appearing less often, the option to change the language of the game.

What we got in Brawl that we didn't need:

Video Game Demos, More clone characters, Stickers, 3 minute replay cap, Tripping.

I just don't feel comfortable that i'm playing a game that is taking steps backwards in development to appeal to an audience that actually prefers the previous installments. Even if we do get new characters and stages, it doesn't matter if they are lackluster. The only notable additions to the Brawl roster in my opinion were The characters introduced in the first trailer, Ike, Pokemon Trainer and R.O.B.

 

[Arcadenik]

And have to put up with a whining competitve community, fans spamming his twitter with silly things such as Mr. Peepers, people who keep spreading false information and rumors, as well dealing with the worst game hype base in the fighting game community?


Anyway it's rediculous to think that Sakurai doesn't listen to the fans. I can't count how many examples there are of him trying to give fanservice. Heck the entire Smash series is one big tribute to Nintendo fans.

Waitwaitwait... what? There were actually people besides me who asked for Duck Hunt Dog?

 

[Starphoenix]

in my opinion

Pretty much sums up your entire post. Seriously, some of your complaints are trivial at best, but it's your opinion, so whatév.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

Well, I'll conveniently sidestep the fantastic Melee vs. Brawl argument going on here and say this:

Sakurai wouldn't be doing Smash 4 if he didn't care about us as fans. It's literally one of the only reasons he has/continues to work on the series.

That being said, he's got some really silly and odd viewpoints that aren't in the interest of some fans of other Nintendo series. And by some fans, I mean a lot of fans. What I really means just pertains to characters (Ridley would be too difficult, Animal Crossing/any nonviolent series has no place having a playable character, etc.). These things are just philosophies that don't line up with most fans', but they don't mean he doesn't care.

But yeah, he's pretty much the best man for the series.

 

[DMurr]

I'm going to try to ignore the Melee/Brawl debate and simply respond to the first post..

I'm not sure that I understand why people seem to think that Sakurai is the only one who can give us a good Super Smash Bros. game. I'm not denying that he's done a fantastic job on the existing 3 games, but as someone before said, the fans really care most about the characters. He's seemingly made his point clear that he disagrees that the series is about that. I can understand both sides of that argument, though. Doesn't mean that pulling in another director to make the game would make it lose it's magic.. In my opinion, the draw of the game is the characters.

I will give him props for Pokemon Trainer, Zero Suit Samus and Pit. I think the idea of PT, the surprising, yet incredibly likeable choice of ZSS and Pit's redesign which resulted in the revival of his series showed an incredible amount of creativity on his part and are something that general public wouldn't have come up with. I do think that there are others out there that are just as creative as him and a different director could have had a similar result.

With Brawl, I'd say he took some risks and made some changes that he may go back on or fix up, but overall the game turned into something fun that people really enjoy, comparisons to others aside. I think he might have indulged himself a little bit too much with Adventure mode, which ended up having some faults because he put too much effort into it and couldn't complete everything he wanted for it.

He obviously does care about what the fans want, though, he added freaking Sonic, pretty late in the development cycle (which I'm sure wasn't the easiest thing to do), simply because he was the most requested character overall for the series. We basically ended up with things that you're bothered by like the "Space furries having the same moveset," because of him wanting to please the fans and add characters people want like Wolf, without having the time to develop him to his fullest (presumably). Also, being the creator of the Kirby series, I can imagine it's hard for him to not have a bias for those, simply because they're what he knows best.

I'm not sure I understand your problem with Assist Trophies.

I'm really interested to see what the "change of direction," he wants to have for the series is. I think it will happen naturally with Namco-Bandai being a part of the formation of the game. Who knows what effect it could have on his focus on the wants of the fans?

 

[Ferio_Kun]

I admit it's not a perfect argument. But I have another...

Yes, there are a lot of casual fans who prefer Brawl to Melee. However, from my experience it seems to have very little to do with gameplay and more to do with content(i.e. characters, stages, etc.). Most casuals who prefer Brawl prefer it because there is more content than in Melee, not because of any changes made to the gameplay. Look at the uproar over that "quantity is as far as we can go" quote for evidence. The mere thought that the next game might have fewer characters than Brawl got people very upset. Heck, look at Screwattack's Top Local Multiplayer games again. They essentially say that the difference between Melee and Brawl is "Brawl had more characters."(But they still said Melee was better)

So as long as the next game has a sufficient amount of content, most casuals won't care how it's played as long as it's still Smash.

