For smash 4 to succeed, we need to change

[SmashChu]

You really expect people to wait four years for a game to become fun?

It take time for a metagame and a community to develop.

 

[TreK]

You really expect people to wait four years for a game to become fun?

Idk what you're talking about, I've been having fun playing Brawl for the past 5 years.
If you can't understand that, there's no point in you debating with brawlers, eh.

 

[PHD]

Idk what you're talking about, I've been having fun playing Brawl for the past 5 years.
If you can't understand that, there's no point in you debating with brawlers, eh.

My post was in response to someone saying that even if you stayed around for 4 years you didn't give brawl enough of a chance, which is a little crazy to me.

If you enjoyed it from the beginning that's great!

 

[PHD]

ignore this

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

You really expect people to wait four years for a game to become fun?

That's a subjective call and isn't even what the argument was about.

He didn't even mention fun, he mentioned the game's competitive value/potential for growth.

 

[PHD]

That's a subjective call and isn't even what the argument was about.

He didn't even mention fun, he mentioned the game's competitive value/potential for growth.

You were the one that brought up fun.

"Brawl is now five years old and only in the last two years or so has it really taken off. You wouldn't compare Melee in 2006 to Melee in 2001, and the common claim that Melee was still ****in' rad in 2001 doesn't hold water. It was awesome because it's what you had and you perceived the game differently. Smash was shiny and new, melee was fast-paced and interesting, a fresh take on what a fighting game could be. Of course you had fun with it in 2001. You didn't know better."

That's great that Brawl has taken off in the past couple of years, but you can't say someone who played the game for 4 years never gave it a chance. How much time do you want them to put in? This is a hobby for most people, not a full time job. I think even a year is pushing it if you don't like the game.

 

[Vkrm]

I'd be more inclined to accept the competitive merits of brawl if somebody within the brawl community played other games at a high level and still thought that brawl functions well as a competitive game.

 

[[Corn]]

I'd be more inclined to accept the competitive merits of brawl if somebody within the brawl community played other games at a high level and still thought that brawl functions well as a competitive game.

You cant compare different games like that.

 

[World]

You cant compare different games like that.

What other fighting games played competitively had its developers implement elements to deter such
playstyles similar to Brawl?

 

[[Corn]]

What other fighting games played competitively had its developers implement elements to deter such
playstyles similar to Brawl?

It doesn't matter what other games are competitive if the one we are referring to is also played competitive, just less liked.

You can play any game competitively as long as skill is the major deciding factor in gameplay.

 

[HeroMystic]

I have never met someone who honestly preferred Fox only on Final Destination. Heck, in any given tournament, I strike Final Destination the first chance I get.

Quoting this, but this is towards the general audience.

SmashChu's post is being oversimplified and it irks me because what he actually describes is true. I've seen it happen nearly to a T on the Brawl boards and notice each stage slowly but surely get axed from tournament lists one by one until we're stuck with Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Isle Delfino, and Lylat Cruiser. All of them are damn near identical to each other with no interesting gimmicks that changes the match-up. I remember this clearly because I also remember being pissed off at this notion. It's a god damn travesty that competitive smashers refuse to get out of their comfort zone and experiment with stages that could radically change the metagame, and it annoys me even greater that out of the stages we -do- have, all I see is Smashville. It's the neutral pick, the counterpick, and the 3rd pick.

What the hell is the point of having a counterpick system if there are no counterpick stages?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Quoting this, but this is towards the general audience.

SmashChu's post is being oversimplified and it irks me because what he actually describes is true. I've seen it happen nearly to a T on the Brawl boards and notice each stage slowly but surely get axed from tournament lists one by one until we're stuck with Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Isle Delfino, and Lylat Cruiser. All of them are damn near identical to each other with no interesting gimmicks that changes the match-up. I remember this clearly because I also remember being pissed off at this notion. It's a god damn travesty that competitive smashers refuse to get out of their comfort zone and experiment with stages that could radically change the metagame, and it annoys me even greater that out of the stages we -do- have, all I see is Smashville. It's the neutral pick, the counterpick, and the 3rd pick.

