For smash 4 to succeed, we need to change

[Ulevo]

This right here.

I mean honestly? Smash doesn't need the competitive community. Smash 4 could take a dump on everything the competitive community likes in the fashion Brawl did and still be a great and successful game in its own right. Sorry competitive scene people but Brawl was an amazing game in and of itself and no matter what you say history will also say it was a great game. I mean hell if you want to get all technical Metacritic has Melee at 92 and Brawl at 93 so at the end of the day Nintendo did something right.

The only reason Smash 4 may not reach the sales glory Brawl did is because the WiiU's sales are in the tank compared to the Wii's. And you can stop right there before you mention old argument about how many Gamecube owners had Melee because that would imply that Brawl would have to sell something like 30 million units to compare which is not a reasonable expectation.

There's too many problems with oversimplifications like this.

1. Arguments like this always assume there's this rigid dichotomy; the "competitive" player, and the "casual" player, and anyone in between doesn't exist. I'd also note that very little is done to establish proper context on these terms when these topics come up. Is a competitive player someone who is competitive in nature? A competitive forum goer who watches YouTube and Twitch streams, and reads guides? Someone who attends tournaments? How many tournaments do they have to go to to qualify as competitive? Does playing for fun make you a casual, or is being casual simply everything not comprised of what fits in to the "competitive" context? If there are qualities in a game a competitive player appreciates, and they are removed, does this have no affect on the casual player the way your arguments and many others like it seem to imply? What about introducing seemingly casual elements? Do these affect the competitive player, and to which degree? Do they even affect the "casual" player we're associating with this context?

2. "Success" is a very flimsy word thrown around. What are we attaching the word "success" to? Financial sales? If you want to talk about business or economics in any amount of detail, you need to consider that the initial sale of a product is a very poor measurement of overall success, especially if you're looking to the future. A business ideally looks for long term financial sustainability or growth, and that is never going to happen if the the initial sales of a product are good but the product doesn't have long standing quality. Arguably speaking Brawl comparatively simply does not. And Brawls financial success can largely be attributed to Melees success as a game, both in long standing sales and how it was received by customers, yet people use this argument to substantiate the claim that Brawl was better on the grounds that the sales prove so. How would Brawl have fared if it was the first in its iteration, and didn't have a reputation going for it from two previously successful titles? There's also different ways to interpret sale numbers. While Brawl sold more accumulatively than Melee, the Wii system also sold more units than the Gamecube, likely due to it catering to a wider audience. How do we differentiate between whether or not it was Brawl as a game and what it offered to its players, and not the Wii's overall accessibility to its player base and its individual success, when considering how it compares to Melee? Was it the Wii or Brawl that should be given the credit? This is pertinent because if the Wii U as a system hypothetically flops long term, and it was previously the systems success primarily contributing to the success of the series, what will this mean if Smash Wii U was handled in the same manner? If I recall correctly, someone posted on these boards and stated that the amount of copies sold for Brawl per every Wii sold was a ratio of 1:8, while the amount of copies sold for Melee per every GC sold was 1:3. Proportionately it seems Melee did much better. It doesn't matter if this isn't a reasonable expectation because we're not interpreting what is probable, we're judging success based off of parameters set by individuals who make the arguments based on total volume of sales and nothing else, and how looking at it from this perspective could impact future generation games and their success.

3. Numbers, statistics, and sales do not paint the entire picture. They're a fraction of the portrait we can view to assess whether or not a game is doing well for itself, and ultimately what it comes down to is are people playing the game regularly and enjoying it after its release? You pretend that Sakurai could intentionally butcher Smash's next game in the same manner he did with Brawl, ostracize a portion of the players who are loyal to his game, and that it will still lead to a successful launch. The launch might be successful because without actually buying the game and playing it, we will never be able to experience it for ourselves, generally speaking. But how will the long term numbers look? Will it sell as many copies as its predecessors within the same number of years? Will people want to buy Smash 5 if that goes in to development? Given everything else I brought in to question about casual versus competitive players, if the experience is negatively impacted on the playerbase as a whole, is this really going to look good? How will people talk about it? Off of an anecdotal note, the only people I personally know who still actively play Brawl are the people who play it competitively, ironically, yet when the topic of Melee is brought in to discussion its the game everyone prefers to play when they want to have some fun with their friends. This isn't an objective measurement, it speaks from my experience. And clearly it isn't an indication that Brawl is more competitive than Melee is. But what it does say is that there is possibility that Melee is received as a better game than by more than just the competitive tournament players, and certainly this would be worth investigating in a more objective manner. Assuming this is a possibility, what does this say about future Smash games and their ability to generate revenue? I know as a player and consumer of Smash first, and a competitive player second, if I enjoyed Melee more than Brawl and I knew the next series in line was going have less of the qualities I enjoyed in Melee and more of the qualities I disliked in Brawl, my likelihood to buy the game goes down.