Now this I can agree with. ^_^

Well it isn't the strongest argument but it's solid enough to make comparisons to the direction Brawl took as opposed from 64 to Melee.

Melee essentially improved upon Smash 64 in every area while offering an even wider variety of playing. The only thing that was removed from Smash 64 to Melee was the sub game Board the Platforms, some of the 64 stages and the Bumper item. Everything else was a large improvement.

Given the direction that Melee took players assumed that Brawl would elevate the series beyond what Melee would do in regards to content and game play. Promises were made that the game would give each character a "new flavor" and promised to boast in "Aerial Combat" (This was true only for a few characters, notably Meta Knight). In the end we got that not only dramatically hinder the progression of the smash series, but also took away from the core content of the game due to the emphasis on the single player aspect; arguably the weakest part of the franchise.

What we got in Brawl:

More Stages, More Characters, "Enhanced" single player mode, Music & Music playing options, Stage builder (Barely complete), Better Graphics, More Items: Assist Trophies, Online function, Saving replays, Controller Customization

What we lost from Melee:

Playing Mechanics from both 64 and Melee were removed, including the solid physics engine that was capable of maintaining a solid frame rate, Individual Break The Targets for each character, Race To The Finish, Characters: Roy, Dr. Mario, Pichu, Young Link and MewTwo, several highly requested Melee stages and no smash 64 stages, items: Red Shell, Umbrella, Flipper and a nerfed Home Run Bat, a fun shoot the credits, lackluster Pokemon with the more interesting ones appearing less often, the option to change the language of the game.

What we got in Brawl that we didn't need:

Video Game Demos, More clone characters, Stickers, 3 minute replay cap, Tripping.

I just don't feel comfortable that i'm playing a game that is taking steps backwards in development to appeal to an audience that actually prefers the previous installments. Even if we do get new characters and stages, it doesn't matter if they are lackluster. The only notable additions to the Brawl roster in my opinion were The characters introduced in the first trailer, Ike, Pokemon Trainer and R.O.B.

Well I don't agree with everything you said, for the most part I can agree with you on the majority of these thoughts.

 

[El Duderino]

What do you know, this recent Extra Credits touches up on my same exact point:

"...games could be a lot more engaging if deep strategic play wasn't as relegated to the casual or world class ends of the spectrum", and aiming for perfect balance (fairness) "may actually restrict the number intresting choices a player has". Pretty much wraps up everything wrong with Brawl's design approach.

Everything they talk about is what I hope Sakurai will consider with Smash4. He could really benefit from watching that video.



Edit: Well everything aside from the heavy match-up counter picking they mention in the second half. That's far more fitting for LoL than Smash.

 

[Big-Cat]

That video could be summed up as such:

A game is engaging if the skill curve is gradual and lets the player evolve their playstyles over time, eventually into high level play. Meanwhile, the game should be balanced in the sense that every character has their share of strengths and weaknesses. The strengths should not be overwhelmingly strong while the weaknesses should not be so crippling to make something unviable. It's like changing Rock-Paper-Scissors matchups from 10-0 to 6-4.

Of course, there then comes the question of how many characters wind up with a particular strength. If Character A has a weakness and Characters B through Z do not have this while having the strength that overcomes Character A's weakness, Character A will more than likely end up at the bottom of the tier list if it's made up based on matchup numbers.

 

[El Duderino]

In retrospect I should have said everything except character specific match-up advantages. That's the one and only area I would deviate from the video. Each character in Smash should have some means of staying competitive despite the match-up. Sure, there can be some imbalances and advantages, but emphasizing counter picks is not the right direction to take.

Let's avoid diving any deeper into that conversation. It's secondary to the main point of posting that video.

 

[crov]

Pretty much sums up your entire post. Seriously, some of your complaints are trivial at best, but it's your opinion, so whatév.