What the hell is the point of having a counterpick system if there are no counterpick stages?

You have actually highlighted a division within the competitive community. The newer generation of competitive smash "prefers" the cleanliness and simplicity of these few stages. Meanwhile, some of the older smashers like KishPrime, myself, etc. prefer the balanced variety of the past: legal counterpicks on Mute City, Pokefloats, Brinstar (so good), etc.

 

[etecoon]

Agree on the MK thing, he was never going to really be banned, the entire ***** fest that surrounded him was a waste of energy and time

Can't say I blame the Melee community for looking down on Brawl though, and I say that as someone that played Brawl competitively and not Melee. Brawl had a lot of very questionable game design and it was going to damage the smash series no matter how the community viewed it, a mediocre game isn't going to be hugely successful. Brawl actually did pretty well for itself considering Nintendo's lack of support(no patches, not allowing MLG to stream Brawl) or even consideration of the competitive community in it's design process. You can go on and on about how the community needs to adopt better habits for Smash 4 to flourish but ultimately the game has to be better, if SSB4 is Brawl 2.0 it doesn't -deserve- to succeed.

 

[[Corn]]

Quoting this, but this is towards the general audience.

SmashChu's post is being oversimplified and it irks me because what he actually describes is true. I've seen it happen nearly to a T on the Brawl boards and notice each stage slowly but surely get axed from tournament lists one by one until we're stuck with Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Isle Delfino, and Lylat Cruiser. All of them are damn near identical to each other with no interesting gimmicks that changes the match-up. I remember this clearly because I also remember being pissed off at this notion. It's a god damn travesty that competitive smashers refuse to get out of their comfort zone and experiment with stages that could radically change the metagame, and it annoys me even greater that out of the stages we -do- have, all I see is Smashville. It's the neutral pick, the counterpick, and the 3rd pick.

What the hell is the point of having a counterpick system if there are no counterpick stages?

Personal preference, I hate it when the stage plays more of a role in beating me then my opponent.

I dont think I have ever met anyone who enjoys playing on Brinstar/Rainbow Cruise/Pokefloats like that either.

 

[Life]

MK *was* banned, remember? It's mainly just a certain TO that took issue with it. And of course his tournaments are huge so people went along with him.

 

[etecoon]

MK *was* banned, remember? It's mainly just a certain TO that took issue with it. And of course his tournaments are huge so people went along with him.

His banning was also the result of a certain TO orchestrating a conspiracy to create an authoritarian governing body for the Brawl community. Ultimately the ban didn't stick because there wasn't a consensus, it was just a lot of petty politics. No surprise that there could be no "unity"

 

[smashbrolink]

Agree on the MK thing, he was never going to really be banned, the entire ***** fest that surrounded him was a waste of energy and time

Can't say I blame the Melee community for looking down on Brawl though, and I say that as someone that played Brawl competitively and not Melee. Brawl had a lot of very questionable game design and it was going to damage the smash series no matter how the community viewed it, a mediocre game isn't going to be hugely successful. Brawl actually did pretty well for itself considering Nintendo's lack of support(no patches, not allowing MLG to stream Brawl) or even consideration of the competitive community in it's design process. You can go on and on about how the community needs to adopt better habits for Smash 4 to flourish but ultimately the game has to be better, if SSB4 is Brawl 2.0 it doesn't -deserve- to succeed.

I disagree with this; even if a player dislikes Brawl from a competitive standpoint, to say that Smash 4 doesn't deserve to succeed if it doesn't cater more to competitive players than to the larger majority of non-competitive players is just plain wrong.

 

[HeroMystic]

Personal preference, I hate it when the stage plays more of a role in beating me then my opponent.

