Fellow Smasher's please join and Support petition of a Competitive Smash 4

[Renji64]

A few problems here. The competitive player is not the consumer who actually drives the Smash Bros. series. They are not its target audience, they are an audience that was raked in by Melee and was upset when Brawl was not the same game as the last one. Sakurai is going to consider marketing to his target audience who buy and enjoy the game for what it is, and it is going to be successful as always because of it. The amount of entitlement taking place is kind of bizarre.

And just because it isn't Melee 2.0 doesn't mean it's Brawl 2.0. They are working hard to make this game a different experience from the last three installments so that the people who actually enjoy the series, and not just Melee, can get something other than flavor of the month shovelware which you would presumably be okay with if it was Melee each time.

This game is clearly gonna be brawl 2.0

 

[BlitznBurst]

lmfao i don't even

 

[TewnLeenk]

 

[-TAG-]

I think the focus on character balance and making the speed of the game faster is enough to ensure the game will be a lot more competitive than brawl. Like some of you guys said its just the entitled fans that make it seem like this game has no hope in the competitive scene.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the removal of random tripping(?) will also contribute to making the game even more competitive.

 

[BlitznBurst]

But no wavedashing automatic casualfest 0/10 would not buy

 

[Ulti-Bman]

It is funny the people saying this game looks great when nothing was shown are mostly people who think brawl is great also.

First of all, "nothing shown yet"? We already know tripping is gone, we can assume combos will be easier to land due to Sonic gameplay, and best of all, Sakurai is paying attention to Nintendo's library more than ever before! We already have a Pilotwings and Galaxy stage for example! Not to mention reveals such as Villager (who has arguably the most innovative moveset in Smash alongside Mega Man). Second of all, you assume that everyone must see Brawl as a bad game. True it's gameplay is inferior to Melee's (in my personal opinion), but Brawl is by no means a bad game. It's a very fun game in it's own right, and honestly, overall I prefer it to Melee since it has more characters, a more fun adventure mode, and more collectable content. Don't get me wrong, like I said before, Melee's gameplay was better, however, as a whole I enjoyed Brawl more. Thirdly, what's hindering this game from looking great? We have more evidence for character balancing and speed improvement than not. You're just ****ing Melee as the last good Smash game. Give me some reasons why you feel this game won't be good.

 

[Jaedrik]

After Sakurai stating that he'd consider Reggie if the petition got enough signatures, all signatures are on the table in my eyes.
People need to stop being so deterministic
Besides, if we can show him that we are not a 'small maniac group of players', then he'll reconsider, just as he has reconsidered his positions before!

 

[tarextherex]

This is a letter written by a devoted competitive smasher explaining in details why a Competitive Smash is important in the community. Please help spread the word, Melee was the second highest viewed fighting game in Evo 2k13. And it is a 12 year old game

Please support and help increase that number exponentialy
https://www.change.org/petitions/masahiro-sakurai-and-nintendo-give-smash-its-competitive-edge-back

He is not a devoted fellow competitive smasher, he's just fishing for attention in his youtube videos and decided to jump on the competitive smash bandwagon in his list of criticisms to offer to nintendo, his arguments don't even stand. A game being competitive or not is only defined by the people who play it, not because you have to press a button to cancel lag and whatnot. sf is slow af and it's still competitive because you don't have some petty hate between games of the same series or people modding ae so it becomes more like third strike. Brawl is still objectively a successful competitive game, it doesn't matter if you like it or not or if you think it has bad design choices(WHICH CAN BE SAID ABOUT EVERY FIGHTING GAME THROUGH THE USE OF RHETORICS,NOT BECAUSE BRAWL ITSELF IS THE CAUSE OF THE DIVIDE), what matters is that there's shouldn't be needless conflict between members of the same community, which turns into degrading/bullying the game/people who play it

 

[CroonerMike]

Super Smash Brothers was not supposed to be a competitive game. I really don't think we need petitions. Not to say that this isn't good, I don't want to seem like I am bashing those who want this. I just see smash as the "everything" game. It can be competitive or it can be a party game. I find both "types" of ways fun and exciting. I don't think I personally would want the same stage, battlefield, just with a different backdrop and scenery each time. Besides, Mr. Sakurai has stated that it will be between Brawl and Melee, and thats good enough for me. He is the director of course and I respect his decisions.

 

[Violenceman]

Again, I understand the want to appeal to everyone, but Smash never stopped doing that and the important thing Mr. Sakurai has to realize is that in a fighter, if one player is more skilled than the other, than that player has the right to completely obliterate his/her opponent. He or she earned it by training and practicing hard. It's not fair that somebody who plays Smash once every month gets a handicap advantage over someone who plays it every day. It's essentially rewarding people that play the game less than the Smash faithful.

If a more casual player is upset that he cannot beat a more hardcore player, than they need to simply get better.

Okay. I'll play along.

What handicap advantage, exactly? I will concede that Brawl does not feature a lot of the advanced Melee tactics that effectively lessens the gap between the skilled and unskilled players. But that just means you have less tools at your disposal, it doesn't make the player better or worse. It's not like the losing player gets sudden mid-match buffs to even the match out or anything like that; this isn't Mario Party. The game is still a match of skill and talent and the player who plays better will come out on top. There is no "unfair advantage" here. If a world famous chef can't cook better than an amateur just because they don't have access to all their best equipment, that says something about their "skill", you get me?

What makes this so frustratingly hypocritical is that, in the same breath, it champions the idea of playing to get better as a core ideal of a fighting game, then undercuts it by complaining about Brawl players having it easy instead of, y'know, learning to play Brawl better. If you are playing brawl as Melee and you get beat by someone playing Brawl as Brawl, that's not bad game design. That's you complaining about having to learn a new game. If you don't like Brawl's game design and prefer Melee's, that's fine. Perfectly understandable. But don't go masquerading personal choice as bad game design.

Seriously. Checkers is a lot less complex than chess to play, but that doesn't mean the game is inferior or horribly designed because you can't just use the same skills you acquired playing chess.