This so much. He complains that Brawl got rid of Dr. Mario, Pichu, Roy, and Young Link and then says that Brawl unnecessarily added new clone characters. Silliest thing I've ever heard >.>

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

This so much. He complains that Brawl got rid of Dr. Mario, Pichu, Roy, and Young Link and then says that Brawl unnecessarily added new clone characters. Silliest thing I've ever heard >.>

First @ Starphoenix: It's completely obvious that the statement was my opinion. Some of the information provided are actual facts as well. I would appretiate if you can give me a solid rebuttal rather than point out that I am indeed posting my opinion

crov: Maybe you missed the point of my post. I'm saying that removing characters from previous franchises then adding other characters with similarities to others is counterproductive. For that matter opting for the removal of content simply makes a negative impact on the franchise.

While 64 made the quantum leap into its successor, Brawl unfortunately didn't. While there was new content, it acted as placeholder. The variety we see in Brawl exist because they just modified what they had already without doing anything that was actually groundbreaking. Subspace Emissary for example plays just like Kirby Super Star. Side events such as break the targets was watered down completely, and some just vanished (Race to the finish).

People get way too wound up over clone characters. They exist in a lot of fighting games so why not smash? Everyone just complains that they could have been *insert character that only you care about*.

Brawl did a few good things, but given that the team didn't effectively manage their time and emphasis on the single player portion of the game it only emerged as a commercial success, but left a bad taste in the mouth of players who wanted a timeless addition to the franchise. Instead of adding random game demos and incomplete concepts they should focus on what could extend the longevity of the games life cycle. Sakurai's mistake was deliberately attempting to take away from the game rather than build upon an already solid foundation instilled by Melee and Smash 64.

His mission was to make Brawl non competitive. He failed. What does he have to gain from watering down smash even further?

 

[GiantBreadbug]

Um, Sakurai wasn't intending to make Brawl non-competitive. He just didn't focus on the competitive community when making it (the same philosophy he's carried throughout the entire series), and thus the competitive community disowned the game.

Maybe I'm just too laid back, but holy eff, I never thought such an adverse reaction was possible to a videogame not catering to a specific audience.

 

[El Duderino]

Um, Sakurai wasn't intending to make Brawl non-competitive. He just didn't focus on the competitive community when making it (the same philosophy he's carried throughout the entire series), and thus the competitive community disowned the game.

Not to get involved with your argument with Phoenix, but if Sakurai's intention was always to ignore the competitive community (for 64, Melee, and Brawl), how can that be the reason Brawl was less appealing for them? The better explanation is each game, while all intending to be accessible, has had different goals that either benefited or hurt the fun to be had with higher level play.

 

[Plushies4Ever]

Tell that to my friend who has NEVER gone to a tourney in his life and yet still loathes Brawl.

Tell that to Screwattack, who chose Melee over Brawl as the best game in the series without mentioning any of the gameplay changes.

And, once again, I am a CASUAL player who prefers Melee to Brawl.

First of all, some people think that. The difference being...?

Screwattack shouldn't even be CONSIDERED a good opinion source. It's more for the lulz rather than anything.

Circa de #1.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

First of all, some people think that. The difference being...?

Screwattack shouldn't even be CONSIDERED a good opinion source. It's more for the lulz rather than anything.

Circa de #1.

Ahem:

I admit it's not a perfect argument. But I have another...

Yes, there are a lot of casual fans who prefer Brawl to Melee. However, from my experience it seems to have very little to do with gameplay and more to do with content(i.e. characters, stages, etc.). Most casuals who prefer Brawl prefer it because there is more content than in Melee, not because of any changes made to the gameplay. Look at the uproar over that "quantity is as far as we can go" quote for evidence. The mere thought that the next game might have fewer characters than Brawl got people very upset. Heck, look at Screwattack's Top Local Multiplayer games again. They essentially say that the difference between Melee and Brawl is "Brawl had more characters."(But they still said Melee was better)

So as long as the next game has a sufficient amount of content, most casuals won't care how it's played as long as it's still Smash.

And yeah, I'm aware Screwattack shouldn't be taken 100% seriously.

 

[El Duderino]

At least as far as the game media goes, there's quite a few outlets out there that despite being what most would consider non-competitive fans of the franchise, are openly critical of Brawl as it relates to Melee. IGN and the Escapist being two more recent examples that come to mind.

I'm not going to try suggesting they represent the majority of players, just that Brawl is not universally praised among non-compeditive players either. It's reasonable to expect some casual players to prefer Melee as well.

 

[---]

Waitwaitwait... what? There were actually people besides me who asked for Duck Hunt Dog?