This goes beyond personal preference. These stages are 100% banned as in they're not on the list for any tournament. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they should be banned from tournaments. That's cancerous thinking.

 

[[Corn]]

This goes beyond personal preference. These stages are 100% banned as in they're not on the list for any tournament. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they should be banned from tournaments. That's cancerous thinking.

It makes perfect sense to ban a stage that gives such a large advantage to one side or has elements in it that are detrimental to skill.

 

[HeroMystic]

It makes perfect sense to ban a stage that gives such a large advantage to one side.

That's the point of counterpick stages, it's supposed to give the one who picked the stage an advantage. This is why we have the counterpick system and this is why you can strike counterpick stages. You don't wanna play Rainbow Cruise vs a Metaknight? Strike it. This is not rocket science.

 

[[Corn]]

That's the point of counterpick stages, it's supposed to give the one who picked the stage an advantage. This is why we have the counterpick system and this is why you can strike counterpick stages. You don't wanna play Rainbow Cruise vs a Metaknight? Strike it. This is not rocket science.

Yes, it is. Not a huge one though. Rainbow Cruise against nearly anyone is terrible, as is Brinstar. Im not even talking about just Brawl here.

What stages do you believe should be added in?

 

[HeroMystic]

Yes, it is. Not a huge one though. Rainbow Cruise against nearly anyone is terrible, as is Brinstar. Im not even talking about just Brawl here.

What stages do you believe should be added in?

How in the world is Brinstar terrible?

The Unity Ruleset is often satisfactory, though Pirate Ship should've never been banned.

If I remember right, Norfair was banned for the sake of limiting Metaknight's CP options. I don't think there was another reason for this (outside it was "gay"). So yes I'd like to see that come back.

 

[[Corn]]

How in the world is Brinstar terrible?

The Unity Ruleset is often satisfactory, though Pirate Ship should've never been banned.

If I remember right, Norfair was banned for the sake of limiting Metaknight's CP options. I don't think there was another reason for this (outside it was "gay"). So yes I'd like to see that come back.

Brinstar is considered terrible by many simply because it limits so many options and many characters are simply unplayable on it. So many hazards and the rising lava occasionally prevents falls. Pirate Ship deserved a huge ban, water is a terrible terrible mechanic and removes so many options and the transitions change physics and hazards...

Basically, stages that offer your character a slight advantage are liked over ones that give yours such a huge advantage that your opponent might as well not even play his original character.

I prefer the Japanese Ruleset myself. Completely devoid of hazards and extremely well liked. Only issue I have with it is Meta Knight, but people are stupid that way and most of the stuff I go to nowadays ban him.

 

[World]

I disagree with this; even if a player dislikes Brawl from a competitive standpoint, to say that Smash 4 doesn't deserve to succeed if it doesn't cater more to competitive players than to the larger majority of non-competitive players is just plain wrong.

It doesn't have to cater to the competitive community.

As long as they develop the game without putting in measures to prevent those who wish to enjoy it competitively then Smash 4
will be the best for both worlds.

 

[smashbrolink]

It doesn't have to cater to the competitive community.

As long as they develop the game without putting in measures to prevent those who wish to enjoy it competitively then Smash 4
will be the best for both worlds.

From what we've seen so far, they're already doing that.
Speed is up, hitstun isn't as low, and tripping is gone.
That is more than enough to make Smash U competitive; Melee techs aren't even needed at this point and we could play this game competitively.

 

[[Corn]]

From what we've seen so far, they're already doing that.
Speed is up, hitstun isn't as low, and tripping is gone.
That is more than enough to make Smash U competitive; Melee techs aren't even needed at this point and we could play this game competitively.

Perfect Mindset. This is exactly what I think.

Removing tripping automatically makes me want to play it more.

 

[etecoon]

I disagree with this; even if a player dislikes Brawl from a competitive standpoint, to say that Smash 4 doesn't deserve to succeed if it doesn't cater more to competitive players than to the larger majority of non-competitive players is just plain wrong.