And for the record, I hardly call citing metacritic as an objective or even subjectively intelligent way of trying to prove whether or not Nintendo did anything right in regards to Brawl when comparing it to Melee. Especially when the review score is 1 point off. I mean, really?

 

[Thirdkoopa]

You could always try enjoying yourself, rather than trying to upkeep a set of standards for fair competitive fighting. I can understand the desire for competitive battles, to be the best like no one ever was, but honestly, if a community would rather mod future games to play like past games than move on, then the game's not cut out for that community. There's not much chance that Smash 4 will be modded, and there's going to be a split between the fans who will move on and who won't. Given this community's reputation, I won't mind.

See, that works for some people, but when they're trying to enjoy the competitive scene and it's a mess of other people?

The discussion isn't "Melee vs Smash 4", people, it's "How do we avoid another Brawl" - I'm sure with the 3DS version some butthurt will happen, but it's all about not even keeping that contained but starting the best way possible.

 

[Fuqua]

Read title, "For Smash 4 to succeed we need to change", the thread is full of "competitve players discussing about many things, furthermore in the first paragraph of the main post includes the word "competitive". For Smash 4 to succeed we need to change + competive players = Wrong title or Competive players that think they are a big determinant factor to the destiny of SSB.

You misunderstood the title. We are all aware that the competitive community isn't the main audience for smash 4 or any smash game (I actually said this very thing in one of my posts above). The title isn't talking about the success of smash 4 as a game in general, its talking about the success of smash 4 as a competitive game!

Im not sure how big the number of people is that have a competitive interest in smash 4, but wouldn't jump to any conclusions as fast as you did. I think that number could be big enough for sakurai to take them into consideration when developing smash 4. The reason why i believe that is the number of views that evo 2013 got, the number of views that the smash documentary got and the number of members of this website. Then again these are very vague thoughts of mine.

Anyways we shouldn't get of topic since the importance of the competitive community to nintedo isn't what this thread is about.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Also may I add something else?

NO ONE has to pick just one game. It's a choice, not a fact; M2K at least stays with all games, and I know a few people at least casual and competitive who play all the Smash games along with myself. Even if Smash 4 turns out colossally bad but less worse competitively than Brawl, people will still play it. Heck, it's on 3DS now; who's to say people won't just bring their portables for a bit out of tournaments?

Like I mentioned with SF2 and SF4, it's totally realistic for both to stick around. Melee is good enough not to be forgotten, Brawl's good enough to hack 50 ways to sunday, Smash 4 has at least portable among other things, and 64 has lulzy team matches.

 

[Renji64]

I want smash 4 to be enjoyable for everyone. All I need is speed,fun,combos not people canceling out of them.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

I'm sure Smash 4 will be fun for everyone. It seems faster than Brawl and the camping issues and tripping have been addressed. So very solid from what we've seen so far!

 

[smashmachine]

For starters, let's look at street fighter and compare it to street fighter 2. SF1 had less characters (I think only 2 were playable) and the moves were limited. Also, look at the pokemon series. Its sales only got better after generation 1; with each game having more in-depth mechanics via additional moves, abilities, types, and improved game mechanics that rely less on luck and more on still and variety such as Individual Values and super training. The people who play for fun bought the game for the adventure, while the people who play for glory (and also fun as well) bought the game to build up a new team for tournament play. Why? Because it would make more sense to have more technical gameplay than less technical gameplay because it gives the game a better sense of depth; thus making it more appealing to fans of the series.

this is a joke right, Pokemon will never reach gen 1 sales again

 

[666blaziken]

I find funny the competitive community of Smash, they thing they are something big and important in the decissions of SSB, when they are just an small part of SSB sales.

Not going to lie, I hear this argument all the time, and I hate this argument. Pretty much what everyone says: the casuals are only going to play it for a month or so while the competitive players will play it longer. I've known people who forgotten how to play SSBM and SSBB because they only played it upon release. It's even worse because they don't want to play the game longer than an hour. With that being said, why should Sakurai try to keep these players happy and cater to them if they will only have fun with it for a month. This is why WE are the bigger deciding factor about the smash games, and WE are the ones that will help improve the smash series. Sakurai learned this the hard way in Brawl, which is why he wants to make Smash 4 more competitive. I know that people are disappointing that it isn't more melee oriented, but there's a good reason for that. He probably regretted that Brawl received poor reception competitively, didn't like how it was played at a high skill level (what, with the camping tactics and what-not), and wants to make a better version to make amends.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

I'm sure Smash 4 will be fun for everyone. It seems faster than Brawl and the camping issues and tripping have been addressed. So very solid from what we've seen so far!

we've still gotta wait on a true playable demo before we do that, but we're getting pretty close to that. What, 50 days left? That's nothing.

 

[666blaziken]

this is a joke right, Pokemon will never reach gen 1 sales again

No, but how many people still play gen 1 pokemon games? Very few people, and most of the time, it's for the nostalgia. The games are extremely glitchy, has little to no in-depth mechanics, managing items (or the lack of room in the item bag) was a hassle, and the best strategies for battling were to spam hyper beam without having to recharge due to a glitch, or to use hax such as thunder wave to slow down the opponent. It makes brawl's competitive scene look good in comparison. With that being said, each game has improved significantly over it, and are much better. Sales don't matter as much as everyone likes to believe, and it doesn't determine how good a game is/what direction it should be headed.