Before I edited it I had named you directly.

appeal to an audience that actually prefers the previous installments.

Where's SmashChu? I want him to get in on this. lol

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Um, Sakurai wasn't intending to make Brawl non-competitive. He just didn't focus on the competitive community when making it (the same philosophy he's carried throughout the entire series), and thus the competitive community disowned the game.

Maybe I'm just too laid back, but holy eff, I never thought such an adverse reaction was possible to a videogame not catering to a specific audience.

Sakurai deliberately placed agents during the release of the first Super Smash Bros. Brawl demo in 2007. Me, Gimpyfish, DSF, MikeHaze, T!mmy & T0mmy, Lucky, nealdt, Hugs and many others were there trying to discover mechanics in the game. We found several things that were similar to Melee's engine:

-Wavelanding: Done by executing an aerial that carried momentum low to the ground. For Mario, Samus and Sonic it was Bair.

-Dash dancing: Worked just like it did in Melee. No changes

-Double Stick DI: Worked the same as in Melee

-Crouch Canceling: Worked just like in Melee.

-Hitstun: Characters could not Hitstun cancel. Some combos were possible.

-Chargable C-stick smashes and C-stick tilts: I have no idea why they removed these mechanics. You could charge smashes with the C-stick and do tilts by holding the direction of the tilt and hitting the stick in the according direction.

Character Specifics:

-Fox: D-Throw worked like it did in Melee and set up for tech chases. Still teachable. D-throw spike was very good. Fair had a great deal of Stun. Uair was a bit weaker. SHDL timing was less strict.

-Peach: F-throw killed like it did in Melee at around 120+%. D-smash did a great deal of damage to Crouch Cancelers.

Pikachu: Quick Attacking at an angle on a platform allowed him to waveland.

Samus: Super Missles knocked the enemy strait up. Spike set ups were possible.

Ike: Slower but a bit more powerful: Horizontal range on Aether was little to non existent.

MetaKnight: Drill rush was very powerful, almost inescapable when hit and did nearly 30-35% when connected, but lacked KO power. Best killing move was Forward smash.

What happened after players playing non stop for 3 days was Nintendo's representatives narked on us and then we got Brawl.

As much as I want to believe that Sakurai didn't intentionally do this I can't help but feel that way. After getting a chance to play something that everyone felt good about then receiving something different just...sucks.

 

[IhaveSonar]

In my 10+ years of playing Smash, I have never once come across someone who thought Melee was too hard or too inaccessible.

 

[King of Brawl]

While my post is mainly geared towards my love of Brawl, keep in mind that I love 'em all. It's one of my favorite series to date.

I've been a long-time fan of this series, as well as really any Nintendo series. I've played 'em all for hours. Hours turning to days, days to weeks, and weeks to years. I still love '64, Melee, and Brawl. They are all great games, and I don't want to diss on any of them.

That being said, the moment I got Brawl, I've always liked it the best. While I did fancy such things as the new characters, there was more to it than that. I remember, after getting Brawl, going back to '64 for awhile. The only heavy I remember was DK. I remember, above all else, Mario's ability to kill everything. Ever. The game had great stages, and as far as I remember, was a standalone title over here in America at the time.

When Melee came out, most people switched to that. With a bigger roster, more gameplay modes, and different ways to utilize your gameplan(The ability to charge smashes, The L-dodge in air, Mario's cape, etc.). It was a step-up from '64 that many players loved.

And now we get to Brawl. Like I said before, I enjoy this one the best. While it is slower, the airdodge was changed, and many more things differ, I found it a nice change from it's predecessors.

The mechanics took my love, simply because not only are they slower(giving someone like me more time to think out my moves), it's easier to defend yourself. Flinching was reduced, meaning I could now escape someone's combo sooner, possibly even attacking them back. Also, recoveries were improved, so we could all get back to the stage easier. Seeing players live to 200%+ is amazing. One more thing about the "slow-ness": I've had some breathtaking exchanges because, simply, both of us(Enemy, me) predicted each other. In Melee or '64, it probably wouldn't have lasted as long. I loved Super-Armor. Seriously. Hitting somebody with that always feels good.