I mean succeed as a competitive game for clarification, if the game sells millions of copies and people have fun playing FFAs with items on that's great. It's just easy to get lost in the fanboyism of "we need to do x y and z to make SSB4 more successful as a tournament fighting game than Brawl was" when the game may not even be worth supporting.

No tripping already confirmed is definitely an encouraging sign, it shows more consideration for competitive play

 

[smashbroskilla]

No more random tripping? Buying a Wii U this weekend. OMG I havent posted since 2005 lol

 

[javienen]

I love melee, and it is the smash game that I like the most, then n64 and lastly brawl, I'm not gonna say brawl "sucks" or anything like that, it's just that melee is more fast and i like that style of game. There shouldn't be a fight between which game is better, all of them are great and people should play them for years to come.
But I really hope that what Sakurai says about the new smash trying to "unite" players ( he said it will be at the middle, not too easy, not too hard, not too slow, not too fast ) is true, brawl and melee players could really play together if this new smash has a great competitive gameplay.
I will buy both games, I will give them a chance, but I'm really sure we won't get another "melee" game on a long long time. As a competitive game melee succeeded ( look at this year's EVO ) , as what sales concern brawl succeeded( more sales than any other smash game ), I just hope the new games will succeed on both.
See ya at the new smash game n.n!

 

[El Duderino]

From what we've seen so far, they're already doing that.
Speed is up, hitstun isn't as low, and tripping is gone.
That is more than enough to make Smash U competitive; Melee techs aren't even needed at this point and we could play this game competitively.

Perfect Mindset. This is exactly what I think.
Removing tripping automatically makes me want to play it more.

The question is not if Smash 4 will have enough to be competitive, it's if it will be a stellar and better functioning game at that level of play compared to the previous installments.

Myself and other players are far more interested in what is being done, if anything, to expand players' options and add to the interplay. While increasing the pacing and removing tripping are certainly good changes, they only scratch the surface. You see, I want to play Smash 4.0, not Brawl 2.0. We haven't seen much of anything yet that indicates, from a competitive standpoint, that we'll be getting the former.

BTW the jury is still out on the hitstun. Melee and Brawl, believe it or not, share the same hitstun value. Brawl just lets you cancel it. We can't really conclude yet if that is returning or not.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

What about Brawl's general design philosophy of attacks sending people up instead of across/down? I was very happy to see video boasting about Mega Man's spike/meteor.

 

[Ulevo]

There is a single common denominator within the entire scope of what you're describing in your post that is the origin of the problems we've had over the years but are failing to come out and acknowledge: Brawl.

This is not about Melee vs. Brawl. It's about the quality of Brawl itself. You (and a lot of other people) need to come to cope with the idea that, although to some Brawl might be an enjoyable experience, its standards of quality as a game were lackluster, and it did not meet most peoples expectations. Not just as Melee's successor, but as a stand alone title. It was a game that was littered with programming errors, unintended compromising game mechanics, lots of bugs, poor regard for character balance, tripping... Then you add in the fact that there was a removal of literally a library of game mechanics that were standard in both previous games that upped its quality in interaction and gameplay.

If Brawl had been the only one in its lineage, and it was released today, do you really think people would make it the competitive phenomenon Smash as a series is now? Absolutely not. It rode the waves of success Melee and 64 had in to its own competitive paradigm. It did not earn it through its own success.

All these bull**** talks about why planking is a problem, why Meta Knight should or shouldn't be banned, the convoluted discussions about which tournament stages to allow or not, they all stem from trying to make Brawl a competitive title.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the community cannot come together if the basis for their game in which they rely upon as its foundation is just trash. You can dress it up, make it look nicer, have some interactive, competitive, respectful, political talks about it... But at the end of the day its still that same piece of trash you put time and effort in to. If that is your foundation, then it will be less successful, and that is what happened in Brawls case.