 

[smashmachine]

No, but how many people still play gen 1 pokemon games? Very few people, and most of the time, it's for the nostalgia. The games are extremely glitchy, has little to no in-depth mechanics, managing items (or the lack of room in the item bag) was a hassle, and the best strategies for battling were to spam hyper beam without having to recharge due to a glitch, or to use hax such as thunder wave to slow down the opponent. It makes brawl's competitive scene look good in comparison. With that being said, each game has improved significantly over it, and are much better. Sales don't matter as much as everyone likes to believe, and it doesn't determine how good a game is/what direction it should be headed.

for the record I agree with your overall point, but just pointing out the actual sales for Pokemon

 

[Raetah]

Not going to lie, I hear this argument all the time, and I hate this argument. Pretty much what everyone says: the casuals are only going to play it for a month or so while the competitive players will play it longer. I've known people who forgotten how to play SSBM and SSBB because they only played it upon release. It's even worse because they don't want to play the game longer than an hour. With that being said, why should Sakurai try to keep these players happy and cater to them if they will only have fun with it for a month. This is why WE are the bigger deciding factor about the smash games, and WE are the ones that will help improve the smash series. Sakurai learned this the hard way in Brawl, which is why he wants to make Smash 4 more competitive. I know that people are disappointing that it isn't more melee oriented, but there's a good reason for that. He probably regretted that Brawl received poor reception competitively, didn't like how it was played at a high skill level (what, with the camping tactics and what-not), and wants to make a better version to make amends.

1st You are generalizing way too much "casual players" and the time they expend playing the game. 2nd Money, while Sakurai clearly puts effort and passion in that work, but SSB is FIRST a business. If they create a satisfactory game, the player would consider to buy another title of the game, is not important how long they play the game. Sakurai is not doing what competive players want, most of the competitive players are crying for Melee 2.0 and we got Brawl 2.0, you know it. Of course he is aparently putting effort to comfort a biger audience, but Competitve Scene is far from being the MAIN target audience of SSB and-or the bigger deciding factor.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Oh Jaysus, I leave for a few months, come back and this argument is STILL going on.

Those who want to argue, belittle, ect. Brawl or Brawl players will continue to do so and will only become angrier the more we tell them to cease and desist. We get it. Those of you who want to continue arguing and telling me I'm wrong for enjoying Brawl, you win. Just...

For the love of Din, Farore and Nayru, please stop the arguing about arguing...

 

[otter]

Those who want to argue, belittle, ect. Brawl or Brawl players will continue to do so and will only become angrier the more we tell them to cease and desist. We get it. Those of you who want to continue arguing and telling me I'm wrong for enjoying Brawl, you win.

I highly doubt that's ever happened.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

I highly doubt that's ever happened.

Then why, for the love of Hylia, is this thread still going? Let's all just get hyped for Sm4sh, please? We're gonna argue, this is going to be a thing, but at least let's pretend to get along until the game comes out, please?

 

[popsofctown]

Aren't you arguing about people arguing about arguing, which is itself arguing about arguing?

On an unrelated note, does the set of all sets contain itself?

 

[The Slayer]

Then why, for the love of Hylia, is this thread still going? Let's all just get hyped for Sm4sh, please? We're gonna argue, this is going to be a thing, but at least let's pretend to get along until the game comes out, please?

Yeah, I did that once and I wasn't exactly happy. As much as SSB4 is looking good, people can still have doubts if they want to. Was certain players' & fans' fault that they wanted Brawl to be Melee 2.0 or better? Yes. Should this be a legitimate reason for them to not have doubts about SSB4? Definitely not. It keeps the blow to a minimum when this game could turn out for the worse. So you might want to keep calm before it actually comes out.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Aren't you arguing about people arguing about arguing, which is itself arguing about arguing?

On an unrelated note, does the set of all sets contain itself?

Ye....er...no-...er...I don't know!?

 

[LancerStaff]

Not going to lie, I hear this argument all the time, and I hate this argument. Pretty much what everyone says: the casuals are only going to play it for a month or so while the competitive players will play it longer. I've known people who forgotten how to play SSBM and SSBB because they only played it upon release. It's even worse because they don't want to play the game longer than an hour. With that being said, why should Sakurai try to keep these players happy and cater to them if they will only have fun with it for a month. This is why WE are the bigger deciding factor about the smash games, and WE are the ones that will help improve the smash series. Sakurai learned this the hard way in Brawl, which is why he wants to make Smash 4 more competitive. I know that people are disappointing that it isn't more melee oriented, but there's a good reason for that. He probably regretted that Brawl received poor reception competitively, didn't like how it was played at a high skill level (what, with the camping tactics and what-not), and wants to make a better version to make amends.