I felt the characters were improved. It's hard to ignore that Bowser's firebreath is actually useful. I remember it being insane to use in Melee simply because enemies went TOWARDS Bowser. Falco's game wasn't drastically changed(If I remember from Melee), having a shorter Bup and throwing his Bdown(Which I love to hit an enemy to cancel their attack). DK's Headbutting possibilities grew, Luigi became more separated from Mario, and the only real hardcore clone is still Ganon...Unfortunately. I could accept TLink, since he is really just a lighter version of Link, but even he plays differently.

Call me crazy, because although I like the stages in '64 the most, Brawl is my second. Pokefloats pisses me off, and I can't stand Big Blue in either of them. The reason I like '64 the best is probably because there is only one Battlefield knockoff. Can't say I actually dislike half the stages in Brawl like I do Melee. Don't even get me STARTED on Temple. That should NOT have been in Brawl.

I found the music in Brawl superior to it's predecessors. I'm not much of a music guy, though, so not much to say here.

Yes, SSE can be tedious. But it was a nice experience. I still enjoy playing it with friends on occasion. Classic and All Stars vastly remained the same(Except that, if you use a Heart Container in All Stars and go in the teleporter BEFORE it's done, it'll still go down to 0%). The Events and Break the Targets, though unfortunate, were definitely lacking. Boss Battle, honestly, was fun. Not gonna lie, I would go on there not because of the challenges, but because I found it fun.

I do believe that covers it. Single, Group, Music, Stages...Items. I like them more in Brawl if on low, but good god too many on any other setting. Liked the re-addition of Bumper, liked beating Sandbag in groups, etc. You guys probably don't care much for items, though.

All in all, looking at the evolution of the game, I do think Sakurai cares. He's changing the game through all installments, giving different gameplay and, all in all, a different experience for all titles. Although they all have the same rules, they feel different, and one person with amazing abilities from, say, Melee or Brawl will probably not transfer well into '64(Assuming A: Haven't practiced in...god knows how long B: Players don't strive to perfect their game in '64, since Melee/Brawl is their fancy). The series has really progressed, whether some like these changes or not. I embrace them with open arms, noticing that, by posts in this topic alone, others would probably spit on them if it were an object in our world.

I hope that Sakurai continues to change the game. As long as it's different from previous titles, it will give me something to not only look forward to, but master when it comes out. This is a simple lover of Smash Bros. saying, to all of you, that all of these titles are amazing. SSB4 may or may not appeal to you, as a player, but it will to others. Please, don't bash your fellow SSB brethren.
P.S. It's a real downer whenever I see "Brawl sucks, switch to Melee" or something similar to that. It's like talking to somebody who loves Super Mario World the most, while I love Donkey Kong Country 2 the most. These are obviously different from one another, but they are still both great freakin' platformers.
P.K. I apologize for posting such an enormous block of text when I could have easily said "Yeah, Sakurai cares", but after reading through the thread, I just had to.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

In my 10+ years of playing Smash, I have never once come across someone who thought Melee was too hard or too inaccessible.

Thank you. I'm sure no one really did. The only ones I see complaining are the players who started in Brawl and/or couldn't keep up with competative Melee and hopped on the bandwagon.

@King of Brawl: Well said, bro.

 

[rawrimamonster]

The brutal honesty of what I expect from smash4 is that it'll be casualized just as much as brawl, lets look at the formula here.

SSB64, broken as heck for a smash game, long combos, little di, but very decently balanced cast of characters.

Melee, Sakurai tried to nerf the game and ended up making a deeper game than he expected, he was very mad because he didnt intend for the game to be taken in the direction that the competitive community took it. The game ended up very balanced in the end. L-cancels cancel half the lag instead of the full lag now, more di, less hitstun, faster game. Likely faster because he assumed that people got caught in combos easier due to 64 being a bit slower.

Brawl: Sakurai achieved the formula for a casual party game that he wanted, he didn't want to make anymore smash games after brawl because he figured he had won. For a little proof of this, anyone remember the trap gimpy and others fell into discovering "at's" at the invite event? Yea. Brawl has even MORE DI, hitstun canceling, imbalanced, floaty, infinite air dodges, all (or like 90% of) AT's removed or worked to the point that theres no workaround to use them anymore.

SSB4: I doubt with sakurai directing, even with a good company like namco behind it that we'll see anything that replaces melee or 64 in terms of quality. Sakurai made his direction quite clear and thats "EVERY BODY CAN WIN ^-^". We will not see the return of proper hitstun, we will not see a return of melee's speed, we will not see a return of Lcancels. At best, we'll see tripping removed.