I think the Smash community is ready to move on from its abusive relationship with the knowledge and scrutiny it needs. People who enjoy Smash 4 will play it, those who don't simply won't. However, a lot of us are going to be looking at Smash 4 in a very judgemental manner. And they should be. I think people are going to be figuring out Smash 4 from day one, and making quick, decisive choices as whether or not the game succeeds Brawl, and whether or not its worth playing.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

That basically sums it up. Lots of Brawl players don't like hearing that most the game's success came from the intensely passionate, competitive Melee scene.

 

[[Corn]]

There is a single common denominator within the entire scope of what you're describing in your post that is the origin of the problems we've had over the years but are failing to come out and acknowledge: Brawl.

This is not about Melee vs. Brawl. It's about the quality of Brawl itself. You (and a lot of other people) need to come to cope with the idea that, although to some Brawl might be an enjoyable experience, its standards of quality as a game were lackluster, and it did not meet most peoples expectations. Not just as Melee's successor, but as a stand alone title. It was a game that was littered with programming errors, unintended compromising game mechanics, lots of bugs, poor regard for character balance, tripping... Then you add in the fact that there was a removal of literally a library of game mechanics that were standard in both previous games that upped its quality in interaction and gameplay.

If Brawl had been the only one in its lineage, and it was released today, do you really think people would make it the competitive phenomenon Smash as a series is now? Absolutely not. It rode the waves of success Melee and 64 had in to its own competitive paradigm. It did not earn it through its own success.

All these bull**** talks about why planking is a problem, why Meta Knight should or shouldn't be banned, the convoluted discussions about which tournament stages to allow or not, they all stem from trying to make Brawl a competitive title.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the community cannot come together if the basis for their game in which they rely upon as its foundation is just trash. You can dress it up, make it look nicer, have some interactive, competitive, respectful, political talks about it... But at the end of the day its still that same piece of trash you put time and effort in to. If that is your foundation, then it will be less successful, and that is what happened in Brawls case.

I think the Smash community is ready to move on from its abusive relationship with the knowledge and scrutiny it needs. People who enjoy Smash 4 will play it, those who don't simply won't. However, a lot of us are going to be looking at Smash 4 in a very judgemental manner. And they should be. I think people are going to be figuring out Smash 4 from day one, and making quick, decisive choices as whether or not the game succeeds Brawl, and whether or not its worth playing.

Just play Melee if you dont like it, sheesh. Just because it isnt the most popular one of the franchise doesnt mean that its complete crap. I prefer Brawl over Melee, and you dont see me yelling at anyone who enjoys Melee.

If we played Smash 64 competitively we can play anything competitively. I dont believe the scene for 64 is really large at all anymore either. A good ruleset is something that is major in discussing a games competitive play. We went through it with every game and we will go through it again.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Just play Melee if you dont like it, sheesh. Just because it isnt the most popular one of the franchise doesnt mean that its complete crap. I prefer Brawl over Melee, and you dont see me yelling at anyone who enjoys Melee.

If we played Smash 64 competitively we can play anything competitively. I dont believe the scene for 64 is really large at all anymore either. A good ruleset is something that is major in discussing a games competitive play. We went through it with every game and we will go through it again.

But I don't think his point was that people are allowed or disallowed to merely like the game. The concern has always been about the competitive merits of each game. Sure, I like Brawl as a game because of all the new stuff it introduced. What makes Melee special is that the tournament scene is still going strong. I am very interested in what happens with the Brawl tournament scene once Smash 4 comes out. That will be very telling indeed.

 

[Vkrm]

Just play Melee if you dont like it, sheesh. Just because it isnt the most popular one of the franchise doesnt mean that its complete crap. I prefer Brawl over Melee, and you dont see me yelling at anyone who enjoys Melee.