And I hate this argument. When people say "hardcore" or whatever, it means they're looking up tactics and ways to actually get better. (IMO anyway.) I definitely wasn't that until about two years ago, and I spent thousands of hours playing with my friends and going for 100% and such, and I had plenty of other games to play. Heck, I 100%ed Melee literally a week before Brawl came out!
Bottom line is, tournaments aren't what's continuing the sales. It's the casuals that are still playing and convincing their friends to buy it. Really, you think Mario Kart tournaments are what's drawing out the sales?

 

[Cassio]

Finally getting back to this. Not sure if you still care, but I might use these ideas later so I thought Id finish up.

Like I said, there are just many elements which have encouraged offensive play; two of those reasons being social trends and an undeveloped meta. Despite these trends, it does not mean that defensive play isn't the superior play...

Consider the following:

Does M2K really play "defensively" or does he play "optimally"? (Hint: his nickname is the "robot"). Not-so-coincidentally, optimal play tends to be more defensive play because there is less risk involved.

Sure, but my point is that M2K currently provides the best example of defensive play which still isnt all that defensive. You can call it what you like, and it's impossible to disprove a theory entirely so I can't say its impossible optimal play is more defensive. But based on existing evidence and meta-game trends it doesnt seem likely. I will acknowledge the possibility but not its likelihood.

@1, This depends on the nature of the options since mental challenge can vary; relating back to my comparison between Brawl and Melee's respective shield mechanics, its simple and predictable vs. complex and ambiguous. In Brawl, options are limited but reliable, whereas in Melee, you have more options (particularly in mobility) which makes predicting harder. The mental difficulty is emphasized more on certain aspects. However, in their current states, I would argue that the mental game is far more developed in Brawl because player interaction is more constant and controlling the game is less confounding. In Melee, accessing the mental game is at odds with mastery of the technical game.

@2, absolutely. And don't look now, but you are doing a good job comparing the games haha.

Thanks, although I never felt the games were entirely incapable of being compared.

At first I thought we werent in agreement, but I think worded differently we do. Removing yomi (knowing the mind of the player) from the equation, there is significant mechanical depth as far as the game itself is concerned that is limited in brawl in regards to knowledge of what beats what, when to do it, having the skill to do it, etc. Its true this is a mental challenge, however (this is where we may disagree) I dont really find this aspect of competition as interesting, especially compared to the underlying person to person interaction going on. [I also understand this is preference] It can certainly be a lot of fun and enjoyable, but it seems something that in excess taints the pure player interaction. Its also one of the reasons I'm not too big on project M competitively, I think it focuses way too much on having to know game mechanics.

So I guess to be more specific, knowledge of the opponent has a greater emphasis in brawl for these reasons
1) Brawl is more defensive as a function of its mechanics, and game progression is forced through yomi.
2) Player interaction is more constant. In melee the player interaction ratio is lower mainly as a result of how punishment works in each game. In Melee, the opponent has less options to escape punishment whereas in Brawl yomi is more significant to the punishment game. (something I hadnt brought up yet but is pretty significant)
3) A reduced roll on game mechanics puts an even greater emphasis on yomi.

In contrast, melee's emphasizes knowledge of the game
1) More (comparatively) offense
2) A lower player interaction ratio
3) Greater mechanical depth

These arent exclusive qualities, but its just the way the games work out.

Reading through this thread it seems to me that a lot of people are convinced that the reason for Brawls poor competitive reception is the community itself. The community certainly did play a role but it is just baffling to me that the undeniable fact, that brawl is just a bad competitive game, is so commonly ignored. Just to make this absolutely clear so none of you delusional people forget it, BRAWL IS A BAD COMPETITIVE GAME. All the gameplay changes from melee to brawl made for a slower, less technical and simply more boring version of smash, tripping is just the tip of the iceberg! I could go on and on about hitstun and momentum but i won't. Brawl was clearly intended to be non competitive.

I seriously believe that you people extremely overestimate the impact that this community has. If smash 4 is good, we will play it, if it isn't,we won't. Brawl wasn't good so we didn't play that. End of story. (I only say that brawl isn't good because that is the popular opinion, i know there is a very small competitive brawl community)

100% wrong. Relying on popular opinion to determine a games value and then suggesting that the community doesnt control that? Popular opinion doesnt give value, and unless your a Brawl guru im unaware then don't bother pushing that point. Were you even around here when Brawl launched?

 

[CrossoverMan]

I don't mind either the competitive or casual community. But I find it quite ridiculous that people want both Battlefield and Final Destination versions of every stage and talk about it like it's their right. Simple fact: it's not. In the end, the target market for every Smash Bros, are kids.

Now don't rage at me, I know that Smash Bros obviously appeals to anyone of any age, but hear me out...

Even though most instalments are rated PEGI 12, a game with Mario, Pikachu and Link in it is obviously going to attract the target market more and thus get more sales. You should be glad that Sakurai even acknowledged the competitive community. I don't care if platforms are part of a characters' 'metagame', and I'm sure more or less everyone else out of the 50 million people who will buy the next Smash Bros.