SSB4 will definitely move the series in another direction though, I'm 100% sure that sakurai is making namco use brawl as a model to design after. It will have some decent lock down combos most likely, some chars will probably retain their floatyness while others become tanks. But we wont most likely ever see a return to melee like depth unless smash becomes a traditional fighter...god forbid. The only hope we have is that he pays attention to the smash community more than we've given him credit for and he realizes that melee is a balanced game.

 

[SmashChu]

I just don't feel comfortable that i'm playing a game that is taking steps backwards in development to appeal to an audience that actually prefers the previous installments.

It's a sequel man. Of course it's trying to appeal to the same audience. If they wanted other players, they'd make a new game.

The problem with your post is context. The thing is that these Melee side argument assume Brawl is bad or worse in terms of gameplay. But where is it getting that? It's all in the context that Melee is the best thing since sliced bread. These arguments will go no where when people have that blinder on. They can't see the other side because they have a limited view. In fact, all of the arguments are framed by Melee's context making it a bias argument to begin with. What I means is when people shout "Brawl is slow." "Brawl has no strategic depth." Look at those in a normal context, one that simply is judging all three games on their merit, and you'll how flawed these are. Brawl is slower in comparison to Melee. They don't even say Brawl has less strategic depth than Melee (based on what? They never say). If you look at Brawl compared to other games, it's pretty fast. It can be very tough to keep up with in regards to other games. Brawl also has a lot of strategic depth. Heck, it's played competitively is it not? And I wont even go into the depth you'll see in team game or big 4 player brawls. The problem is the argument can't go forward because it's framed in Melee's context. So guess what game is always the best? Melee, but it's the standard setting here. It's also why nothing happens in these arguments because people with two different world views and arguing from their view point.

Some others mentioned that these "casuals" (nice way to put everyone in a box mind you) play it for the content. That is true, but let's look at something else. What are the driving factors for Smash. Why is Smash the best selling fighting game series? There are three things

1. The game is accessible. It tried to do what other fighting games don't do by making a very simple system.
2. There is A LOT of content. This is why people can still play it years after release
3. Nintendo characters fighting

Combine those and you have a hit. Let me touch on 1 and 2. Remember what I said about the Melee context? If you view Brawl from the Melee context, the game is bad. It's bad because it doesn't follow the Melee formula. It's slower. It took techniques out. But if you look at it from these 3 points, it makes more sense. The game series is designed to be accessible, so Brawl going in that direction is aligning it with core values. From the Melee context, it seems to slow, but it isn't. It's the right speed. It's fast enough to be interesting and welcoming enough for players to get in. It is still tough mind you. Try to get your girlfriend to play this and you'll see what I mean. #2 is important because since they added more content, of course more people are going to like it. A thing to not is that the gameplay is good enough and fits in these 3 core values. This is why so many people love Brawl.

So I said a lot so let me wrap it up. The problem with these arguments is that the Melee side sees it as Melee is the only thing. They have a Melee world view, so they wont see what others see. Smash is successful because it follows the three core values above. The more accessible gameplay fits into this.

What do you know, this recent Extra Credits touches up on my same exact point:

"...games could be a lot more engaging if deep strategic play wasn't as relegated to the casual or world class ends of the spectrum", and aiming for perfect balance (fairness) "may actually restrict the number intresting choices a player has". Pretty much wraps up everything wrong with Brawl's design approach.

Everything they talk about is what I hope Sakurai will consider with Smash4. He could really benefit from watching that video.

Extra Credit is the last thing you want to use in an argument. These are the same guys who say that Missile Command was about these deep moral choses and that online game should have everyone earn their voice chat and ignores just muting people. Most everything else they say dances around the point or is very obvious.

Extra Credit is a bad Spirit Science. Go watch Spirit Science instead. Way more interesting.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

I guess, then, there's not much more left to say.

If you enjoy Smash Bros. for the fact that it's an ever-expanding celebration of all things Nintendo wrapped up in a quirky, accessable package, then you'll probably continue to enjoy each installment more then the last.

If your primary investment in Smash Bros. is an ideal of competitive viability where a set of complex skills (which is not a bad thing) exists, then there's a chance you'll never move beyond Melee, or Melee inspired mods like Project M.