If we played Smash 64 competitively we can play anything competitively. I dont believe the scene for 64 is really large at all anymore either. A good ruleset is something that is major in discussing a games competitive play. We went through it with every game and we will go through it again.

Weather a game can or should be played competitively are entirely different matters. His post goes beyond player preference and bring attention to some of the the flaws in brawl, so you need come up with something more convincing than different strokes for different ******. Or don't, who cares what he thinks

 

[Vkrm]

Weather a game can or should be played competitively are entirely different matters. His post goes beyond player preference and bring attention to some of the the flaws in brawl, so you need come up with something more convincing than different strokes for different *****s. Or don't, who cares what he thinks

Just so you guys know, the profanity filter prohibits use of the n-word. Both A and ER.

 

[[Corn]]

But I don't think his point was that people are allowed or disallowed to merely like the game. The concern has always been about the competitive merits of each game. Sure, I like Brawl as a game because of all the new stuff it introduced. What makes Melee special is that the tournament scene is still going strong. I am very interested in what happens with the Brawl tournament scene once Smash 4 comes out. That will be very telling indeed.

Im pretty sure Brawl will go with 64 and just kinda fade out.

My problem isnt that, its saying that Brawl isnt a good game at all simply because melee exists. It certainly is a great game, its just people set the bar so high with melee that anything less is automatically a crap game that deserves nothing. I havnt heard a single person even mention 64 in discussions like these either, dont understand why.

Again, I dont care about opinions, I can clearly see why people dont like Brawl due to tripping/lazy ruleset, I care about people bashing a game simply because it isnt a recolor of another one. I would be extremely disapointed if SSB4 came out and all the physics and such were the same as melee, would feel like 13 year late Melee DLC to me.

Weather a game can or should be played competitively are entirely different matters. His post goes beyond player preference and bring attention to some of the the flaws in brawl, so you need come up with something more convincing than different strokes for different *****s. Or don't, who cares what he thinks

Anything that has skill being the main deciding factor can be played competitively. Or, If I am wrong please tell me.

 

[Ulevo]

Just play Melee if you dont like it, sheesh. Just because it isnt the most popular one of the franchise doesnt mean that its complete crap. I prefer Brawl over Melee, and you dont see me yelling at anyone who enjoys Melee.

If we played Smash 64 competitively we can play anything competitively. I dont believe the scene for 64 is really large at all anymore either. A good ruleset is something that is major in discussing a games competitive play. We went through it with every game and we will go through it again.

I didn't make this about Melee. You did. I believe I even specified that, yes?

I'm not calling Brawl crap on the basis that Melee is better. I'm calling Brawl crap on the basis that Brawl is a bad game, for all the reasons I listed here:

It was a game that was littered with programming errors, unintended compromising game mechanics, lots of bugs, poor regard for character balance, tripping... Then you add in the fact that there was a removal of literally a library of game mechanics that were standard in both previous games that upped its quality in interaction and gameplay.

I'm not yelling at people who enjoy Brawl either. I'm saying that Brawl as a competitive title was not successful because it didn't have what it needed in order to be. From both a game design perspective and competitive perspective, the game was rushed, poorly programmed, poorly balanced, and removed too much of the core interactive gameplay mechanics that made Smash fun to play in the first place. And no, I'm not talking about L-Canceling and directional Air Dodge, which people seem to cling to as a go-to for Melee vs Brawl strawman accusations.

It isn't about playing "anything competitively." It's about being selective, and setting a higher standard. I love Smash, but I'm not going to be blinded by my own lust for it to succumb myself to a lesser experience. And that's what this is all about, ala Smash 4.

 

[etecoon]

It isn't about playing "anything competitively." It's about being selective, and setting a higher standard. I love Smash, but I'm not going to be blinded by my own lust for it to succumb myself to a lesser experience. And that's what this is all about, ala Smash 4.

This is an important point, if you love something you should have high standards for it, it doesn't mean bending over backwards to support mediocrity