But that leads me to the point of the thread? How will Smash 4 succeed as a competitive game? Probably very well. But for those of you who probably won't be happy at anything Sakurai does to try and appease you, just think about all the things Sakurai has done to try and make Smash a better game for you. Better character balancing, quicker gameplay, more creative characters, balanced versions of every stage, and the list goes on.

 

[Aninymouse]

Why in the world is this thread still going? Nineteen pages of nonstop fighting over a bunch of moving goalposts.

"For Smash 4 to succeed, we need to change."

• What is success for Smash 4 look like? Lots of units sold? Good reviews? People playing it long after purchase? Nintendo making a large profit? Smashboards participation is up 100%?

• If Smash 4 is successful, how does this benefit me, and why should I care? Not you, me. How do I benefit?

• If Smash 4 isn't successful, is it my fault?

• Are you more focused on the game, or the metagame?

There's no chance I'm going to ever read through this entire thread. Straight up. But based on this page, page 1, page 2, and page 7, which I mostly read, I doubt many of my questions have been answered.

If we're up in arms, wringing our hands over the actual product and sales, guess what, guys? That's almost entirely out of our hands. The American economy is garbage right now, for instance; disposable income is at a low point right now. That's a fairly large factor that is way beyond the control of any one government, let alone any one man. That comprises the lives of everyone who lives in America, to say nothing of foreigners who directly effect our economy, as well. Maybe Smash 4 won't be a smashing success because people just don't feel like buying entertainment / do not have the money. How Smashboards operates at that point is besides the point. Likewise, things aren't all sunshine and daisies in Europe or Australia or South America or whatever, either.

And perhaps Smash 4 will have a stupid, uncompetitive mechanic (like tripping in Brawl) that serves to offend and aggravate the base. Who's to blame there? Nintendo. If they devised a "blue shell" effect, like the "pity final smash," only worse, people who enjoy succeeding by hard work and skill are going to be pissed. If I'm having fun by using strategy, skill, and knowledge, and the other guy beats me because the game engine is programmed to "feel sorry for him," that's a load of crap, coming from a machine. Equality is what Melee was: everyone had the same opportunity to be a huge success at Melee, but not everyone was guaranteed to be a success. The game gave you all the tools you needed to test your limits, but did not "help" to (read: force you to) alter your outcomes. Ever watch the Smash Brothers documentary? I think Wife said it himself: Melee was like a beautiful sandbox. It did not get in your way, for the most part. Brawl tried to manage OUTCOMES. That's straight up progressive theology, there. Total garbage. Tripping, pity smashes - all that was designed to encourage certain outcomes, or act as a so-called "impartial equalizer through random chance." The problem with random chance, though, is that it is not fair, and it is not random. SO, if Smash 4 is designed to put shackles on the player to control his or her outcome, then the game will get all the same blowback Brawl did, and it will be Nintendo's fault, not ours.

Or let's say you're mostly concerned about the metagame and the community that springs up around it: tournaments, Smashboards, how we as fans conduct ourselves. Can we put blame on ourselves for the bickering around Brawl? Sure, we can put some of that on us. Brawl's philosophy changed from Melee, and people sensed that, and some got upset or rejected that game because of it. That is an okay response. What is not an okay response is to denigrate other people, use murderous, beastly (some would say childish) language, etc. We don't all have to agree. We never will all agree. The day we all agree is the day we are forced to all agree... and that'd be a tragedy. But it is how we treat each other in our disagreement that is, I feel, the real issue this thread tried to address.

Some people put no value on treating other people with dignity and respect. They only want to be heard, but do not listen. They want to be seen, but are blind to others. To choose to be this way is a terrible way to live, and most people aren't going to want to be around people like that. How do we deal with people who abuse others with their language, or try to wield political power over those they disagree with? That is a question for the moderators of Smashboards to answer. To do nothing is to silently approve of or allow such things to carry on. What can non-moderators do? Report people who are trolls or who are abusive; ignore those people so you can't see their posts. But really, that just helps YOU cope. Any stranger that wanders over to Smashboards to see about getting involved in tournaments, or wanting to read advanced strategies, is going to have to wade through or trip over terrible posts like those. If they're not cleaned up, it shows that bickering and shame are core elements of our community. I'm not saying they are NOW, don't get me wrong. But they could become that way. Look at 4chan: 4chan is a culture based on shame, one-upmanship, and all the worst of the human nature. Trying to be an upstanding, loving or helpful member of that community is like trying to swim upstream in a river of piranhas. I know, I tried. Unless you supply a commodity for them to consume (humor, porn, art, entertainment, pirated material, bathroom philosophy), you are nothing.

If it's about Smashboards, and you want Smashboards and Smash get-togethers in general to be successful, then demand personal responsibility, respect, tolerance of others, and devise a system for working out future questions of policy (rules, ban lists, new modes, etc.). Someone wear some big boy pants and carry a big stick.