Ideally, the series would find a way to make the second audience happy. The first audience, however, is the priority. As much as that might hurt to hear, it's true. And as long as Sakurai is in charge, it will continue to be.

 

[El Duderino]

Extra Credit is the last thing you want to use in an argument.

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.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

In my 10+ years of playing Smash, I have never once come across someone who thought Melee was too hard or too inaccessible.

Have they ever fought anyone that knew advanced techniques?

 

[El Duderino]

Have they ever fought anyone that knew advanced techniques?

Your point? Brawl has tons of inaccessible ATs as well.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Your point? Brawl has tons of inaccessible ATs as well.

Well, if their experience is against level 1 CPU's, how much can their opinion of accessibility be, for example.

Edit: I added a lot of weird commas in that now that I reread it

 

[El Duderino]

Well, if their experience is against level 1 CPU's, how much can their opinion of accessibility be, for example.

I'd say in that scenario, and I know this might sound like a shock for some people, but Melee handles it better.

There's a lot of weird quirks to Brawl, even at low level play, that can lead beginners to being confused. Tripping being the big one. After all, part of what makes games accessible is having control.

 

[---]

In my 10+ years of playing Smash, I have never once come across someone who thought Melee was too hard or too inaccessible.

I for one never thought I was ever really improving when I played Melee. I could only pull off a few minor ATs, but even then it was all just luck.

Came to this site and saw all the things that the diehard Melee players could do as well as read about all the ATs that people had come up with. It was very intimidating to see that having had played Melee for so many years that I had never really gotten anywhere in skill level. To this day I've never posted in the Melee section of SWF because of that (not to mention I see Melee fanboys complaining all the time, so why would I want to hang out with them anyway?).

With Brawl I felt there was a larger accessability. The controls we're much more free than Melee's so I felt more in control overall, actual aerial combat only added to that and made it less of a pain to recover.

While bad, there was online so I could actually play my friends in the game. The ATs weren't as demanding in execution, I was even pulling off some that weren't ones from my main such as Cape Guilding, and QAC.

Joined a gaming club on my campus where Brawl was the only video game that people ever got excited about and I was able to beat them all after a little while. Signed up for an on-campus Brawl Tourney and I made it to the finals. Just a month ago, I even got together with some people from my region, and while they kicked my butt, I was still able by the end of the night to actually put up a decent fight.

 

[El Duderino]

With Brawl I felt there was a larger accessability. The controls we're much more free than Melee's so I felt more in control overall, actual aerial combat only added to that and made it less of a pain to recover.

Care to explain how Brawl is the freer game with more control? Or how Melee had no actual arial combat? There's a ton of counter evidence including everything from limiting DI, recovery options, running, general movement, dodging, move-buffering, that suggests the complete opposite of Brawl.

I think in you are confusing slower pacing with having more freedom.

 

[---]

Care to explain how Brawl is the freer game with more control? Or how Melee had no actual arial combat? There's a ton of counter evidence including everything from limiting DI, recovery options, running, general movement, dodging, move-buffering, that suggests the complete opposite of Brawl.

I think in you are confusing slower pacing with having more freedom.

That was my opinion, it's very subjective and is pointless to make an argument about. No need to freak out about it.

That said, I'm not here to make any arguments, the only thing I was saying with my last post (hense quoting the guy who said that Melee was too hard) was that I perfer Brawl better because I feel I'm actually improving unlike Melee. And that Melee is very intimidating overall to me, whether it be the game itself or the players.

 

[El Duderino]

That was my opinion, it's very subjective and is pointless to make an argument about. No need to freak out about it.

Who is freaking out? I've got no beef with your opinion. Some people just feel more comfortable with the slower pacing and that is perfectly fine. I'm just merely pointing out that a technical breakdown of the freedom you have in each game would suggest the opposite. But you are perfectly entitled to your opinion of why Melee is too intimidating right now to try improving at.

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.

 

[---]

Who is freaking out? I've got no beef with your opinion. Some people just feel more comfortable with the slower pacing and that is perfectly fine. I'm just merely pointing out that a technical breakdown of the freedom you have in each game would suggest the opposite. But you are perfectly entitled to your opinion of why Melee is too intimidating.

Alright then. Sorry if I freaked out myself then, it's easy to get caught up in the tension everyone has towards the game they respectively prefer.

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.



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?