But really? None of this even matters all that much. We don't even have the game yet. And while it's admirable and good to be excellent in all things, video games are, like, bottom of the totem pole in life, as far as importance goes. Like, all of us could stop buying video games forever, and we might even be better off.

Sorry for typing so much. Got on a roll.

 

[Mewtwo_soul]

I understand the need to voice complaints when a game doesn't meet your needs/wants. I just don't understand why that would need to manifest itself in fans complaining to other fans. The people who liked/like Brawl aren't in a position to create change, so telling them what's wrong with the game they like isn't accomplishing anything.

Complaints/feedback ought to be voiced at the people in position to create change, basically.

The problem is the idea is to spread complaints. If you sit in a secluded group and only talk and complain within that group it won't spread at all.

I can complain to two or three friends who would agree regardless of what I'm saying, but if you bring up problems within a large group the mentality can spread and those who may have opposed change can change views, and in the same stance the opposite can also occur.

A great example of this pertains to an old article I read (sorry no link) the link was "why ********* works and why protesting doesn't."

In regards to gaming, you can have 100 people in a protest but that demographic is small where as if you complain online where a majority now coup, it spreads more easily. Look at this new Smash, Sakurai cancelled a story mode over Youtube, a major database. Whether the decision was stupid or not doesn't matter, it only matters about the outcome of such a large database causing this change.

Same too is the complaints.

Sure it can also cause the adverse affect. But via example, a guy I met when I made my complaint on Brawl actually began to agree when I pointed out the fundamental flaws, like I pointed to him, casually there is nothing wrong, but making changes wouldn't harm his play and through debate he also swayed.

That is why people openly complain, because if you keep an idea secluded, like I mentioned earlier.... It never spreads.

Edit: Sorry for being off for so long in regards to responses.

 

[DaDavid]

The problem is the idea is to spread complaints. If you sit in a secluded group and only talk and complain within that group it won't spread at all.

I can complain to two or three friends who would agree regardless of what I'm saying, but if you bring up problems within a large group the mentality can spread and those who may have opposed change can change views, and in the same stance the opposite can also occur.

A great example of this pertains to an old article I read (sorry no link) the link was "why ********* works and why protesting doesn't."

In regards to gaming, you can have 100 people in a protest but that demographic is small where as if you complain online where a majority now coup, it spreads more easily. Look at this new Smash, Sakurai cancelled a story mode over Youtube, a major database. Whether the decision was stupid or not doesn't matter, it only matters about the outcome of such a large database causing this change.

Same too is the complaints.

Sure it can also cause the adverse affect. But via example, a guy I met when I made my complaint on Brawl actually began to agree when I pointed out the fundamental flaws, like I pointed to him, casually there is nothing wrong, but making changes wouldn't harm his play and through debate he also swayed.

That is why people openly complain, because if you keep an idea secluded, like I mentioned earlier.... It never spreads.

Edit: Sorry for being off for so long in regards to responses.

Given what you're saying it seems like you're more concerned in getting the community to develop a hive-mind than developing a community that accepts difference of opinion. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but when you bring up examples about changing the fans' minds, not the developer's, then that's what it seems like the agenda would be.

Obviously there's nothing inherently wrong with explaining to someone why you think their preference is worse than yours (again, harsh, but that's essentially what the in-fighting in this community boils down to) since, as you point out, some people will end up agreeing with what you say and end up "switching sides." But I promise you, for every 1 Brawl-liking "guy you met" while making complaints about Brawl who ends up agreeing with you, there's 9 others that wish you would just stop and realize that they enjoy the game in spite of these "fundamental flaws" that keep you and others from preferring it.

That kinda drives at the whole point of this topic. The community needs to change in terms of how it treats its own if a new game that is going to inspire different opinions is to have any chance at success. Otherwise it's just going to be more arguing meant to get "the other" to agree with you.

 

[Mewtwo_soul]

Given what you're saying it seems like you're more concerned in getting the community to develop a hive-mind than developing a community that accepts difference of opinion. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but when you bring up examples about changing the fans' minds, not the developer's, then that's what it seems like the agenda would be.

Obviously there's nothing inherently wrong with explaining to someone why you think their preference is worse than yours (again, harsh, but that's essentially what the in-fighting in this community boils down to) since, as you point out, some people will end up agreeing with what you say and end up "switching sides." But I promise you, for every 1 Brawl-liking "guy you met" while making complaints about Brawl who ends up agreeing with you, there's 9 others that wish you would just stop and realize that they enjoy the game in spite of these "fundamental flaws" that keep you and others from preferring it.

That kinda drives at the whole point of this topic. The community needs to change in terms of how it treats its own if a new game that is going to inspire different opinions is to have any chance at success. Otherwise it's just going to be more arguing meant to get "the other" to agree with you.

No. Not at all, what I'm pointing out is those who complain and want exposure should complain if they want game developers to notice. If you have 100 guys playing CoD who complain about spawns and 500 who barely notice and you don't mention it (ala complain which is so badly used these days it doesn't matter a complaint is now any negative criticism. --> To most people)

Second, I think you are deeply missing the point.


Like I said Brawl could be enjoyable, but you know what sucked? Tripping. A large percentage (or maybe it just appeared that way) of people gave off an illusion that it was an acceptable mecahnic. Just because we could enjoy Brawl doesn't mean we should just go "Man Sakurai I loved Brawl." because that gives the idea to repeat the same mechanics. Had people not complaint and been so rabid, Tripping may not have been removed.

Now, the magnitude in which it was done, may have been annoying (depending on specific users) but you mistake making a negative criticism on what should be improved in a game, as bashing the game.

Those are two different things, and for us as a whole to change that is another aspect that should be understood.

Next: I actually want people to give the next Smash a chance which is what I originally pointed out if you recall, so how would my stance be of the opposition (those who won't give it a chance as I put it, but those people will exist regardless) just to point out, I wasn't regarding myself with that statement, but a minority of competitive hungering players.

On the last note, it's not always about people agreeing with my exact sentiment. This argument when you questioned me was why people complain, I explained it. To spread that idea.

If Microsoft fans had mellowed when XBO impolored DRM, we'd still have it. Sure we could have enjoyed it for its other positive aspects, but by being vocal within a mass we reached out to the creators, and Microsoft itself. (You can't reach companies without the founding fanbase getting together in the first place like I explained before)

In that same sense, is like I pointed out on the removal of Story mode (whether it was good or bad isn't the argument or a stupid or good decision.) Only that by spreading an idea (IE: Remove tripping for instance) did it become noticed.

 

[Mewtwo_soul]

Sorry to double post, but before I go to bed I'll clarify one other thing:

Just because two people may have a complaint or like something doesn't mean they will agree on the same stance.

For instance, I may hate a movie for one paticular reason, while another person may dislike it for another. Being a hive mind implies everyone has the same concept, which just isn't true. And with regards to arguments, statements and concepts, if someone proposes a counter argument that is well founded, I too and anyone else should be apt to give it a chance, if it is well founded. In a sense, there's a difference between going "Man I don't like the new Pokemon X and Y because new Pokemon." which would be a laughable argument to throw out, but if someone threw out to me for instance : "Well I think X could have been done better, especially with the lack of post game." Although I personally don't fully agree with the sentiment, I can agree on the stance, that it was an issue.

Which is what we call tolerance and understanding. I still like X and Y, but I can understand why people would complain about the lack of post game and want it to spread so future Pokemon games will have just that: A richer post game which benefits everyone.

The argument I'm pointing out isn't to get everyone to go for instance I didn't like the remix of Dark World, I thought it was weak in Brawl. Honestly it's just so subjective and hilariously craptastically so insignificant it's not worth mentioning and most likely it'll be remixed in a future iteration anyway.

Thus you won't hear me say a thing in regards. (I brought it up only by example) but I would never argue it because it's purely subjective. Where as some mechanics have basis in fact and subjectivity. (Tripping)

My argument is more akin to Borderlands 2 and the prequal.

A lot of people are realizing they wish the prequal would have Borderlands 1 loot system. But you know what? Nobody complained or said anything to Gear Box or only a minority brought it up, and very loosely, so now despite what a decent amount want for the prequal it will remain with Borderlands 2 loot system which in some regards is inferior. (IE: You need mainly purples/Oranges unlike 1 where good guns came in every rarity.)

That didn't make Borderlands 2 overall a bad game, but one little problem that probably should have been brought up to be fixed in future iterations, same too is my point on certain aspects of Brawl. Just to be clear.

With that, I'm heading to bed.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I think it's a waste of energy to talk about sales #'s as any catalyst for whether we consider Smash 4 a critical success or not, but I do believe that there is some kind of feasible middle ground that I think somewhat lightly defines whether Smash 4 is truly a generally successful game, one that anyone can probably agree with, avid Smashboards user or not.

If the game attracts both casual players and hardcore players, without any elements that push hardcores to play past iterations of the game, and a giant list of reasons that motivate and drive those people to play Smash 4 instead of the other games, I think Smash 4 would be hugely successful in that they developed the true, soul-defining game that was the epitome of the franchise in every way. The singular version worth playing. I see casuals as moving on to Smash 4 no matter what because it's the newest version. It's the hardcore/competitive crowd that has their noses and expectations a bit high (not unjustly).

This probably won't happen because there's no such thing as a game that everybody on the planet likes. The Melee and Project M fan base (as well as the 64 players) will continue to exist. Very similarly to Street Fighter, people still enjoy playing the old SNES versions despite SF4 being the epitomized version of Street Fighter when it comes to the FGC. What we should prepare for, as a result, is finding a place for Smash 4 among the ranks instead of turning our backs to it like what happened with Brawl. This really is the best thing that can happen. Smash is a fighting game. It's not like other genres of games with sequels where the previous game just becomes a dead asset due to a new version releasing. People like specific things about specific iterations that keep them playing those specific iterations, because developers experiment. They make choices, whether good or bad, that make the games inherently different experience-wise.

So, realistically, for Smash 4 to be a general success, it will need to be attractive to a majority of the casual Smash crowd, and be accepted competitively without too many latent issues like tripping or the variety of other things the sheer majority of competitive players didn't like about Brawl. Financial success can be an important factor consider in some ways, however. Financial success can determine the quality of future games of the same franchise, which is always something to think about. It's not important for us to think about in the short term but it's not a pointless endeavor long term.

 

[Adam Perez]

A new problem: Wii U vs Nintendo 3ds

 

[Saito]

A new problem: Wii U vs Nintendo 3ds

Da bes solution.

Both.

 

[Paradoxium]

God damn I think I got cancer from this thread, seriously

note to self: Stay away from the smash 4 forums

A lot of you goofs think that smash can't be competitive and casual at the same time, well I'm here to tell you that it has happened with every smash bros game so far. No matter what Nintendo does to smash 4 there will be a competitive and casual crowd who like the game.

 

[Celestis]

Smash 4 will be fine. There is just no way it wont succeed. For as much of a slow down as Brawl was, the bump up in speed and Nintendo's willingness to listen to the fan base as of late, I just can't see this going anywhere but good places. Plus.. Everyone wants to play the new game x]

Competitively, I see Melee, PM and Smash 4 ruling the scene with Brawl fizzling out, kinda being like 64.

 

[RelaxAlax]

Smash 4 is already succeeding in a competitive light. We've learned from the past, many are already optimistic about it, and there's a new generation of smashers we will all be happy to educate and bring up so another "transition to Brawl/War" doesn't happen.

We'll be a-okay.

 

[DaDavid]

With how much effort freaking Nintendo themselves is putting into keeping the community happy, I'd be shocked if in-fighting was the thing to make Smash 4 "fail."

 

[LiteralGrill]

A new problem: Wii U vs Nintendo 3ds

Da bes solution.

Both.

This is the best solution, but I almost guarantee the fights about which is better will still happen. Tons of people have just dismissed the 3DS for anything competitive entirely and it already has a stigma because of this. It's why I kinda get why the thread was made, it has already been happening.

Thankfully it's been a LOT less these days as people do see that the 3DS version has its own sets of advantages and disadvantages just like the Wii U does. They'll both be something awesome if we use both of their strengths together!

 

[Aninymouse]

With how much effort freaking Nintendo themselves is putting into keeping the community happy, I'd be shocked if in-fighting was the thing to make Smash 4 "fail."

Do you mean you wouldn't be shocked?

 

[Saito]

This is the best solution, but I almost guarantee the fights about which is better will still happen. Tons of people have just dismissed the 3DS for anything competitive entirely and it already has a stigma because of this. It's why I kinda get why the thread was made, it has already been happening.

Thankfully it's been a LOT less these days as people do see that the 3DS version has its own sets of advantages and disadvantages just like the Wii U does. They'll both be something awesome if we use both of their strengths together!

I almost misinterpreted that.

The 3ds will have its place as well, but I do honestly believe that it will be taken with a much less serious nature as the one for the Wii U.

That doesn't mean it won't still be fun as hell.

 

[itsaxelol]

i cannot see the 3ds being used competitively after wii u drops. i think some tourneys will have a fun little 3ds bracket alongside wii u, but it will only have a fraction of the amount of people compared to the wii u one

but, tourney stages being considered, its the same game... on a small low res screen... that cant be efficiently streamed or hooked up to a bigger tv. why bother when you have glorious console hd smash

 

[LiteralGrill]

i cannot see the 3ds being used competitively after wii u drops. i think some tourneys will have a fun little 3ds bracket alongside wii u, but it will only have a fraction of the amount of people compared to the wii u one

but, tourney stages being considered, its the same game... on a small low res screen... that cant be efficiently streamed or hooked up to a bigger tv. why bother when you have glorious console hd smash

Swiss Brackets. That alone almost makes it entirely better and I'm not even joking. Players going to events that fill up the pot get to play WAY more matches, it's more fun for everyone, and tournaments will run SO MUCH FASTER. It'll be a better experience for new players especially and they'll be drawn to it. Plus it's the cheaper option by a long shot.

Also, see how a 3DS vs Wii U debate can start in a flash?

 

[D-idara]

This is the best solution, but I almost guarantee the fights about which is better will still happen. Tons of people have just dismissed the 3DS for anything competitive entirely and it already has a stigma because of this. It's why I kinda get why the thread was made, it has already been happening.

Thankfully it's been a LOT less these days as people do see that the 3DS version has its own sets of advantages and disadvantages just like the Wii U does. They'll both be something awesome if we use both of their strengths together!

What kind of fan doesn't buy both Smash games?

 

[LiteralGrill]

What kind of fan doesn't buy both Smash games?

The kind with a budget. I'm sorry but I just plain can't afford a Wii U to play smash on when I already have a 3DS in the works.